Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "WHAT?! Teen SENTENCED To 11 Years In JAIL For Killing Her Trafficker" video.

@JohnnieWalkerDread It has nothing to do with whether he was found guilty of breaking any law. Rittenhouse had to shoot three people to save his own life, at age 17. You think he doesn't wish he had stayed home, or at least gone home after nightfall and after the serious unrest began? He was sorry he killed those people.
2
This is wise. Every time I had solid information about a case, the mass media got the details wrong -- and yet people believe it, as long as it flatters their preconceptions.
1
@RtistiqSkubie You are both correct. Two travesties: Wisconsin requires someone like Rittenhouse to be tried as an adult even though he was a minor. There should be no such blanket requirement. A full generation after Columbine, and Wisconsin still lacks a reasonable gun law for minors: one that does allow hunting with a license, with a "learners'" permit, and in the company of someone 21 years old or older with relevant experience (at least one prior hunting season). What is their legislature doing?? @RtistiqSkubie
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread There was a curfew, there was unrest, he was a minor, he was openly carrying a large gun. How is this analogous to going to a store? When you patronize a store, there is no question whether you had a right to be there or whether there was anything possibly unwise about going there. It's not a gray area.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread Yes there was a curfew declared. Whether it was being actively enforced is another matter. So a minor taking a gun to a riot is like going to a store? And we wonder why . . . Whether a minor can openly carry a firearm everywhere in Wisconsin is not clear; the law appears to say no, but the rule of lenity was correctly applied (for a change). If a law is ambiguous, it must be read in favor of the accused. It doesn't mean he didn't break a law. It means that fairness requires dismissing the charge rather than attempting to convict based on a law that is unclear in any way. The Supreme Court just had a case similar to that, concerning 1/6. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson surprised everyone by voting with conservatives. She wrote a great concurrence explaining why the law the DOJ used against the demonstrators didn't apply. A lot of plainly unethical conduct cannot be prosecuted as a crime. This is somewhat different, but the same sorts of principles apply. Criminal laws have to be crystal clear and properly limited in scope.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread Emergency curfews are authorized under Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 323.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread Nowhere did I say that. I said exactly the opposite. Literally, the exact opposite, in more than one way. Is that you, Hillary? 😂
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread The prosecution didn't admit any such thing. One officer tertified that there was an emergency curfew in place.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread You can't read. Okay. This is America. I should have known.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread An officer's testimony under oath was deemed insufficient by the judge. Where did you get "worthless?" A different judge could have exercised his discretion and deemed that testimony to be sufficient. Had it been overturned on appeal, that's no black mark against him. It's no more evident that Rittenhouse had a right to be where he was during a riot than did any of the three people who assaulted him. In a declared emergency, you have a civic duty to make your way home. That applies to everyone in this picture. If the third man Rittenhouse shot had shot Rittenhouse instead, he would have been able to claim self-defense, too. If a robber in a store were to shoot you, he has no defense. The curfew kerfuffle shows you how used to winning prosecutors are without having to work hard for it, like they should. They didn't expect the judge to ask for more evidence.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread Citations, even without links, are removed by Big Brother. I gave citations a long time ago. Long gone.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread You don't know what happens to cit_ ta_ tions? Which I provided. Three guesses.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread 1. Are you a lawyer? PLENTY of people are convicted of misdemeanors every day on less. 2. I'm being cents erred. So I stop. I refuse to be subjected to that. Good bye and good luck.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread Whether or not an officer was told that there was a curfew in place during the declared emergency is NOT a "legal conclusion." What is unusual is for a judge to demand more evidence than was presented.
1
@JohnnieWalkerDread Blocked
1
"Pretty sure?"
1