I don't understand why this point isn't made more often.
The claim that Kyle shouldn't have been there is called "prior restraint" and the courts have routinely upheld that prior restraint is not an element of any crime. You don't have to stop doing legal things just because some dumbass might react to your legal thing by breaking the law.
Kyle was allowed to be at that protest. He is allowed to carry a rifle. He is allowed to go into a crowd to help or not. He is allowed to do everything a free person is allowed to do as long as it does not break the law or directly cause a harm.
The fact that he was attacked for doing things that he is allowed to do has nothing to do with him doing those things allowed and he has no obligation to not do those allowed things.
Technically nobody had a right to be at that protest because of a curfew order. However, since Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gauge Grosskreutz were also illegally there things sort of "cancel out."
Right. Asking the question should kyle have been there. What in fuck does that have to do with the price of tea in china? He WAS THERE, period. Now move on, next question.
(post is archived)