# Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 9, 2021)

KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.

The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time. 

According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.



The defense has disputed this charge since early in the case, including right out of the gate when nationally recognized and controversial attorney John Pierce made himself available to defend Rittenhouse. A Second Amendment argument was raised, arguing that the law itself banning minors from carrying rifles is unconstitutional, but that argument has thus far been unsuccessful.










						Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped
					

Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again, unsuccessfully, to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped.




					www.kenoshanews.com
				





Do you think the law banning minors from carrying weapons violates the Second Amendment?

6 year olds with AR15s?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...





Otis Mayfield said:


> Do you think the law banning minors from carrying weapons violates the Second Amendment?



No

Considering I've owned firearms since the age of 12.


Tho I usually used them in fields or forests.



Otis Mayfield said:


> 6 year olds with AR15s?



Childish


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 9, 2021)

I dont remember seeing an age restriction in the constitution.


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 9, 2021)

He may have been wrong to bring his rifle to that area...but it saved his life in the end....


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Nov 9, 2021)

Are the rioters who had firearms being charged for possession and were they checked to see if they even had a carry permit?

Assault and battery?

Were the rioters charged with arson?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## JGalt (Nov 9, 2021)

I bet he gets off with 6 months in Juvenile Hall.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."


So:
1.  Under 18 
AND
2.  Possesses a rifle or shotgun, IF the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shot gun
OR
3.  the person is not in compliance with hunting regulations (whatever they might be, not the case here)

Did I read that correctly?


Rittenhouse did not possess a short-barreled rifle as defined by either the NFA or Wisconsin Law, so why is the charge still standing?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Do you think the law banning minors from carrying weapons violates the Second Amendment?


WI does not ban minors from carrying weapons, as it is legal to do so under certain circumstances.


----------



## TNHarley (Nov 9, 2021)

10 year olds fought in the revolutionary war.


----------



## Meathead (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...


That will probably be the only thing that sticks.

I suggest community service, preferably teaching inner-city kids how to shoot to kill. He seems to be very good at it, and they pretty bad.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 9, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> WI does not ban minors from carrying weapons, as it is legal to do so under certain circumstances.


Did I misread that law?

The ban is for SBRs, not regular rifles, am I wrong?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 9, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Did I misread that law?
> The ban is for SBRs, not regular rifles, am I wrong?


I responded in another topic.





						*LIVE* Rittenhouse trial, the Communist testifies
					

More examples of the shill media, they cover for the lying communist:   This is the media setting up the excuses for the riots sure to follow from the acquittal.



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 9, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> He may have been wrong to bring his rifle to that area...but it saved his life in the end....



He probably wouldn't have ran down the road to stop those looters if he was unarmed.

2 people would still be alive.


----------



## Rambunctious (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> He probably wouldn't have ran down the road to stop those looters if he was unarmed.
> 
> 2 people would still be alive.


And he would not of been there at all if there wasn't a riot that threatened his friends store....while cops were told to stand down....


----------



## Meathead (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> He probably wouldn't have ran down the road to stop those looters if he was unarmed.
> 
> 2 people would still be alive.


Not sure that either one of them should be, and the past particle of run is run, not ran.

Ebonics perhaps?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> He probably wouldn't have ran down the road to stop those looters if he was unarmed.
> 
> 2 people would still be alive.



  He was running away from them ya dumbfuck.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 9, 2021)

Meathead said:


> Not sure that either one of them should be, and the past particle of run is run, not ran.
> 
> Ebonics perhaps?



Your mom's ebonics.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 9, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...


This is a great opportunity for the 21 y/o age limit to be ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## jbander (Nov 11, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...


I believe the judge will do what he is told to do.  It will be not Guilty. You will see that in a lot of right leaning courts, so unless it is in front of a progressive judge , be leery.


----------



## Meathead (Nov 11, 2021)

jbander said:


> I believe the judge will do what he is told to do.  It will be not Guilty. You will see that in a lot of right leaning courts, so unless it is in front of a progressive judge , be leery.


Doubtless, you and Rosebaum are "brothers. (Mods: note how I avoided a unmentionables less obvious issue?).


----------



## Donald H (Nov 11, 2021)

Meathead said:


> Not sure that either one of them should be, and the past particle of run is run, not ran.
> 
> Ebonics perhaps?


Past 'particle'. 
You're too smwart by half!


----------



## Death-Ninja (Nov 11, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...


You have the statute right before nose you dumb fucker, his AR15 is NOT a short barreled rifle or shotgun, and the hunting regulations merely refers to his having attended the mandatory hunter classes required of youthful hunters!


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> I dont remember seeing an age restriction in the constitution.



The constitution does not create or grant rights, but simply bans federal violation of rights.
Age restrictions are supposed to be state or local.
WI has 18 for minimum firearm possession age.
But is lists exceptions, like at a range, if in the military, under adult supervision, hunting with a valid license.
There is really no mention of a short barrel except in conjunction with a valid hunting license, so has no bearing on Kyle.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> He was running away from them ya dumbfuck.



Wrong.
First he ran towards several groups of rioters, and only ran away from them later, after they expressed their displeasure at his rifle.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Meathead said:


> Not sure that either one of them should be, and the past particle of run is run, not ran.
> 
> Ebonics perhaps?



It is past participle, not past particle.

{...
past participle
[past ˈpärdəˌsipəl]

NOUN
grammar

the form of a verb, typically ending in -ed in English, which is used in forming perfect and passive tenses and sometimes as an adjective, e.g. looked in have you looked?, lost in lost property.
...}


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> This is a great opportunity for the 21 y/o age limit to be ruled unconstitutional.



Which 21 age limit?
Mean on alcohol?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Death-Ninja said:


> You have the statute right before nose you dumb fucker, his AR15 is NOT a short barreled rifle or shotgun, and the hunting regulations merely refers to his having attended the mandatory hunter classes required of youthful hunters!



No, the part about hunting means you have to be awarded a valid license and be out a valid hunting forest.
The hunting exception does not apply in an urban setting.

As to the short barrel, the 3(c) exception for hunting is saying it also allows a short barrel while hunting.  
It does not turn the whole statue into being about short barrels.


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, the part about hunting means you have to be awarded a valid license and be out a valid hunting forest.
> The hunting exception does not apply in an urban setting.
> 
> As to the short barrel, the 3(c) exception for hunting is saying it also allows a short barrel while hunting.
> It does not turn the whole statue into being about short barrels.


Do you even know that Little Finger agreed that the law didn't apply to Kyle?  The Defense asked him to measure the length of the firearm and he refused to do so and conceded that the law didn't apply to Kyle.  That is when the Judge dismissed the charge.

You can claim that the Wisconsin law prohibits a 17 year old  from possessing an AR-15 all you want.  We expect reality denial like that from you Moon Bats.  We see it all the time.

The fact of the matter is that a court determined Kyle had the legal right to have possession of the AR and that is a fact and your denial doesn't mean jackshit.

On another thread I posted a legal examination of the law that looked at it in detail including the references and exemptions and came to the conclusion Kyle was legal.   Just like everything else you ignored it because it didn't tell you what you wanted to hear.  Typical for a Moon Bat.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> Do you even know that Little Finger agreed that the law didn't apply to Kyle?  The Defense asked him to measure the length of the firearm and he refused to do so and conceded that the law didn't apply to Kyle.  That is when the Judge dismissed the charge.
> 
> You can claim that the Wisconsin law prohibits a 17 year old  from possessing an AR-15 all you want.  We expect reality denial like that from you Moon Bats.  We see it all the time.
> 
> ...



Who is "Little Finger"?
Any WI resident already should know the law is extremely clear that minors can't legally possess firearms.
There can be absolutely no doubt about that, in any way, ( except under the few conditions listed).

No one cares what the prosecution thinks, because prosecutors usually are ex-police, and work with the police so closely, they do what the police want.

But no lawyer could possibly think this subsection allowed Kyle to be in possession at a riot.
{...
Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee attorney and a former Waukesha County prosecutor, speculated that the long-gun exception was drafted to ensure children could hunt and lawmakers didn't envision it could be used to protect children who carry long guns at protests like the demonstrations in Kenosha.

