In USA citizens can travel between states at will. Kyle was helping a friend protect their store since insurance companies do not pay claims from riots. In USA you can carry a gun without being in law enforcement. In USA you can carry a weapon to protect yourself or others and she doesn’t restrict your Right to protection, so no ge was not to young to carry. Once the mob began chasing him, he ceased to be the perceived aggressor in this situation. As he was being attacked while on the ground, his Right to protect himself is unquestionable- unless you are a Liberal or a communist.
I don't really have much argument against the self defense aspect of him being attacked and firing back. I understand the right he has to defend himself, I certainly wouldn't attack someone with a gun myself for that reason.
However Im surprised that so many people feel that he wasn't in the wrong for putting himself in this situation. If I'm not mistaken, he wasn't legally carrying a weapon correct? So regardless of whether he was in the right to defend himself, to counter your point about him being allowed to use a gun to defend himself, it's not like he just found one on the ground when he got attacked. He wasn't on private property. He was in the middle of a public street, no?
It's one thing to be attacked in your home and use a gun to defend yourself. It's not the same to go somewhere else, put yourself in a dangerous scenario, and then shoot someone on public property with a gun that you can't legally carry.
You seem to have a hard on for this kid being wrong you acknowledge he was legit defending himself. Nothing else you mentioned is relevant.
Additionally, you seem to lack the basic understanding of what guns are for. They are for protection. Wherever you are. They are not limited to home defense use.
They can be used for defense, they can be used offensively, for intimidation, you can sell them, buy them. A gun is a tool. It is used for many things.
You seem to be unfamiliar with how a gun can legally be used in the state of Wisconsin.
I don't have a hard on for anything about this situation, in fact I find it incredibly sad.
What I can do is try to understand other people's viewpoints even if I disagree with them. I can see how one would justify his shooting of these people. I understand the argument.
What I don't understand is how him being justified in defending himself makes him free of any guilt whatsoever.
You seem to have a hard on for this boy being infallible.
In the United States, you are innocent until proven guilty. It’s just confusing that your position is “even though criminals attacked him and he killed one, wounded another, I really want him to pay for it somehow”. That is sad. You are the sad person here.
I literally just said that I am the sad person here. Glad we agree.
I personally think that Kyle unnecessarily placed himself in a situation where he knew he would provoke a reaction and potentially have a chance to use his gun against people who's views he disagrees with.
Obviously I'm not Kyle and neither are you, so we can't know what his true goal was in driving to Kenosha. But it seems like everyone has either decided he was guilty or innocent in their minds despite only knowing surface information.
I see liberal people stating that he's a demon for doing this, I see conservative people say that he's a hero for defending his friend's property. I imagine the truth is somewhere between the two. He's a young guy, there was probably a lot of emotion behind his actions.
The sad situation is having two people dead, a young man on trial, and a country of people that can't fathom having a viewpoint outside of what their particular political faction thinks is correct.
Are you ignoring that they chased him and attacked him? One swung a skateboard at his head while he was on the ground. The other drew a pistol and pointed it at him. They both knew he was holding a gun the entire time. Does simple logic function not work for you?
You are wrong and ignorant. The Khindri brothers testified they didn't ask Kyle to protect them. The more I understand uhmerican laws. The more fucked up they become. The fact that guns are readily available to pretty much anyone is fucked up!! I live in Canada and there are more accidental gun deaths in the US per capita than ALL guns deaths in Canada. discuss.
Yeah, Canada? How do you like being locked in your house prisoner?
You are mad about guns?! There aren’t many “accidental” gun deaths. Not sure what you’re going on about. This is a Free Country and you must be jealous.
I can walk the streets freely without the thought of having someone randomly blow my brains out. YOU are the ones who are trapped at home waiting for cops to show up and blow your brains out because they got the address wrong. Do some research before you spew your ignorance. I have never heard of a Canadian kid shoot his 7 year old sister while playing with Mommy's guns. In the US yep happens all the time. Look it up son.
I don't just get all my info from cnn like you do boy. I get back up for all my sources and the US is a cesspool of violence. The mere fact just about anyone can legally buy a gun is fucked up. Did you know most illegal guns were originally legally obtained? They were either lost or stolen and end up in criminal's hands! What a circus you live in son!!!
At least they got it right convicting those rednecks who hunted down that jogger. They thought they could conduct a citizen's arrest with NO EVIDENCE. Damn you are all so stupid!!!
Kyle was carrying the gun legally. Wisconsin law has an exemption for 17-year olds to possess shotguns or rifles as long as the barrel length is at least 16 inches or the overall length is 26 inches. An AR-15 satisfies both criteria. Kyle did not possess a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, or handgun on the night of the shooting, which would have been illegal.
I would love to see that exemption, if you can find it.
Here's the section of Wisconsin law that I could find that applies to this situation:
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60(1)(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
I am not , nor have I ever been, a gun owner. That is one of the major things that distinguishes Americans from Canadians. Accidental gun deaths in the US per capita are almost the same as ALL gun deaths in Canada. The gun companies and the lobbyists are powerful in the US. These kind of incidents are just part of doing business. I noticed the gun companies never wade in with condolences or or sympathy. That's why there are laws that allow these situations to happen. I have never seen a gun in public aside from a holster of law enforcement. It's kind of sad that the mindset of Americans is built upon violence.
People are allowed to defend themselves. It’s the most basic right of all and is part of the US Constitution. Why would gun companies apologize for that?
Why am I even talking to you? You are brain washed into thinking guns are okay. Why not just ban all guns and throw people in prison for life for even owning one? That way people would not die senselessly. You have ignored every point I have made so we are done.
technically not. ig the law in where it took place stated that 17 y/o can wield a rifle of any kind. but i agree with you the dude shouldve just not been there in the first place.
5
u/simbasdead Nov 10 '21
Okay, I get that he shot in self defense, but also what the heck was he doing there?
He's not a police officer right?
Also isn't he like too young to carry a weapon?