What annoys the ***** outta you/pisses you off...
- Thread starter Boomin_tahoe
- Live activity
- Replies 5K
- Views 279K
SlugButter
CarAudio.com VIP
Lol.ok. The forum troll with the least amount of knowledge who runs his mouth more than anyone here says it’s disgusting. It’s your world boss, I’m just living in it……..
Except his age made it illegal. He was under 18 at the time (I think he's 18 now) and none of the exemptions that would allow him to be carrying applied to him.
He was not taking a gun class.
He was not target shooting with adult supervision.
He was not hunting.
He is not law enforcement, or F/T military or guard/reserves.
He was not employed as armed security.
Maybe he can claim he misunderstood the law, but ignorance is rarely a good defense. He claimed he was doing his "job", but the car lot owner never hired him.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
Last edited:
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
Kyle was 100% Justified in what he did. If people are allowed to commit crimes under the guise that they are doing it "in the name of" while looting and burning down businesses as well as bodily harm then someone needs to stand up. Smart people know that these protestors were rioters and as soon as they figured out that nobody was going to do ANYTHING to them for the crimes they were committing they went wild and the looting and crimes got further out of control. They saw opportunity to get free stuff and be lawless with no consequences and every person against Trump was OK with it. In fact, blamed Trump for it.
So here is a kid who said no. I am going to stand up to this. They tried to stop him from not allowing them to commit crimes and he had to defend himself. He was doing the right thing and you want to victimize the criminals. What is wrong with you people? I don't care how many times you quote laws in your quest to vilify Kyle. What troubles me is why you aren't upset about the rioters. It's sad that a kid has to stand up to do the right thing when cowardly adults won't.
So here is a kid who said no. I am going to stand up to this. They tried to stop him from not allowing them to commit crimes and he had to defend himself. He was doing the right thing and you want to victimize the criminals. What is wrong with you people? I don't care how many times you quote laws in your quest to vilify Kyle. What troubles me is why you aren't upset about the rioters. It's sad that a kid has to stand up to do the right thing when cowardly adults won't.
You are stating an opinion, but your personal opinion doesn't supersede law. At least not in the United States.
Shoot someone who is stealing your car from the grocery store lot in Kentucky. Tell a judge it was "100% justified". The judge will say "wrong" (per LAW below).
This is how the law works in our country, even if you want to say and believe Kyle did nothing wrong. If he did nothing wrong, then the law is wrong. You should have that law changed. Get it done. If not, then the law is what it is, and it has to be followed whether we like it or not.
Would I LIKE to do 110MPH on the highway? SURE! Is it legal? NO! Can I demand the law be changed? SURE! Will it? NO!
When I get busted, will the cop accept my plea of "I WANT to drive fast". NOPE. Will a judge? NOPE.
Your line of reasoning is similar to a kid who doesn't understand that personal feelings, opinions, beliefs, etc are not the be-all/end-all of living life. There is a much larger world than just their own id.
Section 503.080 - Protection of Property
The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:
(a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or
(c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.
Wisconsin doesn't allow the use of deadly force to protect your OWN property, much less the property of others.
If you want to use the legal term "justified", you can't just ignore the laws that say otherwise.
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
What did I just say? I don't care how many times you quote laws. You are right, MY OPINIONS. I didn't say the laws were wrong. I am saying cowards like YOU are wrong. Ignore the criminals destroying the country, focus on a kid who had an AR-15 Because your political party is afraid of what the rifle looks like. "It looks scary, BAN IT". You are the guy that follows that logic. Your political party has told you to focus on an AR-15 as being the worst thing man created and you blindly follow and ignore the destruction all over the country. The fires, the looting, the riots... no AR-15's so it's ok. Retard.
No. I am the guy who knows and follows the law.
People like Kyle who follow their opinions end up killing others, themselves, or in jail because they think their personal opinion is the only thing that matters in going about their daily life. 'Sounds like you may be as stupid as him/them.
I don't have a political party and I'll guarantee I have more guns than you do, and I am never without one. I can carry into my state Capitol if I so choose. Can you say the same as a self-avowed 2A supporter? What are you carrying right now?
ThxOne
Premium Member
Staff Member
What I own or do is not for bragging rights. (except screwing)
What I carry is for the unlucky idiot who attempts to harm me or my property to find out.
So you think it is stupid to stand up and protect this country and or the people in it when the people charged with doing so do not?
It's fine if you feel or think that way. I am already aware that this country is full of cowards. What's one more coward, right Rob? You do you.
Firewalker
CarAudio.com VIP
"Wisconsin doesn't allow the use of deadly force to protect your OWN property, much less the property of others.
If you want to use the legal term "justified", you can't just ignore the laws that say otherwise."
Ummm where do you come up with that? We have the rights in this state to protect my property with deadly force if I so choose to. All I need to give is one warning and it is legal here. And if they step one foot into my house I can shoot on site.
www.grgblaw.com
www.gunlaws101.com
.
So you are wrong about Wisconsin
If you want to use the legal term "justified", you can't just ignore the laws that say otherwise."
Ummm where do you come up with that? We have the rights in this state to protect my property with deadly force if I so choose to. All I need to give is one warning and it is legal here. And if they step one foot into my house I can shoot on site.
