Being a witness to a crime, no matter how horrendous, absent other articulable facts/overt actions by the perpetrator, does not equal an imminent threat.
Being a witness to a crime, no matter how horrendous, absent other articulable facts/overt actions by the perpetrator, does not equal an imminent threat.
There's nothing civil about this war.
The story as I understand:Originally Posted by Guerrero
Kyle gave his friend money to buy the rifle, and keep it until Kyle turned of legal age (18? Illinois?) to be able to possess it. That would mean the legal owner is the friend.
I'm going to assume for the moment the rifle would be LEGALLY transferred to Kyle when that time came.
Said rifle was then lent said rifle to Kyle while he was in town for the festivities.
After all the shooting, Kyle did NOT return home with said rifle, so he did NOT at any time cross state lines with it.
Based on that, I don't believe it qualifies as straw purchase, based on my general understanding of the term. My understanding of IL and WI law though is closer to zero.
Many years ago, there was a Playboy article about self and property defense.
To paraphrase: Is a dog worth a man's life?
Hardliner: That is for him to decide before he sets my dog on fire.
Code Name: JET STREAM
Wait, what? They had articles?
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
Possibly. [Usual caveats re: different states having different rules, etc., although these are pretty universal] Attorneys are held to ethical standards to only bring claims that they believe have legal merit. Prosecutors have higher standards than other attorneys to bring criminal charges, with the usual standard being "substantial likelihood of conviction." Prosecutors also have additional obligations, such as a duty to disclose "clearly exculpatory" evidence.
If the prosecutor brought the charge because there was an argument to be made that KR's conduct was criminalized, or that his conduct did not fall into one of the exceptions to a statute, and the anticipated evidence did not play out at trial, then the prosecutor is probably fine. If no reasonable prosecutor would believe that the conduct was in fact illegal, or if evidence in the State's possession or readily available to the State would so clearly show that KR did not commit a crime to the extent that a reasonable prosecutor would realize the legality of the conduct and not bring the charge, the prosecutor may have run afoul of the rules of professional conduct and be subject to discipline by the State Bar.
Most prosecutors have qualified immunity for actions taken as part of their official duties, so the prosecutor would likely have no civil liability even if he were found to have violated Bar rules.
I wouldn't be surprised if the WI Bar has been/will be flooded with online complaints about this prosecutor just from people watching the trial online.
I can’t seem to copy the link, but I understand the jury reached out to the court for additional copies of the judges instructions this afternoon.
Soon to reach a verdict maybe?
