What did the judge say about the exceptions to the statute? That part was missing from your post.fadskier said:I read the statue as well. and I listened to the Judge.Amal Shuq-Up said:Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.fadskier said:Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!Amal Shuq-Up said:fadskier said:He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.Amal Shuq-Up said:He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.fadskier said:No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said:My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.
Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.
That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
vj-lnt
noun
[ol]A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking. A member of a vigilance committee. A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood. [/ol]
Looks like we are both correct
He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.
Thanks for your concession.
To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.
That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-questions-rittenhouse-gun-charge-jonathan-turley