[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by JSR22

trial not trail. The police asked a 17 year old for help? If true the policeman should be fired.

He was asked by the dealership, not the police...

[JSR22]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

He was asked by the dealership, not the police...

why would a dealership ask a 17 year old for protection?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by JSR22

why would a dealership ask a 17 year old for protection?

Because they asked his friend, who asked him to come along... They knew they couldn't depend on the police, so they were asking people they knew for help...

Really, all of this was covered in the trial testimony... It's not hard to find all of the answers to your questions...

[SkBlogW]

Originally Posted by JSR22

why would a dealership ask a 17 year old for protection?

That's a tough one. Maybe cause the "mostly peaceful" protesters were setting fire to buildings and 100s of cars and the police were busy elsewhere.

[MDLNB]

Well the gun possession violation charge is off the table, so if they consider self defense on any of the charges he may get off.

Interesting how the prosecutor said that the guy wasn't trying to take Rittenhouse's weapon, even though he got powder burns on his hand, where the bullet went through it. If he wasn't reaching for the gun, then how did he get a powder burn? Something to consider. The arsonist that first shot his pistol that scattered the crowd is a witness for the prosecutor, but the prosecutor said for the jury to disregard the fact that he is being charged with arson. Makes one wonder what the prosecutor is offering him for his testimony. They showed the video where the guy threw something at Rittenhouse and chased him, but the prosecutor says that does not give him the right to defend himself. Wow!
So far, if I was on the jury I would still say not guilty by reason of self-defense.
NOT GUILTY.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by JSR22

I expect the punk to get off. I just wish he would be severely punished along with his mother.

And I wish I did not live among such ignorant hateful people. I have seen every minute of the trial and watched every second of the video. A young man who was brave enough to go out and help his community while the rioters (whom you remain silent about) destroy the city and threaten and attack anyone who dare try to hinder their violence and destruction. He wouldn't have been there if our leaders would have done their jobs and stopped the violence. And what exactly did his mother do? I am guessing you only watch main stream media lies and think she drove him there. Don't know the facts and yet still so self assured spewing hatred. So many of the commenters with this cr*p should be ashamed of themselves. We need a generation that will truly attempt to help like he did and few of you who want to crucify that ones who are trying to help.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

[QUOTE=santiagobob;2029606]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Let's get people on the record before the verdict comes in.
This is your prediction of what the jury will do - not what you want the jury to do.

The choices are

]Guilty on all counts
If a person is carrying a set of golf clubs ,he intends to play golf.
If a person is carrying a fishing pole and a tackle box, he intends to go fishing.
If a person is carrying a loaded automatic weapon, he intends to shoot someone.

First of all it was not an automatic weapon.

A better analogy is that a person who wears a seatbelt does not expect to get into an accident.

Millions of law abiding US citizens carry a loaded gun every day. That does not mean that they intend to shoot someone. What it means is that they are ready, willing and able to defend themselves and those around them if the need arises.

[Cybersprings]

[QUOTE=santiagobob;2029606]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Let's get people on the record before the verdict comes in.
This is your prediction of what the jury will do - not what you want the jury to do.

The choices are

]Guilty on all counts
If a person is carrying a set of golf clubs ,he intends to play golf.
If a person is carrying a fishing pole and a tackle box, he intends to go fishing.
If a person is carrying a loaded automatic weapon, he intends to shoot someone.

Looks like someone is trying to prove a total lack of reasoning ability. Successful.
Are you claiming that all of the other people carrying weapons that night were just unsuccessful in their attempt to kill people? I'm guessing anyone with a weapon should be charged with attempted homicide for anyone around them. They intended to kill everyone, just didn't. How some people are able to tie there shoes in the morning and get through the day really escapes me.

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

I wonder what gives a young man of this age the right to think he can carry a gun and shoot people. What a really messed up world this has become. This will probably turn into another Federal case when the families of the deceased sue him privately afterward.

What is truly sad is that you aren't aware that the Bill of Rights gives this young man the right to carry a gun, and the laws of the state affirm his inalienable right to self defense. I wonder what you would do if someone attacked you.

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by SkBlogW

Probably the same reason the US government invites 17 year olds to serve in the military.

yes, but they aren't allowed in combat until they are 18. and one also assumes that the military trains the person in the proper use of force.

[C. C. Rider]

Why would anyone want to harm these peaceful, non-violent protestors?

[Cybersprings]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

it's called OPAC (optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict) and: The United States ratified OPAC with a declaration (as required under Art. 3(2) of the treaty) stating its minimum age for voluntary recruitment would remain at 17. To meet its obligations, each branch of the armed services implemented new orders excluding 17-year-olds from combat, a move considered by some to be the first instance of the United States materially altering military practices to support new international human rights obligations.

here's a website that shows a Marine memo about it (I assume other branches has something similar) 17 YEAR OLD MARINES IN COMBAT > United States Marine Corps Flagship > Messages Display

so tell me again how I make things up?????

From your cited website: " TAKING ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES TO ENSURE MARINES UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE DO NOT TAKE PART IN HOSTILITIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE COMMANDER'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT."

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

From your cited website: " TAKING ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES TO ENSURE MARINES UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE DO NOT TAKE PART IN HOSTILITIES SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO UNDULY INTERFERE WITH THE COMMANDER'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY OF MISSION ACCOMPLISHMENT."

You have to read it all to see the context of what you strategically quoted as your "proof" that I make things up.

THIS PROTOCAL STATES PARTIES SHALL
TAKE ALL FEASIBLE MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT MEMBERS OF THEIR ARMED
FORCES WHO HAVE NOT ATTAINED THE AGE OF 18 YEARS DO NOT TAKE A
DIRECT PART IN HOSTILITIES.
THE COMMANDER SHOULD WEIGH THE MISSION REQUIREMENTS AGAINST
THE PRACTICABILITY OF DIVERTING 17 YEAR OLD MARINES FROM COMBAT.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: THE
TACTICAL SITUATION; THE MANPOWER NEEDS OF THE UNIT; THE DANGER TO
THE SERVICEMEMBER; THE IMPACT ON UNIT COHESION IF THE SERVICEMEMBER
WERE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE UNIT; THE REASONABLE ABILITY OF THE UNIT
TO EXCLUDE THE 17 YEAR OLD MARINE FROM TAKING DIRECT PART IN
HOSTILITES; AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT CRITERION.

so only in very defined circumstances would a 17 year old be allowed in combat. I suspect if they are only 17, they aren't even sent to combat zones to avoid such a situation but I have no proof of that.

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by Cybersprings

And I wish I did not live among such ignorant hateful people. I have seen every minute of the trial and watched every second of the video. A young man who was brave enough to go out and help his community while the rioters (whom you remain silent about) destroy the city and threaten and attack anyone who dare try to hinder their violence and destruction. He wouldn't have been there if our leaders would have done their jobs and stopped the violence. And what exactly did his mother do? I am guessing you only watch main stream media lies and think she drove him there. Don't know the facts and yet still so self assured spewing hatred. So many of the commenters with this cr*p should be ashamed of themselves. We need a generation that will truly attempt to help like he did and few of you who want to crucify that ones who are trying to help.

I wish I did not live with ignorant people who post such hateful comments about other TOTV posters.

[spd2918]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

yes, but they aren't allowed in combat until they are 18. and one also assumes that the military trains the person in the proper use of force.

You are incorrect. One may, as I did, join the Army at 17 with a parental waiver.

I carried a M16 without the intention of killing anyone.