Kenosha, even more than expected.
Years ago, in the aftermath of the fact, I wrote that the boy who had shot the activists of BLM had a very good chance of being acquitted in self-defense, and that at the very least his father would have been in trouble for allowing him to carry and use a rifle. assault machine gun.
By the law of most countries, if you are being pursued by clearly hostile bad guys, and your life is in danger, you can defend yourself with any weapon at hand, whether you are licensed to use it or not. This is also the case in all European countries, and some countries put ridiculous clauses (to say, according to the Waffengesetz, you have to use the least lethal one you have in your choice), but this is the principle.
In the conditions he was in, and the video shows them clearly, the boy could also have used a hand grenade, or a howitzer, because when you are in life threatening you can use whatever comes your way.
What I believed instead was that the father would have been in trouble, because he had visibly given the shotgun to his son (and this should be illegal, even if it was not very clear in this specific case) and had brought him with him with the shotgun. a place of confrontation.
Here is the surprising part that is rarely talked about. According to the sentence (which will make jurisprudence in the USA) the father could give the shotgun to his son to defend himself as there was well-founded reason to believe that there was a danger to his life.
In short, the judge has reduced the father to the figure of a third party who, fearing a reasonably probable fire, will hand you a fire extinguisher to take with you.
Which undoubtedly happens, because almost all the operators equip the premises with fire extinguishers, allowing people to use them in case of danger. In theory, taking someone else's property would be theft, but in the case of the fire extinguisher it is not valid because you took it to defend yourself from the flames, and it is absolutely possible legally to say that the fire extinguisher is there ALSO for the public. (for example, there are instructions for using it).
Imagine the following: the 3K club, a well-known pacifist club, has a closet full of guns and hand grenades. The sounds of a robbery can be heard in the bank opposite. The manager opens the closet and tells customers who wish they can take a weapon and use it to protect their own life.
This was not legal before, as the transfer of a firearm to a guy, who you don't know if he has a license to carry, was not allowed. Each customer had the right to break through the wardrobe and take the weapon to defend themselves from imminent danger, of course, but the manager could not give him the weapon.
With this sentence, everything changes.
With this ruling, the manager of the restaurant is highly qualified to open the wardrobe and offer weapons to his customers, if there is the reasonable certainty of a proven danger to their life.
I mean, there's a robbery in the bank opposite, since the robber shoots then I arm my clients.
This is the kind of scenario that presents itself as suggesting that the father could give his son an assault rifle before danger materializes, simply "because it is reasonable to think that we will be in danger".
THIS, and not the boy's DISCOUNTED acquittal, is the most interesting part of that sentence. Because now the Americans can arm third parties if they think there is trouble on the way.
Obviously the polemics start saying "if he had shot a black man, then…." but it is a useless objection. What if he shot a giraffe? What if he shot a Chinese? What if an Italian had shot? What if Charlemagne had shot?
We can assume what we want and file it at "what if my grandmother had the wheel", since if all blacks who shoot were sentenced to severe penalties, the US would have emptied the ghettos of mo '.
There would be a lot to talk about, in a country where blacks kick the police out of entire neighborhoods, about being "severely punished".
Others say the state has "a monopoly on force" so there must be no armed militias around. But this is NOT written in the US constitution. It is written in large part of the European ones, (not in the German one, to say, which allows the people to rise up in some situations), but in the American one, from the second amendment it is absolutely implied that the use of force is NOT monopoly of the state.
The only thing that amazes me about the Americans, who I already consider on average not very intelligent, is the use of assault weapons for defense purposes.
Assault weapons are not that effective for defense. Oh sure if you shoot a guy who has no guns on you will still win. The situation changes a LOT in the event of close combat for defensive purposes.
(provided that almost no normal person is in the physical condition to sustain a close combat situation)
But there are weapons that are made for defense, and they are called PDW, Personal Defense Weapons, in use by almost every police force in the world. They are no less lethal, on the contrary: they are designed to be so in the conditions of the defense.
It means that if you spend 1000 $ for an assault rifle, 500 you have given it because somehow it works even in defense conditions, another 500 $ you have spent on long range shooting and other features that you did not need to defend yourself, such as the length of the barrel, the possibility of attaching a grenade launcher or a telescopic sight, and more. Which are of little use for defense.
If, on the other hand, you spend $ 1000 on a PDW, you have spent $ 1000 all on defense:
They are weapons that are made for self defense. They use them in escort services. It means that of those $ 1000 you spend, all are made to make you defend better: more shots to fire, more hydrostatic shock on the victim (i.e. stop her immediately, rather than leave her injured but conscious on the ground) using slower bullets , short barrel to turn the gun more easily, and if you hide behind a wall you don't have to expose your shoulder and head to shoot, as they are designed for one-handed use.
So why do Americans buy assault weapons instead of PDWs? Well,
the principle is the same.