I didn't have much sympathy for that 17 year old kid in Kenosha. He broke the first rule, at a minimum, I thought. I thought there was no way he doesn't get hung up by his Buster Browns. I felt bad for him, but thought dire consequences, for him, were inevitable.
The more details get fleshed out and the more we hear from his official defense the more I am persuaded.
What happens the day he walks out of court a free man? Or the Minneapolis cops walk out because it is determined George Floyd died of a fentanyl OD? I shudder to think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
His big problem is going to be proving an innocent presence. When you arm yourself and cross a state line to go to a riot, and walk around illegally armed in the middle of the riot, you're going to have a far tougher ride than the guy in Texas who turned the corner, found himself in the middle of a riot, and had to shoot the guy with the AK.
I think he was there to work as a lifeguard then helped clean up some graffiti and then got invited to help protect some car lot with other Police Explorers. His presence may have been much more innocent than I presumed initially.
But it still doesn't negate the fact that in Wisconsin open carry is only legal for persons 18 and over, and possession of long guns by persons under 18 is only legal for hunting and target practice. I don't want to see this kid go to jail, but he dug himself a deep hole.
old 1811, I understand that carrying a rifle while underage is a misdemeanor, not a felony, and If the self defense works, there is no other felony to hang a felony murder ruling on.
I am unimpressed by the quality of the legal analysis we've seen on the network news. They have their communications degrees, but they talk like my SIL who only took design classes in university and knows less about economics and the law than her dog.
If you go looking for trouble and you find it, can you claim self defense?
"looking for trouble" is merely an assumption. The DA can try to prove it if he wants to (he'll probably need to). The defense can easily argue that he was (a) present at an allegedly peaceful protest, as is his Constitutional right, (b) armed for self defense, as is his Constitutional right.
The fact that there was a state line involved is completely irrelevant to this point, especially since his home is nearby.
Post a Comment