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.

(As I'm almost sure attempting to buy a firearm illegally is a different charge to possessing a firearm illegally)

I have to admit that I have not followed this case as closely with everything else going on. Probably avoided it some, because I have my own 17yo and the thought of him going through this, well... I find the whole thing disturbing. I've watched the video that his defense team put out and I find it compelling. He seems like a good kid that wanted to help. I disagree that he would have been killed if he didn't have a gun. I agree that the crazy nut job that attacked and went after him for trying to extinguish the fire probably mistook him for the other guard that he fought with earlier. But this is also why kids shouldn't have been allowed to be in that position.

The organizers that sent out the call for people to arm themselves and get involved should have been... well, more organized. First, they should have made sure that everyone was an adult. Then they should have insisted that they stay in groups of 2 or more. A fireman would have never ran into a crowd to extinguish a fire that the angry crowd was starting. They would have had police backup and only gone in when it was safe. But you can't expect a 17yo kid to know that and the adults that put out the call for help should bear some responsibility. Police and military go through years of training to know how to deal with those kinds of situations. At one point, the police are shown giving him water and egging him on. What a shame all around!

My question is about him being a juvenile and his right to juvenile court where records are sealed as in Wisconsin. I think breaking curfew and carrying a firearm would be sealed in juvenile court. Are these 2 juvenile offenses that could only be committed by a juvenile now being upgraded to adult offenses? If so, how can they do this when an adult can't commit these offenses?

Of course, the ones that can't figure out that violently protesting will never help them achieve anything they want are equally to blame. It may be that some some violent opportunists and anarchists coopted an otherwise peaceful protest, but that just adds to the problem.

Kyle was not there as part of a protest. He was there to help protect a friends property from peaceful protesters.

@Jon Perryman, you just advanced to level 2!

No one needs to protect against peaceful protestors cuz 'peaceful'. You're talking about something else.

@Jon Perryman I wasn't saying that Kyle was there to protest... I was trying to point out that had there not been a violent protest in the first place, he wouldn't have felt compelled to help out.

@Zuluzeit I think there is a big difference between families and others demonstrating to express their concerns peacefully during the day and the lawlessness that occurs typically at night. I think it is important to not lump everyone into a single box. It is possible that those who peacefully demonstrate during the day are completely distinct from those that violently and criminally protest at night.

@TaLoN132, you just advanced to level 9!

I get annoyed with the whole "mostly peaceful" crowd says not to judge the riots on the bad actors, then screams defend the police because of a handful of bad cops. So hypocritical.

@Jon Perryman Js defending against peaceful protestors makes no sense. I am aware of the airquotes around it but reject the hyperbole. It's a dog whistle. I know it. You know it. Now you know that I know that you know.

@Benny2Toes I agree 100%... Criminals are criminals. Trying to lump them together in groups is counterproductive. All cops are not criminals and all protestors are not violent criminals. The criminals in both instances need to be held to account without question.

Actually, violent protests work. BLM has changed everything thru intimidation and breaking the law. For instance, look up Jackie Lacy LA DA husband. 5am 40 peaceful protesters banging on drums and screaming. 3 black women banging on their front door demanding Jackie come to the door. Her husband already told them to leave so he comes to the door with the gun to keep demanding they leave. 1st amendment does not protect protesting on private property. If this wasn't BLM, those 3 women would have been put in jail for unlawful tresspass and disturbing the peace. Instead, her husband is charged with brandishing a weapon.

The organizers of my farmers market were fired because they did not make exceptions for BLM.

Yes, freedom of speech does not come with freedom of venue in which to exercise it. People would do well to remember that.

But none of this criminalizes on behalf of people who aren't breaking the law.

As much as some would like it to.