Not at all. It's a leap in the same legal category - both are children. We can do it in a series of smaller incremental jumps if you like. Are you happy with arming 15 year olds? 13 year olds? 11 year olds? 9 year olds? Wherever you choose to draw the line is up to you- they are all under the legal subsection 'children'.

The police question is also pertinent and yes the police had decided to take the evening off or withdraw to a safe area. Armed citizens did show up to protect their property - as is their legal right in the USA. The question I'm asking is..... 'is this the way you want America to go?' - and I mean that sincerely to every political side. Those people who screamed 'defund the police' or 'no police!' have now, in part, seen the consequences of that call. It led to armed militia on the streets.

That's not necessarily where I'd like to see the situation go to - it feels like a wrong step, but it's a perfectly valid legal position to take. If that is what is going to happen, do you not then think children (including teenagers who lack capacity to do proper risk assessments) should stay at home.I think they're disproportionately likely to get out of their depth. Had Rosenbaum chased down an well trained ex-army officer type citizen, he would've likely been flipped on his back and knocked out. Those people were there and didn't get out of their depth - Rittenhouse absolutely did.