My son and I discussed this situation just the other night. He said "my first thought was 'what in the hell is a 17 year old kid doing carrying a gun in a war zone?' -then I remembered what YOU were doing at 17..."
The Left has a double standard. they will put a gun in the hands of a 17 year old and send him off to war happily, but that same 17 year old will be immediately disarmed upon his return and being turned out to civilianhood because he's "not stable enough to be armed". well why in the hell will they put that rifle in his hands and send him off to fight THEIR wars then?
They are currently agitating to give 16 year olds the vote. Think about that a minute - they think 16 year olds are mature enough to direct the course of an entire nation, but not mature enough to buy a gun for personal use, or buy a beer... our take is that either a 16 year old is mature enough to be an adult, or they are not - not BOTH at the same time.
The simple fact is, folks in their late teens are like everyone else - some can hack it, some can't. There is no real age where on one day a kid is not mature enough to handle life, but on the next day, his birthday, he suddenly and magically is. They grow into it same as the rest of us do... and some NEVER grow into it, no matter how old they get.. and some are ready long before it's legal for them to be ready.
So Rittenhouse clearly was in a dangerous situation, and handled it the only way he could to preserve his own life. As far as that goes, it was clearly self-defense. What I question, what my son questions, and probably what the prosecutors are questioning is : WHY was he in that situation to begin with? Who put that rifle in his hands and sent him to war? What is there about him that made them think he was mature enough and stable enough to handle that? Those are our questions, and we do not yet know the answers. Those answers will, hopefully, come out at the trial.
In many states, one cannot plead "self defense" if he was the instigator of the situation. For example, you can't go into a bar and slap the biggest guy there, then claim self defense when he gets pissed off and you have to shoot him - YOU started it, and you clearly went armed and prepared to start a ruckus. Therefore, in that situation, you cannot plead self defense, Self defense is generally reserved for people who, through no fault of their own, are forced into an unforseen situation where their life is in danger. Going willfully into a war zone ("riot" as the news so euphemistically calls it) armed cannot reasonably have been unforseen. Accidentally driving through CAN, but not willfully going in.
So the question of whether or not it was self defense legally will revolve around what Rittenhouse was doing on the Big X to begin with, and why did he not only go to a riot, but take a gun with him when he went. Prosecutors can make a case that he went there to kill, because he went armed into a dangerous place he had no business being in, a place he KNEW would be dangerous or else he would not have gone loaded for bear... that shows "premeditation". Another question is, if he is deemed too irresponsible, then who thought he WAS responsible enough, and why? WHY did they allow him into a dangerous place and send him in armed?
There are too many unanswered questions, and that is why he is still on the spot.
.
The Left has a double standard. they will put a gun in the hands of a 17 year old and send him off to war happily, but that same 17 year old will be immediately disarmed upon his return and being turned out to civilianhood because he's "not stable enough to be armed". well why in the hell will they put that rifle in his hands and send him off to fight THEIR wars then?
They are currently agitating to give 16 year olds the vote. Think about that a minute - they think 16 year olds are mature enough to direct the course of an entire nation, but not mature enough to buy a gun for personal use, or buy a beer... our take is that either a 16 year old is mature enough to be an adult, or they are not - not BOTH at the same time.
The simple fact is, folks in their late teens are like everyone else - some can hack it, some can't. There is no real age where on one day a kid is not mature enough to handle life, but on the next day, his birthday, he suddenly and magically is. They grow into it same as the rest of us do... and some NEVER grow into it, no matter how old they get.. and some are ready long before it's legal for them to be ready.
So Rittenhouse clearly was in a dangerous situation, and handled it the only way he could to preserve his own life. As far as that goes, it was clearly self-defense. What I question, what my son questions, and probably what the prosecutors are questioning is : WHY was he in that situation to begin with? Who put that rifle in his hands and sent him to war? What is there about him that made them think he was mature enough and stable enough to handle that? Those are our questions, and we do not yet know the answers. Those answers will, hopefully, come out at the trial.
In many states, one cannot plead "self defense" if he was the instigator of the situation. For example, you can't go into a bar and slap the biggest guy there, then claim self defense when he gets pissed off and you have to shoot him - YOU started it, and you clearly went armed and prepared to start a ruckus. Therefore, in that situation, you cannot plead self defense, Self defense is generally reserved for people who, through no fault of their own, are forced into an unforseen situation where their life is in danger. Going willfully into a war zone ("riot" as the news so euphemistically calls it) armed cannot reasonably have been unforseen. Accidentally driving through CAN, but not willfully going in.
So the question of whether or not it was self defense legally will revolve around what Rittenhouse was doing on the Big X to begin with, and why did he not only go to a riot, but take a gun with him when he went. Prosecutors can make a case that he went there to kill, because he went armed into a dangerous place he had no business being in, a place he KNEW would be dangerous or else he would not have gone loaded for bear... that shows "premeditation". Another question is, if he is deemed too irresponsible, then who thought he WAS responsible enough, and why? WHY did they allow him into a dangerous place and send him in armed?
There are too many unanswered questions, and that is why he is still on the spot.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’