“I think it was designed with an eye toward hunting and enabling law enforcement to add additional charges against minors hunting without a license,” he said. “Wisconsin is a hunting state. When people talk about long arms, they’re thinking in the hunting context.”
...}


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Which 21 age limit?
> Mean on alcohol?


That too.


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Who is "Little Finger"?
> Any WI resident already should know the law is extremely clear that minors can't legally possess firearms.
> There can be absolutely no doubt about that, in any way, ( except under the few conditions listed).
> 
> ...




Little Finger (Binger) should have brought in Tom Grieve to argue the case for him because he fucking lost that argument when Richards demanded that the AR be measured.

Give it up Moon Bat.  You lost.  You just look a fool arguing something that has already been settled in court.

Just because you are too chickenshit to own an AR don't mean others are.

Binger is the slimy lying filthy ass Prosecutor that tried (miserably) to fuck Kyle.  He looks just like the slimy character Little Finger (Balish) from the Game of Thrones.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> First he ran towards several groups of rioters, and only ran away from them later, after they expressed their displeasure at his rifle.



  He still ran from them.
He went over to see if anyone needed medical attention and then he put out the dumpster fire they had started which they didnt care for.
  But the fact remains,he was trying to avoid a conflict and only fired when he tripped and the pedos caught up with him and attacked.
Even half bicep man admitted in court that Kyle didnt shoot until he pointed his gun at him...in fact that was the best part of the trial watching the prosecutor pull a facepalm when he admitted it. He knew at that moment his case was fucked.


----------



## Meathead (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> It is past participle, not past particle.
> 
> {...
> past participle
> ...


Have you "ran" with that?

FO


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 21, 2021)

"Not guilty"
/ duscussion


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> Do you even know that Little Finger agreed that the law didn't apply to Kyle?  The Defense asked him to measure the length of the firearm and he refused to do so and conceded that the law didn't apply to Kyle.  That is when the Judge dismissed the charge.
> 
> You can claim that the Wisconsin law prohibits a 17 year old  from possessing an AR-15 all you want.  We expect reality denial like that from you Moon Bats.  We see it all the time.
> 
> ...




Yeah...Rigby is suffering from Rittenhouse Syndrome...you can explain it to them over and over and it just isn't going to register....


----------



## Death-Ninja (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, the part about hunting means you have to be awarded a valid license and be out a valid hunting forest.
> The hunting exception does not apply in an urban setting.
> 
> As to the short barrel, the 3(c) exception for hunting is saying it also allows a short barrel while hunting.
> It does not turn the whole statue into being about short barrels.


No, it does not dumb ass, all kids must have the "hunter safety certificate" or they cannot tote the rifle.... Checkmate!


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> Little Finger (Binger) should have brought in Tom Grieve to argue the case for him because he fucking lost that argument when Richards demanded that the AR be measured.
> 
> Give it up Moon Bat.  You lost.  You just look a fool arguing something that has already been settled in court.
> 
> ...



One foolish judgement by one judge does not establish law or even decide this one case.
The prosecutor is in on the fix, so likely will not appeal, but it should be, and Kyle should be convicted.
It is a terrible precedent for 17 year old kids to be running around riots with an AR.
No one needs a 30 shot magazine for civilian use, and he almost emptied it.
That's ridiculous.
If you are going to be armed at a riot, you stay put and stay away from the other side.
What Kyle did was all wrong and extremely dangerous.
He should never even chambered a round with so many people around him.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> One foolish judgement by one judge does not establish law or even decide this one case.
> The prosecutor is in on the fix, so likely will not appeal, but it should be, and Kyle should be convicted.
> It is a terrible precedent for 17 year old kids to be running around riots with an AR.
> No one needs a 30 shot magazine for civilian use, and he almost emptied it.
> ...




It did decide this one case........

He obviously needed a 30 round magazine because there were a lot of violent thugs in that crowd.......had they rushed him, even seeing the other idiots get shot......30 rounds would barely be enough....

If he hadn't chambered a round, the child rapist would likely have gotten his gun.....and very likely would have used it to murder Rittenhouse...........

the prosecutor was not in on the fix......

Please...seek treatment for your Rittenhouse Syndrome.......


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> He still ran from them.
> He went over to see if anyone needed medical attention and then he put out the dumpster fire they had started which they didnt care for.
> But the fact remains,he was trying to avoid a conflict and only fired when he tripped and the pedos caught up with him and attacked.
> Even half bicep man admitted in court that Kyle didnt shoot until he pointed his gun at him...in fact that was the best part of the trial watching the prosecutor pull a facepalm when he admitted it. He knew at that moment his case was fucked.View attachment 566854



He had no business pretending to ask if people "needed medical attention".
That was obviously a ruse to show off his AR.
He was deliberately attempting to intimidate and provoke.

Grosskreutz did NOT admit he pointed his pistol at Kyle, and testified he was too traumatized by the wound to be able to remember, but the angle of the wound proves his hands were up in the air when shot.

Your image is also silly because it shows Grosskreutz is not the one testifying a the moment.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Death-Ninja said:


> No, it does not dumb ass, all kids must have the "hunter safety certificate" or they cannot tote the rifle.... Checkmate!



Or they can not tote the rifle, while hunting.
And only while hunting with a permit, is this exception to the ban on minors being in possession, valid.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Not guilty"
> / duscussion



If the prosecution was not compromised and on the side of the police, then this silly judgement would be appealed and Kyle convicted.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 21, 2021)

It's so amusing to see these sorely misguided threads live on.

Poor Proggies can't deal with Reality.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> It did decide this one case........
> 
> He obviously needed a 30 round magazine because there were a lot of violent thugs in that crowd.......had they rushed him, even seeing the other idiots get shot......30 rounds would barely be enough....
> 
> ...



It was illegal for Rittenhouse to even buy or have the rifle, and he would have been safe if he had stayed on private property, with the others against the riot/demo.
What he did was not just illegal, but incredibly irresponsible and foolish.
You NEVER chamber rounds around a group of people.
He would have been kicked out of any range go to.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> If the prosecution was not compromised and on the side of the police, then this silly judgement would be appealed and Kyle convicted.



It's funny, your opinions suggest you have no clue how the law operates and then you state a position that proves you have no clue how the law works.

The state can't "appeal" a not guilty verdict; the charges were dismissed with prejudice and double jeopardy attaches.  I know you don't know what those terms mean because you throw out ridiculous statements about this case grounded only in your demented leftist politics.  
.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Or they can not tote the rifle, while hunting.
> And only while hunting with a permit, is this exception to the ban on minors being in possession, valid.




Except for what the trained, experienced defense attorneys, and the scumbag, experienced prosecution attorneys, and the judge with decades of experience in actual judge experience said...

You mean except for that...right?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> He had no business pretending to ask if people "needed medical attention".
> That was obviously a ruse to show off his AR.
> He was deliberately attempting to intimidate and provoke.
> 
> ...




Did you watch the trial?   Where Grosscrud said Kyle didn't fire his weapon until gross crud pointed his gun at him....did you miss that whole section of the trial?


----------



## Death-Ninja (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Or they can not tote the rifle, while hunting.
> And only while hunting with a permit, is this exception to the ban on minors being in possession, valid.


I have your IQ running around 70 or so, you do not know what you are attempting to so stupidly assert knowledge over, I live here dumb ass, the law is simple, no hunter safety certificate, no long arm can be toted absent adult supervision, the age of purchase is "16-years" and with the hunter safety completed, the youth can carry the firearm about. Did you think you knew better than we do, or the judge, and prosecutor???? 

Now, run along and find a penis you can play with....


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Nov 21, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...


Lol.... like fine wine..


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> He had no business pretending to ask if people "needed medical attention".
> That was obviously a ruse to show off his AR.
> He was deliberately attempting to intimidate and provoke.
> 
> ...



*Grosskreutz did NOT admit he pointed his pistol at Kyle,


Yes....he did..........did you not see the testimony?   Where he said Kyle didn't fire until he pointed his pistol at him?*

*it is at the 1:59 mark on this video...*

*He admits to the question that Kyle did not fire until he pointed his pistol at him.....please watch so you won't keep posting dumb stuff...*


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> He had no business pretending to ask if people "needed medical attention".
> That was obviously a ruse to show off his AR.
> He was deliberately attempting to intimidate and provoke.
> 
> ...




