having somebody else buy a gun when you are not able to do it yourself is against the law. the fact that he took possession of it before he was 18, proves it. had he gone hunting or perhaps a rifle range would have bee ok. he took a gun and put himself in a position where he had to use it, isnt cool. had he stayed where he said according to him to "protect property" even though the owner said he never ask him or anybody else to protect it, would have been ok. but he put himself in a position in a middle of a riot, that is wrong. fact is those who were there legally to protect and serve never fired a weapon. only killing was done by him because he put himself in that position. that's what I think anyway.
semp
You are mostly incorrect.
The person asking to purchase the firearm is not violating the law. The person purchasing the firearm for said individual who cannot is in violation of the law (straw sale). Possessing the firearm according to the wording of the law in WI was legal.
He wasn't on trial for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Was he an idiot for being there? Yes. Was it
against the law for him to be there? Not any more 'against the law' than the other thousands of people there past the 8PM curfew.
Conflicting testimony regarding the business owners. Multiple witnesses testified they were asked or were happy that their businesses were being protected. They testified under oath (which in their case does not mean a whole lot as they don't have any reason to lie or not to lie).
Again, he was not charged with the crime of 'putting himself in a middle of a riot' (also terribly English, but alas).
He discharged his firearm when he was being attacked. In lots of footage during the night and plenty of witnesses and testimony, there was no example of him brandishing the firearm or attempting to intimidate anyone throughout the night. You've likely never had a pistol pointed at your head, so you likely have zero idea what it's like to be on death's door.