How Do Wisconsin’s Self-Defense Laws Apply to Deadly Force? | Milwaukee, WI Criminal Defense Lawyer
We look at the Castle Doctrine and how Wisconsin laws address the use of force in self-defense. Call a Milwaukee criminal defense attorney at 414-271-1440.
Castle Doctrine in Wisconsin
There is no duty to retreat inside one's home, or place of business. For deadly force to be justified it must be in defense of one's self or others. The person must believe that there is a real threat of death, or bodily injury, and all other means of defusing the situation must have be...
So you are wrong about Wisconsin
Wisconsin statute contradicts your opinion of the use of deadly force to protect property. I'll make the text bold since I can't highlite it:"Wisconsin doesn't allow the use of deadly force to protect your OWN property, much less the property of others.
If you want to use the legal term "justified", you can't just ignore the laws that say otherwise."
Ummm where do you come up with that? We have the rights in this state to protect my property with deadly force if I so choose to. All I need to give is one warning and it is legal here. And if they step one foot into my house I can shoot on site.
How Do Wisconsin’s Self-Defense Laws Apply to Deadly Force? | Milwaukee, WI Criminal Defense Lawyer
We look at the Castle Doctrine and how Wisconsin laws address the use of force in self-defense. Call a Milwaukee criminal defense attorney at 414-271-1440.
.Castle Doctrine in Wisconsin
There is no duty to retreat inside one's home, or place of business. For deadly force to be justified it must be in defense of one's self or others. The person must believe that there is a real threat of death, or bodily injury, and all other means of defusing the situation must have be...
So you are wrong about Wisconsin
939.49 Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.
Deadly force to stop simple theft is not allowed.
Shoot someone who sets foot in your home without them posing imminent threat to your life, and you'd better have a really good story to convince the jury:
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
Words are important. Especially in a court of law.
Shoot someone who is stealing your car and pulling out of the driveway or driving away from you. Shoot someone as they are leaving your house with your watch collection. Shoot someone who lifted your wallet.
Tell a judge the law allows for your actions.
In other words, you are all talk and no substance.
SlugButter
CarAudio.com VIP
When the police don’t do their job, people will step in and fill the void. Sometimes it’s not people who are qualified or capable, but it will always happen. When the police decide not to protect and serve, this is what will happen. If you’re going to allow rioters to destroy property and loot with no consequences, vigilantes will ignore laws using the same logic. The blame can be laid at the feet of our leaders, not just the vigilante.
Firewalker
CarAudio.com VIP
Try reading the sites I posted. You have the right to defend yourself on your property and others property as well.
Wisconsin has Castle Doctrine
There is no duty to retreat inside one's home, or place of business. For deadly force to be justified it must be in defense of one's self or others. The person must believe that there is a real threat of death, or bodily injury, and all other means of defusing the situation must have be exhausted before using deadly force. Deadly force may not be used in the sole defense of property.
Statute
895.62, 939.48, 940.01
Been told more then once by a lawyer, state police and 2 retired judges I have the right to defend myself in my home. If someone comes into my house and has a gun, knife or baseball bat and threatens me I have every right to shoot in that instance and I will instantly. Even if he just decides to break in I have the right to self defense of my life and property. I will always give a warning no matter what but if he decides to take one step forward and ignores that warning while I am pointing a loaded gun with hollow points it well he is going down right then and there.
One warning is enough in this state according to people involved with law as I have stated. Not gonna listen to someone who doesn't live here or has talked to the amount of people I have involved with gun laws and prosecuting them in this state. Retired Judges even teach classes around here when you do your CCW on this stuff. While I did not need to take it I still took it to talk to him since I've known him for a long time. Been through more gun classes then I can count at this point as I use to take part in competitions since I was able to for many years. You learn real quickly the laws of your state when you do those.
Wisconsin has Castle Doctrine
There is no duty to retreat inside one's home, or place of business. For deadly force to be justified it must be in defense of one's self or others. The person must believe that there is a real threat of death, or bodily injury, and all other means of defusing the situation must have be exhausted before using deadly force. Deadly force may not be used in the sole defense of property.
Statute
895.62, 939.48, 940.01
Been told more then once by a lawyer, state police and 2 retired judges I have the right to defend myself in my home. If someone comes into my house and has a gun, knife or baseball bat and threatens me I have every right to shoot in that instance and I will instantly. Even if he just decides to break in I have the right to self defense of my life and property. I will always give a warning no matter what but if he decides to take one step forward and ignores that warning while I am pointing a loaded gun with hollow points it well he is going down right then and there.
One warning is enough in this state according to people involved with law as I have stated. Not gonna listen to someone who doesn't live here or has talked to the amount of people I have involved with gun laws and prosecuting them in this state. Retired Judges even teach classes around here when you do your CCW on this stuff. While I did not need to take it I still took it to talk to him since I've known him for a long time. Been through more gun classes then I can count at this point as I use to take part in competitions since I was able to for many years. You learn real quickly the laws of your state when you do those.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
About this thread
- Start date
- Participants
- Who Replied
- Replies
- 4,584
- Views
- 279,090
- Last reply date
- Last reply from
- ThxOne