More of the same video....grosskrud admitting he pointed his gun at Kyle...

This time at the 2:36 mark on the video...


----------



## theHawk (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> It was illegal for Rittenhouse to even buy or have the rifle, and he would have been safe if he had stayed on private property, with the others against the riot/demo.
> What he did was not just illegal, but incredibly irresponsible and foolish.
> You NEVER chamber rounds around a group of people.
> He would have been kicked out of any range go to.


Poor Rigby, still bitterly clinging to your gun law that you can’t comprehend.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> He had no business pretending to ask if people "needed medical attention".
> That was obviously a ruse to show off his AR.
> He was deliberately attempting to intimidate and provoke.
> 
> ...



  You're full of shit.
He admitted he pointed his pistol at Kyle before Kyle shot him.
Thats where the face palm from the prosecutor came from.








						Rittenhouse Shooting Survivor Thought He Was ‘Going To Die’—Was Shot After Pointing His Own Gun
					

Gaige Grosskreutz said he advanced toward Rittenhouse because he thought he was an “active shooter” during his testimony Monday.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## Death-Ninja (Nov 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Did you watch the trial?   Where Grosscrud said Kyle didn't fire his weapon until gross crud pointed his gun at him....did you miss that whole section of the trial?


Speaking of Grosscrutz, he has two prior felon in possession charges, the latest one in October of 2020, which was dismissed by Binger on a ludicrous technicality, the other even more mystifying dismissal was in 2015, in both instances he was charged with OWI whilst also carrying a loaded pistol(Glock). In the 2015 event, the deputy noted that it became apparent a few days later that Grosscrutz was a felon prohibited from possessing, owning, or carrying a firearm of any type, and again the deputy noted in his report that the suspect had the pistol in a holster on his hip, a round chambered, all of which was illegal! 

Interestingly, this case was also dumped, which is quite fortuitous for this scumbag as he was looking at a mandatory 5-year prison term for having the weapon at all, and with that weapon being loaded, and illegally secreted upon his body, that would have almost certainly served as an enhancement into a 10-20 year term. What captures my interest however, is the dismissal of such a deep serious charge in 2015, as though he had a wonderful guardian angel riding along on his back. He is antifa, he has by his own admission attended over 75 riots and violent protests in that time, yet miraculously not a single conviction stemming from such???

Mr Grosskrutz is most likely an FBI informant.....


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> If the prosecution was not compromised and on the side of the police, then this silly judgement would be appealed and Kyle convicted.


You're either an IDIOT or a foreigner who doesn't know US law.  Not guilty verdicts can't be appealed.  The prosecution gets one bite at the apple. with the government's resources that's usually plenty.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 21, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Poor Rigby, still bitterly clinging to your gun law that you can’t comprehend.


He's so stupid, I surprised he can remember the breathe in AND out.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You're either an IDIOT or a foreigner who doesn't know US law.  Not guilty verdicts can't be appealed.  The prosecution gets one bite at the apple. with the government's resources that's usually plenty.




Unless the Feds come in with Civil Rights charges......there is that...but I don't think the morons controlling Biden will roll that dice...


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Abatis said:


> It's funny, your opinions suggest you have no clue how the law operates and then you state a position that proves you have no clue how the law works.
> 
> The state can't "appeal" a not guilty verdict; the charges were dismissed with prejudice and double jeopardy attaches.  I know you don't know what those terms mean because you throw out ridiculous statements about this case grounded only in your demented leftist politics.
> .


I was referring to the charges dismissed illegally by the judge.
They can and should be appealed.
But the prosecutor obviously is not going to.
He worked hard to have them dismissed as it was.

Answer the question.
Has it ever been legal for a minor to be in possession of a loaded firearm in public, in WI?
The answer obviously is no.
If you disagree, then explain why the police immediate shot and killed Tamir Rice, (although that was not WI)?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

theHawk said:


> Poor Rigby, still bitterly clinging to your gun law that you can’t comprehend.



And are you actually going to claim a minor can legally have a loaded firearm in public?
Then explain why the police immediately shot and killed 12 year old Tamir Rice playing with his air soft toy?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> I was referring to the charges dismissed illegally by the judge.
> They can and should be appealed.
> But the prosecutor obviously is not going to.
> He worked hard to have them dismissed as it was.
> ...




It wasn't illegally dismissed by the judge........get your Rittenhouse Syndrome checked out before your brain completely melts down.........

Tamir Rice didn't put his replica  gun down when the police thought it was a working pistol...you doofus......not even close to an accurate example...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> And are you actually going to claim a minor can legally have a loaded firearm in public?
> Then explain why the police immediately shot and killed 12 year old Tamir Rice playing with his air soft toy?




They thought it was a real gun and he didn't comply with their orders.....you doofus...


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> You're full of shit.
> He admitted he pointed his pistol at Kyle before Kyle shot him.
> Thats where the face palm from the prosecutor came from.
> 
> ...



That is not Grosskreutz on the stand, so the face palm can not possibly be from Grosskreutz testimony.
And Grosskreutz is on record as saying he at one time had pointed at Kyle, but that his hands were up in the air when shot.
The trajectory through his arm would otherwise be impossible.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> And are you actually going to claim a minor can legally have a loaded firearm in public?
> Then explain why the police immediately shot and killed 12 year old Tamir Rice playing with his air soft toy?


Because he kept pointing what looked exactly like a real gun at people.  If he hadn't painted over the orange barrel tip on his "toy" to make it look real, he would still be alive.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> It wasn't illegally dismissed by the judge........get your Rittenhouse Syndrome checked out before your brain completely melts down.........
> 
> Tamir Rice didn't put his replica  gun down when the police thought it was a working pistol...you doofus......not even close to an accurate example...



The police instantly shot Tamir Rice, without warning.
And the point is the police have only the same right to fire in defense that EVERYONE has.
So then if the police can shoot Tamir Rice for waving around a toy pistol, then EVERYONE can shoot Kyle for waving around a real rifle.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Because he kept pointing what looked exactly like a real gun at people.  If he hadn't painted over the orange barrel tip on his "toy" to make it look real, he would still be alive.



Doesn't matter if it was real or not.
The point is Kyle was even more of a threat because it was a high capacity rifle, with a much longer range, and much more of a deadly threat.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is not Grosskreutz on the stand, so the face palm can not possibly be from Grosskreutz testimony.
> And Grosskreutz is on record as saying he at one time had pointed at Kyle, but that his hands were up in the air when shot.
> The trajectory through his arm would otherwise be impossible.




I posted his testimony.......twice...one video after the other......

He confirmed, under oath, that Kyle did not shoot him when his hands were up...he was shot when his pistol was pointed at Kyle....

You can't deny this.......it's on fucking video............part of the actual trial record..........

If you keep denying he said this, you are going to look like an even bigger idiot.


----------



## Orangecat (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No one cares what the prosecution thinks, because prosecutors usually are ex-police, and work with the police so closely, they do what the police want.


Wow, you're really piling on the BS there. Police are generally pissed off that your Soros-bought prosecutors keep cycling their arrests back onto the streets.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> It wasn't illegally dismissed by the judge........get your Rittenhouse Syndrome checked out before your brain completely melts down.........
> 
> Tamir Rice didn't put his replica  gun down when the police thought it was a working pistol...you doofus......not even close to an accurate example...



The judge had no basis in fact or law to dismiss the illegal possession by a minor charge.
It was the single most guilty I had ever heard of, except unless if he had been even younger.

The facts ARE that is was illegal for Kyle to be in possession of any firearm, while not at a range, not under adult supervision, not hunting with a valid permit, etc.
That is absolute, incontrovertible, and the only possible rational interpretation of very easy to read laws.
Otherwise it would have been illegal to shoot Tamir Rice even if he had a real firearm.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The police instantly shot Tamir Rice, without warning.
> And the point is the police have only the same right to fire in defense that EVERYONE has.
> So then if the police can shoot Tamir Rice for waving around a toy pistol, then EVERYONE can shoot Kyle for waving around a real rifle.




