>Kyle isn’t guilty of some stuff but he is guilty if there is an age restriction.
Nope, he's guilty if a jury finds him guilty. Not guilty. All counts. This juror would never agree to apply an already unconstitutional law to someone who was defending themselves because punishing victims based on a violation that no one would have been aware of but for the fact he had been victimized is unjust.
If someone breaks into your home attempting to rape your wife and daughters, murder your own family and steal your belongings and you kill them with a sawed-off shotgun or a modified full-auto, for all I'm concerned the modifications to that firearm were none of my business even if I agreed that the laws were constitutional.
I'm not going to become a second party intruding into your house to do harm to you. It's immoral and unjust.
Yes, if he was in fear for his life you bet your sweet ass I'd overlook him stealing a weapon to defend himself. In fact, I'd expect him to steal a weapon from someone if he didn't have one because his life was on the line. If some maniac was trying to murder you and you had to steal a car to get away from him, so be it. I'm not going to autistically go down a check sheet looking for violations like I'm a building inspector; especially if you are the victim of a crime.
One of the major reasons the jury system is so important because there are a vast array of scenarios where laws come into conflict with one another or, if taken autistically, lead to an unjust outcome. As far as I'm concerned, unjust outcomes negate the law.
If they're defending themselves and reasonably believe they're at imminent risk of death or great bodily injury, yes.
It's not absolving them completely. Let's go back to the stolen gun/stolen car example. I'd still have them return the property they stole, I just wouldn't punish them for stealing it because they had a good reason for doing so.
>call it like it is
>it's an active shooter
No, it's a riot and a lynch mob.
>Kyle isn’t guilty of some stuff but he is guilty if there is an age restriction.
Nope, he's guilty if a jury finds him guilty. Not guilty. All counts. This juror would never agree to apply an already unconstitutional law to someone who was defending themselves because punishing victims based on a violation that no one would have been aware of but for the fact he had been victimized is unjust.
If someone breaks into your home attempting to rape your wife and daughters, murder your own family and steal your belongings and you kill them with a sawed-off shotgun or a modified full-auto, for all I'm concerned the modifications to that firearm were none of my business even if I agreed that the laws were constitutional.
I'm not going to become a second party intruding into your house to do harm to you. It's immoral and unjust.
Yes, if he was in fear for his life you bet your sweet ass I'd overlook him stealing a weapon to defend himself. In fact, I'd expect him to steal a weapon from someone if he didn't have one because his life was on the line. If some maniac was trying to murder you and you had to steal a car to get away from him, so be it. I'm not going to autistically go down a check sheet looking for violations like I'm a building inspector; especially if you are the victim of a crime.
One of the major reasons the jury system is so important because there are a vast array of scenarios where laws come into conflict with one another or, if taken autistically, lead to an unjust outcome. As far as I'm concerned, unjust outcomes negate the law.
If they're defending themselves and reasonably believe they're at imminent risk of death or great bodily injury, yes.
It's not absolving them completely. Let's go back to the stolen gun/stolen car example. I'd still have them return the property they stole, I just wouldn't punish them for stealing it because they had a good reason for doing so.