Those guys go and go dont they?

apparently.

I have a bulldog. She gets after them at my parents house. Comes back pink with blood and sweat. No fox though.

@Benny2Toes, you just advanced to level 6!

You need a hound to go the distance.

Or a better scope😆

Get any snow up there? Lol

ya

What kind of dog is that? A Corso?

GSD

He must love it there

Looks quiet

He retired in 2018.

Ah, sry

Leukemia.

so am I.

will probably be my last.

It takes a lot out of you every time you lose one

Indeed. Barely survived the last.

@RobertGrulerEsq Rob, can we break from the election results to get an update on the high profile cases you were covering before? The dialog may be "no updates or still ongoing" but I think everyone would like a break from the stress that is the U.S. Presidential election.

Yes we are due for some updates this week, particularly on Rittenhouse.

Thanks for the nudge @True

How can they charge Rittenhouse as an adult for manslaughter but the crimes that make the case are only valid because he is a minor? Wouldn't they need to charge these separately? Aren't crimes commited as a juvenile inadmissible when you are an adult?

Juveniles usually are tried as adults (from my understanding) for a number of reasons, but the main factors are:
- The severity of the crime.
- The "close-age" exception (follows with the next factor)
- Is it reasonable to think he should have known better? Is it reasonable to think he was capable of making the rational decision that this was bad and against the law? Was he of a mentally sound mind? Is it reasonable to think he knew what he did was wrong?

Do I find it ironic that he was charged as an adult yet one of his charges is because he was a minor? Absolutely.

I've pointed it out numerous times.

I thought that juvenile offenses cannot be used against you as an adult. How can they use these against him to prove manslaughter?

Do I think because he was doing something illegal it means he forfeits his right to self defense? No. I don't think that should be the precedent.

Now if he was actively infringing on the rights of others? That's really the only case I can see for forfeiting your right to self defense.

Which I believe is the idea behind Wisconsin's self defense laws.

We'll see how it's ruled, but I have a feeling Wisconsin's laws are to be interpreted in commission with violent felonies or illegal acts that infringe on the rights of others when it talks of exceptions.

E.g: Burglary.

E.g: Grand Theft Auto.

I don't think you forfeit your right to self defense if you burn a dollar bill for instance.

I think the idea that it means any illegal activity means you forfeit your right to self defense is extreme and excessively unhelpful.

I would even argue that if you were to act in self defense in commission of a felony such as possessing a firearm as a convicted felon is potentially reasonable.

As it's not infringing on the rights of others.

And not acting as a instigator.

Kyle's weapons charges are a misdemeanor, maybe a felony since he admitted he actively went out in search of one, I'm not sure.

I'd have to look into it further.