And they could argue self defense in court.....and possibly win...but that isn't what they did.........and just because they make the allegation that they thought he was an active shooter, doesn't strip Kyle of his Right to self defense when they are wrong........Andrew Branca, an expert in self defense law at Legal Insurrection and the Law of Self Defense site goes through this with great detail...you should try reading it....before you post more silliness...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is not Grosskreutz on the stand, so the face palm can not possibly be from Grosskreutz testimony.
> And Grosskreutz is on record as saying he at one time had pointed at Kyle, but that his hands were up in the air when shot.
> The trajectory through his arm would otherwise be impossible.




At the 1:59 mark on the video..


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The judge had no basis in fact or law to dismiss the illegal possession by a minor charge.
> It was the single most guilty I had ever heard of, except unless if he had been even younger.
> 
> The facts ARE that is was illegal for Kyle to be in possession of any firearm, while not at a range, not under adult supervision, not hunting with a valid permit, etc.
> ...




Yes......dipshit...he does........the law in Wisconsin allows him to do that.....

You are just insane to keep to this fake argument........

Andrew Branca covered the two sections of the law that had to apply in order for Kyle to illegally possess the rifle...he didn't meet them.....

Just stop.....you are destroying yourself here....


----------



## Orangecat (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No one needs a 30 shot magazine for civilian use, and he almost emptied it.


6 shots "almost empties" a 30 round magazine? Lulz. Give it up, tardo.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The judge had no basis in fact or law to dismiss the illegal possession by a minor charge.
> It was the single most guilty I had ever heard of, except unless if he had been even younger.
> 
> The facts ARE that is was illegal for Kyle to be in possession of any firearm, while not at a range, not under adult supervision, not hunting with a valid permit, etc.
> ...




Here...maybe reading it will work on your brain better than actually hearing grosscrud say it under oath in court...

From the BBC...

_*Under tense cross-examination on Monday, the defendant's lawyer, Corey Chirafisi, asked Mr Grosskreutz: "When you were standing three to five feet from him with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?"*_
_*"Correct," Mr Grosskreutz said.
"It wasn't until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun, now your hands down pointed at him, that he fired, right?" Mr Chirafisi continued.*_
*"Correct," Mr Grosskreutz said.*









						Man shot by Kyle Rittenhouse says he pointed own gun amid fears for life
					

Gaige Grosskreutz says he believed Kyle Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" and was trying to disarm him.



					www.bbc.com


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is not Grosskreutz on the stand, so the face palm can not possibly be from Grosskreutz testimony.
> And Grosskreutz is on record as saying he at one time had pointed at Kyle, but that his hands were up in the air when shot.
> The trajectory through his arm would otherwise be impossible.



  Nope,thats him.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> I posted his testimony.......twice...one video after the other......
> 
> He confirmed, under oath, that Kyle did not shoot him when his hands were up...he was shot when his pistol was pointed at Kyle....
> 
> ...



Wrong.
That was not complete, in sequence, or the relevant parts.
The is the InfoWars version.

The real version says Kyle's gun jammed, and Grosskreutz could easily have killed Kyle if he wanted, but instead raised his hands.
But Kyle racked to recock, and shot him anyway.

{...
During the demonstration, Grosskreutz held a water bottle in his left hand, where his cellphone was, and a portable microphone stood in for the gun in his right. He held the mic up near his ear.
...
Grosskreutz said he had come alone to Kenosha that night, to provide assistance to demonstrators. A trained paramedic, he said he had been going to protests to do so all summer.

"Is that how you'd hold a firearm if you were going to shoot it?" Binger asked. He said no.

Chirafisi countered with a photo of Grosskreutz just as the bullet hit his arm. It's lower, and the gun is more oriented toward Rittenhouse, though not directly aimed in an outstretched arm.
...}
Not only was Grosskreutz a paramedic, but was wearing a well identified paramedic uniform when Kyle shot him.


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

What I learned from Kyle Rittenhouse:

1.  A $499 AR will work just as good as my Tier I ARs.

2.  I don't need an expensive scope  to waste Commies.

3.  The cheapest sling you can buy will work good enough.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 21, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You're either an IDIOT or a foreigner who doesn't know US law.  Not guilty verdicts can't be appealed.  The prosecution gets one bite at the apple. with the government's resources that's usually plenty.




That's why the Barking Seals in the Media keep yelping "crossed state lines".  They want the Feds to go after Kyle.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> That was not complete, in sequence, or the relevant parts.
> The is the InfoWars version.
> 
> ...




That's not the Real Version, swampy.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> That was not complete, in sequence, or the relevant parts.
> The is the InfoWars version.
> 
> ...




You are fucking delusional..............I showed you actual footage from the actual testimony, in court, under oath..............


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> And are you actually going to claim a minor can legally have a loaded firearm in public?
> Then explain why the police immediately shot and killed 12 year old Tamir Rice playing with his air soft toy?



  Why did the judge dismiss the charge?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> What I learned from Kyle Rittenhouse:
> 
> 1.  A $499 AR will work just as good as my Tier I ARs.
> 
> ...




And you don't need a lot of training to use a gun effectively........so the whole anti-gun tactic of demanding mandatory training is just that, a tactic to make it harder for normal people to own guns...


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

Kyle was attacked by four people, killed two, stopped a third.  The smartest one ran away when shots were fired.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Why did the judge dismiss the charge?




OOOOh....OOOOH......pick me....pick me.....



Cause he's racist?

Errrr.....

Cause he's a republican?...wait, he's a democrat...shoot........


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> It was illegal for Rittenhouse to even buy or have the rifle, and he would have been safe if he had stayed on private property, with the others against the riot/demo.
> What he did was not just illegal, but incredibly irresponsible and foolish.
> You NEVER chamber rounds around a group of people.
> He would have been kicked out of any range go to.



Than why did the judge dismiss the charges dimwit?


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Why did the judge dismiss the charge?


Rigby is just pissed because the Judge didn't check with him.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Why did the judge dismiss the charge?



Because the judge is a redneck racist.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you don't need a lot of training to use a gun effectively........so the whole anti-gun tactic of demanding mandatory training is just that, a tactic to make it harder for normal people to own guns...



You need more training then Kyle had.
You never take a loaded gun into a crowd.
There is no gun that is without risk of going off if dropped.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Because the judge is a redneck racist.




Jeebus, your stupid must cause you chronic, excruciating pain.


----------



## boedicca (Nov 21, 2021)

Flash said:


> Kyle was attacked by four people, killed two, stopped a third.  The smartest one ran away when shots were fired.




Kyle showed amazing self-control and restraint.  He didn't spray the crowd with bullets.  He shot his attackers when they closed in on him to "cranium" or kill him.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You need more training then Kyle had.
> You never take a loaded gun into a crowd.
> There is no gun that is without risk of going off if dropped.



*There is no gun that is without risk of going off if dropped.*


True....but modern weapons only fire if dropped when they have a design screw up......most modern weapons are drop safe...and are tested to be drop safe...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Because the judge is a redneck racist.


Appointed by a democrat.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> That was not complete, in sequence, or the relevant parts.
> The is the InfoWars version.
> 
> ...


If Rittenhouse's rifle had jammed and he had to cycle the action, where did the ejected round go?  There was no ejected round because all the videos clearly show Rittenhouse never cycled the action on his rifle.  The movements are unmistakable.  I know, I carried the real Assault Rifle version of the AR-15, the M-16 for five years on active duty and six years in the active reserves.  Grosskreutz never testified that Rittenhouse's rifle jammed, or the he cycled the action.  The only unfired round found at the scene belonged to the Glock and it was from when the cops cleared the weapon after the shooting.  Everything you are lying about is on video, either directly from the night in question or from live court TV unedited.  I know you can't embarrass yourself because you have proven that you are beyond rational thought or feelings, but stop beating a dead horse. the trial is over, Kyle was acquitted on all charges and he's free as a bird.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> That was not complete, in sequence, or the relevant parts.
> The is the InfoWars version.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you can go on and on about the moon landing being faked as well.


----------



## Flash (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You need more training then Kyle had.


What the hell are you talking about Moon Bat?  You are confused as usual.

Kyle performed magnificently.

He chased the first attacker off with two shots.  Killed the second attacker, killed the third attacker and incapacitated the forth attacker all with only eight shoots.

He did not hit any bystanders and he disengaged without further causalities.

All while on his back.

