It didn't help him to have to admit he drove there without a driver's license, broke a curfew, had a gun he had no legal right to own or carry.
You know, I've thought this from when this occurred - what in the hell were his parents doing? I don't care if he was almost 18, he wasn't 18 and was still a child.
Now this is important, also don't most states have probationary licenses for 17 year Olds? Idk the details but if he was 17 he should have atleast qualified for that pending he had his permit 1st
In many jurisdictions, an adult gun owner can allow someone under 18 to hold/use their gun (think hunting scenarios). Various stipulations can apply (min age 14, within arms length, under supervision, to a youth with firearms training, etc.).
I must have misheard his testimony. I know he was asked about a permit to carry a gun underage and he said he didn't know he needed one, applied for one later but it was put on hold because of the charges against him.
At any rate, I don't think it helped him to have to admit that he essentially ignored several laws he was breaking that night. I don't think that outweighs the fact that he was defending himself but I'm not a juror.
Kyle taking the stand is stupid.
Yeah, prosecution just tried some shit and the judge went off on the prosecution.
No, and this is why the 5th Amendment exists. It's also why you have the right to remain silent.
When it comes to testimony, police and attorneys are far more skilled than the average Joe is. It's like going into the ring with a heavyweight boxer.
The police and attorneys play all sorts of games to screw people over all the time.
Video you need to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
Goes for attorneys as well.
It didn't help him to have to admit he drove there without a driver's license, broke a curfew, had a gun he had no legal right to own or carry.
You know, I've thought this from when this occurred - what in the hell were his parents doing? I don't care if he was almost 18, he wasn't 18 and was still a child.
He did not have the legal right to own it. He did have the legal right to posses (carry) it.
Now this is important, also don't most states have probationary licenses for 17 year Olds? Idk the details but if he was 17 he should have atleast qualified for that pending he had his permit 1st
In many jurisdictions, an adult gun owner can allow someone under 18 to hold/use their gun (think hunting scenarios). Various stipulations can apply (min age 14, within arms length, under supervision, to a youth with firearms training, etc.).
I must have misheard his testimony. I know he was asked about a permit to carry a gun underage and he said he didn't know he needed one, applied for one later but it was put on hold because of the charges against him.
At any rate, I don't think it helped him to have to admit that he essentially ignored several laws he was breaking that night. I don't think that outweighs the fact that he was defending himself but I'm not a juror.
He needed one in IL, not in WI.
KR broke zero gun possession or transport laws. That is why hes not charged with any.
Constitution says he has he right to own and carry a gun.