He killed two people, had a weapon he was not allowed to have bought for him by someone else, ran back to mommy and daddy instead of facing it like a man. He deserves what the court decides.
I disagree. He very likely is allowed to have that weapon according to the 2a and related militia laws. He went back to his parents after a tragic incident, which isn't uncommon for young people. He faced a mob of violent terrorists, which is man enough. The weapon was bought with the intention of a future transfer, but legally, and strictly speaking, loaned out that night.
He killed two assailants who were attempting murder and involved in arson and rioting.
If the courts are as biased as the DAs, I'd say he deserves for them to set him free.
It wasn't a militia. He was a teen running around with a gun where he had no business being. He wasn't hired for security, he lives in another state, the gun was bought for him because he couldn't legally buy it. It boils down to, if he'd kept his ass at home and his parents took an interest in their kid this wouldn't have happened.
It wasn't a militia.
General militia, all able bodied men, and he was there doing exactly what the cops wouldn't do: attempting to prevent arson, looting, and violence.
He was a teen running around with a gun
Negative, he showed excellent grouping, trigger control, and only hit those who attacked, a demonstration of the amount of skill and practice that goes into firearm discipline, especially considering the amount of people present.
where he had no business being
Negative. He was invited there, worked in the same area, and had friends who owned property there. And more generally, he has, like everyone, the right to free movement.
He wasn't hired for security,
He was invited for just that.
he lives in another state
literally a few miles across state lines, and he works there.
the gun was bought for him because he couldn't legally buy it
this is probably the only accurate claim you've made so far, and I'm dubious even on that. 'legally' is not the same as 'lawfully'. The same way while it was 'legal' for the state to issue a curfew, it was likely an unlawful infringement on freedom of travel and first amendment. People don't lose their right to protest, just because other groups, or even the majority, are rioting. This likewise applies to people responding to and defending against, a riot. "legal" is not the same as "lawful". He lawfully could and should have owned that firearm.
, if he'd kept his ass at home
If the arsonists and bolsheviks had kept their ass at home, instead of assaulting a young man for putting out a fire, those rioters would not be being beaten by cops, maced, arrested, and shot by citizens.
and his parents took an interest in their kid
It looks like his parents took a keen interest in him and raised him well.
Which from what I gather is not the case for gimpy the one-armed wonder.
where he had no business being
It was a public place. He was giving first aid to people who were injured, and was putting out fires and protecting businesses. The people who got shot were violent agitators who meant him harm. One had raped multiple children, one abused women. Both attacked him, and got what they deserved.
It wasn't a militia.
Every able bodied male is part of the general militia.
He was a teen running around with a gun
A young man, who shot arsonists while defending a community. By no means "running aroudn carelessly" as you're trying to portray.
where he had no business being.
Where he had every right to be, same as anyone else. I notice you haven't called the rioters out for being out during a curfew, committing arson and violence.
He wasn't hired for security,
He was a volunteer, asked there to protect the property of a friend.
He wasn't hired for security,
He lives nary a dozen or so miles away from kenosha and works in the very same town.
the gun was bought for him because he couldn't legally buy it
Downvoted for repeat verbatim spam and ignoring the argument.
if he'd kept his ass at home and his parents took an interest in their kid this wouldn't have happened.
If your parents had taken better interest in your ass you wouldn't be defending rapists, murders, arsonists, and terrorists.
Why do you think possession of the weapon was unlawful?
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
section a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor
Infringes 2A. It was lawful possession.
Boy is that comment not going to bode well. I happen to agree in part.
(post is archived)