They need to make him an officer in the Marine Corps and put him in charge of live fire close quarter combat training.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 21, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you don't need a lot of training to use a gun effectively........so the whole anti-gun tactic of demanding mandatory training is just that, a tactic to make it harder for normal people to own guns...


I'm in favor of every student receiving gun safety training in school, after all you never know when you might run across a gun lying in the street unattended.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The judge had no basis in fact or law to dismiss the illegal possession by a minor charge.
> It was the single most guilty I had ever heard of, except unless if he had been even younger.
> 
> The facts ARE that is was illegal for Kyle to be in possession of any firearm, while not at a range, not under adult supervision, not hunting with a valid permit, etc.
> ...



  yeah...because you know more than a judge does when it comes to the law.
Just shut the fuck up ya imbecile.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Nope,thats him.



Here is your image again.






And no, clearly Grosskreutz is not in the image.
The person who appears to be on the witness stand, appears to be bald.

And that is not the judge.
Here is the judge.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> yeah...because you know more than a judge does when it comes to the law.
> Just shut the fuck up ya imbecile.



No, EVERYONE knows more about an obvious law than a lying judge does.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Here is your image again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  That image is of the prosecutor you retard.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, EVERYONE knows more about an obvious law than a lying judge does.



  Does it hurt to be so stupid?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> That image is of the prosecutor you retard.



You are claiming the man on the left is the prosecutor, and he is clearly at table at ground floor, and not the elevated witness on the witness stand.
The other prosecutor is also at the prosecution table, so can not be the person on the right, who is elevated.
So then the elevated person to the right has to be the person testifying.
Which is not Grosskreutz.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You are claiming the man on the left is the prosecutor, and he is clearly at table at ground floor, and not the elevated witness on the witness stand.
> The other prosecutor is also at the prosecution table, so can not be the person on the right, who is elevated.
> So then the elevated person to the right has to be the person testifying.
> Which is not Grosskreutz.



  Have you ever heard of an assistant?
The dweeb with the hokey mustache and beard is the lead,the fat dude is the assistant prosecutor.
   You can continue to be a dumbass and I can continue to prove your wrong.
It's up to you.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Have you ever heard of an assistant?
> The dweeb with the hokey mustache and beard is the lead,the fat dude is the assistant prosecutor.
> You can continue to be a dumbass and I can continue to prove your wrong.
> It's up to you.



Can you not read?
Obviously the 2 at the prosecutor's table are NOT the ones testifying on the witness stand.
The witness stand is elevated.
They guy on the right is in the elevated witness stand, and clearly that is not Grosskreutz.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Can you not read?
> Obviously the 2 at the prosecutor's table are NOT the ones testifying on the witness stand.
> The witness stand is elevated.
> They guy on the right is in the elevated witness stand, and clearly that is not Grosskreutz.



  Are you really trying to say grossnuts didnt pull a firearm?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Are you really trying to say grossnuts didnt pull a firearm?


Sure he pulled a firearm, but after pointing it at Kyle, and Kyle trying shoot him, he instead pointed his gun upward and raised his hands.
But then Kyle reracked and fired anyway, hitting Grosskneutz in the raised arm, forever proving he had his arms raised when shot.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> First he ran towards several groups of rioters, and only ran away from them later, after they expressed their displeasure at his rifle.


The violent felons stalked and attacked him......


----------



## theHawk (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> And are you actually going to claim a minor can legally have a loaded firearm in public?
> Then explain why the police immediately shot and killed 12 year old Tamir Rice playing with his air soft toy?


A 17 year old can.  You are probably unaware that in the US a 17 year old can enlist in the military, you being a foreigner and all.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 21, 2021)




----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Turtlesoup said:


> The violent felons stalked and attacked him......



First of all, Grosskreutz was not a felon but an official Medtech, and he did not attack Kyle, but went over to investigate because it looked like Kyle was the was the attacker.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

theHawk said:


> A 17 year old can.  You are probably unaware that in the US a 17 year old can enlist in the military, you being a foreigner and all.



Enlisting in the military is listed as one of the exceptions that allows a minor to be in possession of a firearm, but then the military trains and supervises him.

And no, was born in WI, so I know the laws there quite well.

It is also legal for a minor to be in possession at a range, under adult supervision, or while hunting with a valid license.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 21, 2021)

Abatis said:


> View attachment 567023



The jury never got all the facts.
For example, if the jury had been told that possession of the rifle by a minor was illegal, then they likely would have seen Kyle's actions in a different light.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The jury never got all the facts.
> For example, if the jury had been told that possession of the rifle by a minor was illegal, then they likely would have seen Kyle's actions in a different light.



Likewise,
If America had been told that Biden was an inept imbecile and a puppet for oligarchs and that possession of the nuclear codes by said imbecile is a threat to all of mankind,  they would have seen Biden's run for office as the cluster fuck it is.

IF...IF...IF


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Here is your image again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Moron...that is the defense attorney.........

Get help.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The jury never got all the facts.
> For example, if the jury had been told that possession of the rifle by a minor was illegal, then they likely would have seen Kyle's actions in a different light.




The possession wasn't illegal, doofus........

Now you are simply being a troll...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, Grosskreutz was not a felon but an official Medtech, and he did not attack Kyle, but went over to investigate because it looked like Kyle was the was the attacker.



Grosscrud was a felon, had his juvenile record expunged when he turned 18....he was a felon.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The jury never got all the facts.
> For example, if the jury had been told that possession of the rifle by a minor was illegal, then they likely would have seen Kyle's actions in a different light.



You speak of "facts" but then demand the state continue the prosecution of a law not broken, a crime not committed . . .   How is that giving the jury "facts"?

What you are advocating for is _*withholding*_ "facts" and trying to get the jury to see "_Kyle's actions in a different light_", a light distorted by deception and prosecutorial misconduct.

You know that the prosecutor's job is to achive justice, not just get a conviction at any cost, in any manner, _right_?


----------



## miketx (Nov 22, 2021)




----------



## miketx (Nov 22, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> He was running away from them ya dumbfuck.


He's not dumb man, he's a lying pos working against this country, an enemy of the people and should face treason charges. That is, if we had justice.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Moron...that is the defense attorney.........
> 
> Get help.



If that is the defense attorney, then there is no way for anyone to claim who is testifying at that moment.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> If that is the defense attorney, then there is no way for anyone to claim who is testifying at that moment.




You were shown two separate videos of gross crud on the stand....what is wrong with you?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, Grosskreutz was not a felon but an official Medtech, and he did not attack Kyle, but went over to investigate because it looked like Kyle was the was the attacker.



  He has a long criminal history ya dumbshit.









						Sole survivor of Kyle Rittenhouse shootings has criminal past: report
					

Gaige Grosskreutz, the only survivor of the Wisconsin shootings by teenager Kyle Rittenhouse has a lengthy criminal record that includes burglary, drunk driving and a domestic incident.




					nypost.com
				












						Kyle Rittenhouse Murder Trial: Sole Shooting Survivor & Star Witness Gaige Grosskreutz Has A Lengthy Criminal Past
					

Although Gaige appeared before the court as a star witness, his lengthy criminal past was not disclosed to the court or jury.




					radaronline.com


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The possession wasn't illegal, doofus........
> 
> Now you are simply being a troll...



Yes it is.
Ask any WI NRA member, and they will tell you a minor in possession of a firearm is illegal in WI except in a few special conditions, like at a range, when hunting, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Grosscrud was a felon, had his juvenile record expunged when he turned 18....he was a felon.



Wrong.
He had arrests, but no convictions.
A juvenile felony conviction, even if expunged, would have make the concealed carry permit impossible.
Notice he was not charged for the concealed pistol?
That means he was not a felon.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> He had arrests, but no convictions.
> A juvenile felony conviction, even if expunged, would have make the concealed carry permit impossible.
> Notice he was not charged for the concealed pistol?
> That means he was not a felon.




He wasn't charged for carrying the pistol without a permit because the fascist democrat wanted him to testify.........you idiot.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

Abatis said:


> You speak of "facts" but then demand the state continue the prosecution of a law not broken, a crime not committed . . .   How is that giving the jury "facts"?
> 
> What you are advocating for is _*withholding*_ "facts" and trying to get the jury to see "_Kyle's actions in a different light_", a light distorted by deception and prosecutorial misconduct.
> 
> You know that the prosecutor's job is to achive justice, not just get a conviction at any cost, in any manner, _right_?



