I personally would want anybody who pulled their guns out punished.
Ok, but you would agree that what the laws should’ve been is not part of the trial about Mr Rittenhouse culpability.
I'll emphasize, that flashing an AR15 half the size of Rittenhouse in a heated situation like this should be illegal too and it might have actually been.
I am not sure, but I have the feeling that the curfew “shields” Mr Rittenhouse, at least to a point. The protest was not an organized protest, with all the requirements of an organized event. In other words, independently on us agreeing or not with the protest, they should’ve not been there. The same way works for Rittenhouse. He should’ve not been there. The result is that neither party had a valid claim on “I can walk these streets”, which makes being there a sort of provocative act by default. Disparate violence and chaos made thing much worse. Idiocy by Rittenhouse & company made thing much much worse.
I have a very specific grievance about "reddit experts." Front page favors early posts over high-quality posts, so the first X-hundred posts will come from those who sort by new and if expertise comes with a busy professional life, well you will just not get expert opinion there, unless it's an AMA.
In all seriousness, I do too. But let’s face it, it’s an interesting place to get some ideas and when 99% on multiple side agree on one thing, it might have a point (“might” be the operative word).
I see this about medical issues all the time. There's 2 specific videos on esoteric treatments of "parkinson's" disease that popped up on the Front Page about 2-3x each and I was only able to spot a single neurologist commenting, buried deep in one of the comment sections. Now the actual videos are on the border of ridiculous BS but so that I don't stigmatize people I always discuss them with a friend who is a movement disorders expert trained at top institutions before posting my opinion on the video. You can guess how many people sees that. So it's a great example of how Reddit gives the impression of collective consciousness being at the works, when it really just blind leading the blind.
I don’t disagree with any of the above.
This takes me to how much I admire your familiarity with federal and wisconsin law.
To be honest, this type of sarcastic remarks make me chuckle but they can get frustrating. I wrote a post, and immediately two answers went into the “qualifications” subject. We’re on an anonymous forum. We’re sharing ideas. We’re discussing current events. We’re just talking the same way we’d talk to a few friends in front of a beer or coffee. There’s no need to be lawyers, or SME’s, to share ideas and opinions. That’s how people learn. Do we really have to preface all statements with “In my humble opinion”? Do we really have to be certified SME’s to say what we think?
Could he legally carry it across state lines?
Probably not, but since it didn’t happen it’s a moot question.
Could he possess the gun in Wisconsin?
As for ownership, my guess is not. As for carrying it, it’s a good question.
Did he have any prior altercation prior to the one that led to the shooting?
From what I have seen about the trial, it seems he didn’t.
Did he have a choice alternative to pulling the trigger the first time? What about the second time?
We’ll find out soon I guess.
