https://www.fox6now.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-released-on-2m-bond-sheriffs-official-says
Released on $2 million bond.
Released on $2 million bond.
Being young and stupit is not a excuse, his choice his problem. Some kids might have done the same thing, that's where adults come in pointing out the possible ramifications of his actions. Not encouraging and supporting his actions, something i would hope they wound not encourage their 17 old son to do.The only thing he did wrong was getting into a bad situation by taking that security job.
But being young it was probably an intriguing offer (Security) and getting paid for doing it.
A lot of kids would have jumped at the chance not realizing the ramifications of doing it. And what a serious situation he was getting into.
Honestly I hope he gets off. From what I saw it was self defense from a retired law enforcement stand point!
As reported how he came by the AR that is another issue if it was true?
Of course the left would take up for ANTFA or BLM rather than a young stupid kid!
03
Yes you make your own decisions, and face the consequences when its a bad decision.When you are 17 Mommy and Daddy do not make all your decisions for you if they even know what everything you are doing!
Its the law in that state like it or not, you thinking it is unconstitutional will make no difference to the outcome. And yes the thugs rioters should be charged as well, that sort of goes without saying.If you want to base things on a unconstitutional null void gun law then 2/3rds of the thugs there should be in jail on constitutional charges. Like assault , arson , looting, rioting, attempted murder, etc etc.
He is only in that position because he put himself there, his choice.Hes only in the position because
1. Police stayed hidden for the prior 2 nights or there would have been no need for civilians to have to do their job
But it's easier to arrest a 17 yr old non criminal than confront a mob of animals.
Its relevant to whether he should have being there or not, basically he was illegally armed in a area where there was a curfew in place.That he happened to be armed, of a given age, out in disregard of a questionable curfew "law" dictated to everyone in that town from on-high ... that's not all that relevant to defense against deadly violent crime either.
Which doesn't hardly turn self-defense into something it's not.Its relevant to whether he should have being there or not, basically he was illegally armed in a area where there was a curfew in place.
That will be for his lawyers to argue. As i have said again he has a self defence case, others will decide if it was self defence or not.Which doesn't hardly turn self-defense into something it's not.
A curfew is, basically an administrative thing. Doesn't impact a defensive situation. Same with being in possession of something that Big Gov dictates isn't what it wants. Bad as some states treat that, in the U.S., it still doesn't alter a self-defense situation into something else. At worst, all that can be claimed is: he along with a thousand other people were out when the town said nobody should be, because they knew such riotous felonious cretins were out and about; and that he was carrying something the state has a criterion on with respect to age.
Generally speaking, however, in a deadly violent situation coming down around one's head, though, EVERY person still retains the right to put a halt to it. Just turns out he was capable, having taken precautions against such cretins seeking his murder. (Not everyone's been so lucky, in these riots, where they had no such ability to survive.)