There is absolutely no doubt at all that Kyle was in violation of the WI statutes that clearly make it illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
He did not match any of the exceptions.

He could easily have avoided the violence.
For example, not bringing a rifle, not trying to mix with the crowd in order to frighten them with the rifle, etc.
If he wanted to counter the event, he should have just brought a sign, found private property to defend, and stayed put.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There is absolutely no doubt at all that Kyle was in violation of the WI statutes that clearly make it illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
> He did not match any of the exceptions.
> 
> He could easily have avoided the violence.
> ...




Except all of the lawyers in that courtroom plus the judge say you are an idiot and you are wrong.........


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

miketex said:


> View attachment 567123



Kenosha is the guilty party, for allowing Blake to be shot for no reason.
Kenosha needs MORE burning until they get justice for all people.


----------



## Orangecat (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Kenosha is the guilty party, for allowing Blake to be shot for no reason.
> Kenosha needs MORE burning until they get justice for all people.


You're an imbecile.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Kenosha is the guilty party, for allowing Blake to be shot for no reason.
> Kenosha needs MORE burning until they get justice for all people.




Again......did you hit your head.....?

Blake was shot for very good reasons..including rape, resisting the police using a knife, and trying to kidnap children.....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Orangecat said:


> You're an imbecile.




I think they are off their meds...........they usually post more intelligently....


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You were shown two separate videos of gross crud on the stand....what is wrong with you?



Videos are easily chopped up and edited.
The facts are the bullet path through Grosskreutz's arm proves he had his hands up when shot.
We also know Grosskreutz posed no threat to Kyle because Kyle's gun misfired on the first shot at Grosskreutz and he have to recycle.
Which means Grosskreutz had plenty of time to shoot Kyle if he had wanted to.
Which means Kyle was not shooting in defense at all, but deliberate intent to kill.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Again......did you hit your head.....?
> 
> Blake was shot for very good reasons..including rape, resisting the police using a knife, and trying to kidnap children.....



Wrong.
Jacob Blake had a warrant for domestic violence, which has since been dropped.
He was not at all resisting arrest, but simply attending to his children.
He never unfolded the pocket knife that fell on the ground and he simply picked up.
And the destination he was driving to was the children's mother.
In no way was he kidnapping anyone.
Only one cop shot Blake, and Sheskey shot him 7 times in the back, which is totally and completely illegal.
There is no excuse for not prosecuting Sheskey.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Videos are easily chopped up and edited.
> The facts are the bullet path through Grosskreutz's arm proves he had his hands up when shot.
> We also know Grosskreutz posed no threat to Kyle because Kyle's gun misfired on the first shot at Grosskreutz and he have to recycle.
> Which means Grosskreutz had plenty of time to shoot Kyle if he had wanted to.
> Which means Kyle was not shooting in defense at all, but deliberate intent to kill.




You're trolling now...right?   You can't be this stupid....right?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Jacob Blake had a warrant for domestic violence, which has since been dropped.
> He was not at all resisting arrest, but simply attending to his children.
> He never unfolded the pocket knife that fell on the ground and he simply picked up.
> ...




You are trolling now.......stop.......it isn't funny....and you look really stupid doing it...


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Except all of the lawyers in that courtroom plus the judge say you are an idiot and you are wrong.........



There is not a single person in the world who thinks it is legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm in WI, (if not at a range, in the military, under adult supervision, or hunting with a permit).


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There is not a single person in the world who thinks it is legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm in WI, (if not at a range, in the military, under adult supervision, or hunting with a permit).




Except for all the lawyers at the trial and the judge.....except for them....


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You are trolling now.......stop.......it isn't funny....and you look really stupid doing it...



If you were there, would you have shot Blake in the back 7 times?
Or would you have shot or arrested Sheskey for attempted murder?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Here is your image again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hate to break it to you, but the bald guy in your first photo is the head defense lawyer and the one in the second is the judge.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> If you were there, would you have shot Blake in the back 7 times?
> Or would you have shot or arrested Sheskey for attempted murder?




Yep.....Blake had a knife and was trying to leave with those children, having violated a restraining order and having raped his baby momma.....

What part of that is too hard for you to understand, troll....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 22, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> I hate to break it to you, but the bald guy in your first photo is the head defense lawyer and the one in the second is the judge.




He has to be trolling right now......he can't be this stupid........

I am pretty much done with him......unless the real Rigby comes back and says his kid was playing games on the computer...


----------



## marvin martian (Nov 22, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...



^^^Aged like milk.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Except for all the lawyers at the trial and the judge.....except for them....



There is no evidence in the trial that anyone thinks it is legal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm in WI, (without qualifying for an exception).
At best you can claim is that the judge thought the statute was worded badly enough to be unenforceable.
But anyone reading it should have no problem.
I had no problem understanding it.
So then likely all 3 participants at the trial, the prosecution, defense, and judge, were all guilty of deliberately throwing the case.
Happens frequently.
But usually in states like GA or MI, not WI.
But Kenosha has always been about the most redneck part of WI, with Chicago being a bad influence.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Do you think the law banning minors from carrying weapons violates the Second Amendment?








Odd, they used to TEACH gun safety to minors in the 1950s, so no, there is no constitutional limitation to a minor carrying a gun.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> First of all, Grosskreutz was not a felon but an official Medtech, and he did not attack Kyle, but went over to investigate because it looked like Kyle was the was the attacker.


Grosskreutz was a felon.  He was convicted of a felony as a juvenile.  While the felony conviction was stricken from his record legally, in fact he is a felon.  But he was still illegally carrying a concealed pistol since his permit had either expired or been rescinded.  He had a recent felony arrest that hasn’t gone to court yet.  The arrest alone would be cause for a suspension of a CCW permit.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> He has to be trolling right now......he can't be this stupid........
> 
> I am pretty much done with him......unless the real Rigby comes back and says his kid was playing games on the computer...



You do not bring a rifle to a political event.
You do not go mixing with the other side, alone, with the intent of intimidating them with your rifle.
You do not pretend to be a Medtech and then shoot a real Medtech.
You fire a warming shot if you feel threatened.  
You do not go around in a riot alone.
You have no business going 20 miles across state lines for a local conflict.
You do not try to act against a conflict that is trying to right an injustice by police.
Police have no authority to shoot someone 7 times in the back.
Everyone should be outraged no charges were filed against Sheskey for the obvious crimes by the police.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The jury never got all the facts.
> For example, if the jury had been told that possession of the rifle by a minor was illegal, then they likely would have seen Kyle's actions in a different light.


According to the judge, the defense AND THE PROSECUTION, it was legal for Rittenhouse to posses the rifle.  Only you are “brilliant” enough to disagree.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You do not bring a rifle to a political event.
> You do not go mixing with the other side, alone, with the intent of intimidating them with your rifle.
> You do not pretend to be a Medtech and then shoot a real Medtech.
> You fire a warming shot if you feel threatened.
> ...


none of that applies to kyles case,,

but you knew that,,


----------



## Orangecat (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You do not bring a rifle to a political event.
> You do not go mixing with the other side, alone, with the intent of intimidating them with your rifle.
> You do not pretend to be a Medtech and then shoot a real Medtech.
> You fire a warming shot if you feel threatened.
> ...


You do not make the rules and most people with spines are not as pussified as you regarding such things. 
The verdict is in: Not Guilty. 
Stop crying and move on.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> If that is the defense attorney, then there is no way for anyone to claim who is testifying at that moment.


Yes there is, there is plenty of evidence including the stream from court tv.  You just won’t accept it.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Videos are easily chopped up and edited.
> The facts are the bullet path through Grosskreutz's arm proves he had his hands up when shot.
> We also know Grosskreutz posed no threat to Kyle because Kyle's gun misfired on the first shot at Grosskreutz and he have to recycle.
> Which means Grosskreutz had plenty of time to shoot Kyle if he had wanted to.
> Which means Kyle was not shooting in defense at all, but deliberate intent to kill.


