volfanhill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 32,364
- Likes
- 51,912
It would he similar to a felon picking up a gun to defend his life even tho legally he cannot possess a gun.Perhaps, but can you claim the cover of the law while violating the law? Not an attorney...
In other words, I wonder if it's a viable defense to shoot someone (for any reason) if you're illegally in possession of the gun to begin with?
Perhaps, but can you claim the cover of the law while violating the law? Not an attorney...
In other words, I wonder if it's a viable defense to shoot someone (for any reason) if you're illegally in possession of the gun to begin with?
Perhaps, but can you claim the cover of the law while violating the law? Not an attorney...
In other words, I wonder if it's a viable defense to shoot someone (for any reason) if you're illegally in possession of the gun to begin with?
Feel free to clarify. If you see this as a case of homicide, feel free to state why. I see a scared kid running from attackers
I've already articulated my position that we should wait until of the evidence is examined. I'm less sure about Kyles guilt than I was about Derek Chauvin's and many here were absolutely certain that DC was innocent.
You seem to be tilting at windmills with me and I'm not sure why.
Because you’re saying things like: he broke the law, can he still legally defend himself?
Violating a gun law does not negate your right to self defense. Even in the most liberal of states.
Thanks, I didn't know how that worked.
He showed up to a riot (on purpose) with a AR15, backwards cap and all. Then he ran? Maybe he thought being a hero would have been easier, probably seemed that way posing for instagram pics.
You are cherry picking now , I could have said he got off of work and went to help clean the graffiti on dc the business with his hat turned forward until it got dark , but I’m not as interested in making him look good as you guys are at trying to make him look bad . Again .. natural selection took care of the idiots and we are just waiting to see the cost of it now .
Id have to go back to find it but it’s somewhere waaaay earlier in this thread. Iirc Someone posted a Wisconsin statue saying a citizen has the right to pursue someone that committed a crime but they don’t have a right to assault/shoot that person, and the suspected criminal still has the right to defend himself against those attacks. (Rough interpretation from memory).That's why I included the caveats. I believe in some places when committing certain crimes the scope of just saying "Oh yeah, while doing this criminal stuff I had to defend myself." is greatly diminished.
It was in the Jacob Blake thread.Id have to go back to find it but it’s somewhere waaaay earlier in this thread. Iirc Someone posted a Wisconsin statue saying a citizen has the right to pursue someone that committed a crime but they don’t have a right to assault/shoot that person, and the suspected criminal still has the right to defend himself against those attacks. (Rough interpretation from memory).
I’m on my phone so searching isn’t as easy but I know I responded to it with what I thought was an accurate interpretation.
Edit- it’s not this thread. It’s the original thread. Police shooting black man in the back. Post 3021.