Only you are claiming the rifle misfired, there is no ejected round and a Grosskreutz never testified to that.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> View attachment 567208
> 
> Odd, they used to TEACH gun safety to minors in the 1950s, so no, there is no constitutional limitation to a minor carrying a gun.



Wrong.
The purpose of all constitutions is to authorize government, not individuals.
And clearly it is illegal for a minor to be in possession when not qualified by one of the exception.
And one of the exceptions is under adult supervision, like in a school classroom.
Likely the adult teacher is the one who brought the shotgun in, and first cleared the action.
Would you have wanted one of the kids to just bring in a gun on their own?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Grosskreutz was a felon.  He was convicted of a felony as a juvenile.  While the felony conviction was stricken from his record legally, in fact he is a felon.  But he was still illegally carrying a concealed pistol since his permit had either expired or been rescinded.  He had a recent felony arrest that hasn’t gone to court yet.  The arrest alone would be cause for a suspension of a CCW permit.



He had NO juvenile felony conviction.
Juvenile convictions can be expunged, but you then still can't pass the background check a CCW.
The CCW permit had expired but was NOT rescinded.

Here is his exact police record.








						Gaige Grosskreutz biography: 13 things about West Allis, Wisconsin man Kyle Rittenhouse shot
					

Gaige Paul Grosskreutz of West Allis, Wisconsin, United States was one of the men shot by Kyle Rittenhouse on August 25, 2020. They were in the same Black Lives Matter demonstration in Ke…




					conandaily.com
				



{...

On November 17, 2010, the *West Allis Police Department *arrested him for simple assault. His grandmother *Janice A. Grosskreutz* called the police and accused him of striking her across the face with an open hand during an argument.
In 2016, he was convicted of a criminal misdemeanor for going armed with a firearm while intoxicated. He also had a forfeiture case for not showing obedience to officers and one for loud noises.
...}

Neither was a felony, and the first was dropped entirely.
I could not find any current charges pending against Grosskreutz.
He had completed Medtech training and was clearly a good guy.


----------



## ESay (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> You do not bring a rifle to a political event


Political event? They burnt and looted properties. Is that called a political event now?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Only you are claiming the rifle misfired, there is no ejected round and a Grosskreutz never testified to that.



Grosskreutz has always been on record for saying Kyle tried to shoot once and then reracked after a misfire.
{
Grosskreutz testified that he put in hands in the air as he saw Rittenhouse’s AR-15 point towards him. He claimed that before he was shot, he saw Rittenhouse “re-rack” his weapon before firing.
...}








						[WATCH] Kenosha Shooting Survivor Describes 'Confusing' Scene Where Kyle Rittenhouse 'Re-Racked' Rifle
					

The lone survivor of the shootings during the Jacob Blake protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year testified during Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial on Monday and disputed Rittenhouse’s account of the incident. Gaige Grosskreutz was one of three people shot when Rittenhouse opened fire, killing two...




					hillreporter.com
				




How could you have missed this important statement by Grosskreutz?
Are you really reading all the info or not?


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Grosskreutz has always been on record for saying Kyle tried to shoot once and then reracked after a misfire.
> {
> Grosskreutz testified that he put in hands in the air as he saw Rittenhouse’s AR-15 point towards him. He claimed that before he was shot, he saw Rittenhouse “re-rack” his weapon before firing.
> ...}
> ...


youre leaving out it didnt happen and he also lied several other times on the stand,,


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

ESay said:


> Political event? They burnt and looted properties. Is that called a political event now?



Just like the Boston Tea Party, the 67 civil rights riots, all the Vietnam war protests, etc.
Face facts, the pollce often become the bad guys when they support the corrupt wealthy elite abusing people.
The invasion of Iraq, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc. are all totally and obviously illegal.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> youre leaving out it didnt happen and he also lied several other times on the stand,,



Possible.
But the facts still are the bullet trajectory in his arm proves his hands were up and he was not pointing a gun at Kyle when Kyle pulled the trigger.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Possible.
> But the facts still are the bullet trajectory in his arm proves his hands were up and he was not pointing a gun at Kyle when Kyle pulled the trigger.


and yet the video evidence proves that wrong,,,


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> and yet the video evidence proves that wrong,,,



That makes no sense.
The police and the prosecutor who works with the police are the ones who decide about charges, and they would not want him to testify.
They were on Kyle's side.
Otherwise the police would have disarmed and arrested Kyle right from the beginning.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That makes no sense.
> The police and the prosecutor who works with the police are the ones who decide about charges, and they would not want him to testify.
> They were on Kyle's side.
> Otherwise the police would have disarmed and arrested Kyle right from the beginning.


when did we start talking about charges?? 

the discussion is about when kyle shot bicep guy,, and as we see in the video its when he pointed the gun at kyle,, and he also testified thats when kyle shot him


----------



## ESay (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Just like the Boston Tea Party, the 67 civil rights riots, all the Vietnam war protests, etc.
> Face facts, the pollce often become the bad guys when they support the corrupt wealthy elite abusing people.
> The invasion of Iraq, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc. are all totally and obviously illegal.


Okay, but if you use some force taking part in 'political events ' be ready to get response. And you shouldn't complain about that.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The purpose of all constitutions is to authorize government, not individuals.
> And clearly it is illegal for a minor to be in possession when not qualified by one of the exception.
> And one of the exceptions is under adult supervision, like in a school classroom.
> ...



I said nothing about minors bringing rifles to school.  Of course they should be under adult supervision at all times, they are minors.  But like I said, there is no constitutional limitation on the age of a person using a gun, not that I expect children carrying pistols on their belt walking the street, this is not a muslim country.

Still, I've known a lot of kids with years experience handling guns that I'd far sooner trust with a gun than some adults like the prosecutor at the Rittenhouse hearing!


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> when did we start talking about charges??
> 
> the discussion is about when kyle shot bicep guy,, and as we see in the video its when he pointed the gun at kyle,, and he also testified thats when kyle shot him



He pointed a gun at Kyle before Kyle shot him, but the more detailed description included the fact he decided not to shoot, and instead raised his hands.
He did not lower his hands until AFTER Kyle shot him.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

ESay said:


> Okay, but if you use some force taking part in 'political events ' be ready to get response. And you shouldn't complain about that.



Sure, but none of the rioters were foolish enough to openly bring a rifle.
Now they will because now they have to.
And since there are over 100 times more rioters, than not, people like Kyle will be instantly killed in the future.
If I had been there, I would instantly have shot and killed Kyle.
He was just being a stupid kid, but you can't let people do that.
The risks are too high.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> and yet the video evidence proves that wrong,,,



Wrong.
Grosskreutz said he had originally pointed the gun at Kyle, but had later decided to raise his hands.
You are just repeating a tiny clip from the whole story.
Kyle pulled the trigger on Grosskreutz when his hands were in the air.
That is indisputable, due to the wound.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> He pointed a gun at Kyle before Kyle shot him, but the more detailed description included the fact he decided not to shoot, and instead raised his hands.
> He did not lower his hands until AFTER Kyle shot him.



But the point is the law says kids can not legally be in possession of firearms in general.
There are only a few exceptions when they can legally being possession, and Kyle did not fit any of those exceptions.
He was guilty.
Which makes everything else that happened, his fault.


----------



## ESay (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Sure, but none of the rioters were foolish enough to openly bring a rifle.
> Now they will because now they have to.
> And since there are over 100 times more rioters, than not, people like Kyle will be instantly killed in the future.
> If I had been there, I would instantly have shot and killed Kyle.
> ...


This whole story leads to one fundamental question - should people be able to pick their arms and prevent marauders from looting their neighborhoods. Or should they stay in their homes and wait for the police to sort the things out.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

ESay said:


> This whole story leads to one fundamental question - should people be able to pick their arms and prevent marauders from looting their neighborhoods. Or should they stay in their homes and wait for the police to sort the things out.



Sure they should, but that is not what Kyle was doing at all, and instead he was backing the fascist elite in murdering and intimidating the masses so they have no recourse.
Kyle was not in HIS neighborhood at all, and instead was trying to suppress the righteous indignation the Blake's neighborhood felt for the police illegally shooting him 7 times in the back, for no reason.
The police clearly ARE the problem, and always will be.
Kyle was just trying to make things even worse, by helping the police avoid prosecution for their crimes.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> He pointed a gun at Kyle before Kyle shot him, but the more detailed description included the fact he decided not to shoot, and instead raised his hands.
> He did not lower his hands until AFTER Kyle shot him.


wrong again,, he admitted in court that kyle shot him after he pointed the gun at him,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Grosskreutz said he had originally pointed the gun at Kyle, but had later decided to raise his hands.
> You are just repeating a tiny clip from the whole story.
> Kyle pulled the trigger on Grosskreutz when his hands were in the air.
> That is indisputable, due to the wound.


then why does the video and his testimony show he had his gun pointed at kyle when he was shot??


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Nov 22, 2021)

toobfreak said:


> I said nothing about minors bringing rifles to school.  Of course they should be under adult supervision at all times, they are minors.  But like I said, there is no constitutional limitation on the age of a person using a gun, not that I expect children carrying pistols on their belt walking the street, this is not a muslim country.
> 
> Still, I've known a lot of kids with years experience handling guns that I'd far sooner trust with a gun than some adults like the prosecutor at the Rittenhouse hearing!



I CLEARLY remember MINORS having loaded rifles in the back of their pickup trucks in high school.
NO ONE ever got shot.

What changed?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> wrong again,, he admitted in court that kyle shot him after he pointed the gun at him,,,



After, but so long after that Grosskreutz was no longer pointing his gun at Kyle anymore, as Kyle pulled the trigger.

Watch the interview that was not just bits and pieces.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> then why does the video and his testimony show he had his gun pointed at kyle when he was shot??



The video does not show Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Kyle any longer, when Kyle pulled the trigger.


----------



## westwall (Nov 22, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You were shown two separate videos of gross crud on the stand....what is wrong with you?




Mentally retarded troll.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> I CLEARLY remember MINORS having loaded rifles in the back of their pickup trucks in high school.
> NO ONE ever got shot.
> 
> What changed?



A minor can have a rifle in a vehicle so that they can then legally go hunting when they are at a legal place to hunt, if they have a valid license to hunt.
What they can not do is then carry the firearm in public.
For example, into the school.


----------



## Flash (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Grosskreutz said he had originally pointed the gun at Kyle, but had later decided to raise his hands.
> You are just repeating a tiny clip from the whole story.
> Kyle pulled the trigger on Grosskreutz when his hands were in the air.
> That is indisputable, due to the wound.




You didn't listen to GG's testimony did you?  The fucker admitted on the stand during cross examination to pointing the gun at Kyle before being shot.  That is when the Prosecution's case completely fell apart.

I suspect you know that the same as the rest of us.  It was widely talked about during the trial.

Are you really that low information or are you just trying to be an Internet Dickead?


----------



## Esdraelon (Nov 22, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> 10 year olds fought in the revolutionary war.


They'll likely fight in the next one, as well.  Imagine the shock on the Left when they suddenly realize the other half of America has decided not to take their shit any longer?


----------



## Esdraelon (Nov 22, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Did I misread that law?
> 
> The ban is for SBRs, not regular rifles, am I wrong?


That's my understanding as well.  Down here in Bama, we have to have a proctologist level background investigation and then pay for a 200 dollar "tax stamp" before legally possessing an SBR or a suppressor.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> After, but so long after that Grosskreutz was no longer pointing his gun at Kyle anymore, as Kyle pulled the trigger.
> 
> Watch the interview that was not just bits and pieces.


sorry but the video proves you wrong,,

at the time his arm exploded his gun was pointing at kyle,, pointing gun at kyle


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The video does not show Grosskreutz pointing his gun at Kyle any longer, when Kyle pulled the trigger.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Sure, but none of the rioters were foolish enough to openly bring a rifle.
> Now they will because now they have to.
> And since there are over 100 times more rioters, than not, people like Kyle will be instantly killed in the future.
> If I had been there, I would instantly have shot and killed Kyle.
> ...



You are criminally insane.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> After, but so long after that Grosskreutz was no longer pointing his gun at Kyle anymore, as Kyle pulled the trigger.
> 
> Watch the interview that was not just bits and pieces.



He contradicts his sworn testimony there . . .   His sworn testimony is the _only_ account that should be considered his "version" -- at least as a legal statement.  Anything else, like his interview, when there is no exposure to punishment for lying, should be dismissed.

Here is the court transcript:

Rittenhouse Defense attorney: “You would agree your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse correct?”​​Grosskreutz: “Yes.”​​Defense: “Once your firearm is pointed at Mr. Rittenhouse, that’s when he fires his gun, yes?​​Grosskreutz: “No.”​​Defense: “Sir, look…Does this look like right now your arm is being shot?”​​Grosskreutz: “That looks like my bicep being vaporized yes.”​​Defense: “It’s being vaporized because you’re pointing a gun directly at him, yes?”​​Grosskreutz: “Yes.”​​Defense: “When you’re standing 3-5 feet from him with your arms up in the air he never fired. Right?”​​Grosskreutz: “Correct.”​​Defense: “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him with your gun, now your hands down, pointed at him, that he fired, right?”​​Grosskreutz: “Correct.”​


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

Flash said:


> You didn't listen to GG's testimony did you?  The fucker admitted on the stand during cross examination to pointing the gun at Kyle before being shot.  That is when the Prosecution's case completely fell apart.
> 
> I suspect you know that the same as the rest of us.  It was widely talked about during the trial.
> 
> Are you really that low information or are you just trying to be an Internet Dickead?



That is silly.
Of course Kyle shot Grosskreutz AFTER he had pointed a gun at Kyle.
But LONG after Grosskreutz had raised the pistol up into the air.
Grosskreutz at first assumed Kyle was the "active shooter".
Maybe he was?
A normal person would likely have fired a warming shot before shooting Rosenbaum 5 times.
Does anyone need to shoot an unarmed person 5 times?
I don't think so.
But the point is Grosskreutz was a professional MedTech, so then raised his hands when he realized he was not going to shoot Kyle.
So Kyle was not shooting in defense when he pulled the trigger on Grosskreutz.

And by the way, Kyle did TRY to shoot Grosskreutz right away, but the gun jammed and he had to recycle the action.


----------



## Orangecat (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> But the facts still are the bullet trajectory in his arm proves his hands were up


No, it doesn't.


----------



## Flash (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> Of course Kyle shot Grosskreutz AFTER he had pointed a gun at Kyle.
> But LONG after Grosskreutz had raised the pistol up into the air.
> Grosskreutz at first assumed Kyle was the "active shooter".
> ...


So you didn't hear Grosskreutz admit in testimony he was pointing his illegal Glock at him when he was shot?  That figures.  The rest of us did and so did the jury.  The jury, after listening to that testimony and other evidence, acquitted Kyle of the charge of shooting Grosskreutz.   It is self defense when you shoot somebody with a loaded Glock pointed at you.  Go look it up.  I shit you not Moon Bat.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

Orangecat said:


> No, it doesn't.



Yes it does.
The forearm wound is roughly perpendicular to the bone.
If Grosskreutz had been pointing a gun at Kyle at the instant then the only possible shot would have been a grazing surface shot, parallel to the bone.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

Flash said:


> So you didn't hear Grosskreutz admit in testimony he was pointing his illegal Glock at him when he was shot?  That figures.  The rest of us did and so did the jury.  The jury, after listening to that testimony and other evidence, acquitted Kyle of the charge of shooting Grosskreutz.   It is self defense when you shoot somebody with a loaded Glock pointed at you.  Go look it up.  I shit you not Moon Bat.



No, Grosskreutz did NOT say he was pointing his gun at Kyle when he was shot.
He testified he had pointed his gun at Kyle, BEFORE he was shot, LONG BEFORE.
The jury was not given accurate information, because the prosecution was not interested in getting a conviction.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> He had NO juvenile felony conviction.
> Juvenile convictions can be expunged, but you then still can't pass the background check a CCW.
> The CCW permit had expired but was NOT rescinded.
> 
> ...


He has a long criminal history.  He’s clearly NOT a good guy.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> Of course Kyle shot Grosskreutz AFTER he had pointed a gun at Kyle.
> But LONG after Grosskreutz had raised the pistol up into the air.
> Grosskreutz at first assumed Kyle was the "active shooter".
> ...


A normal person doesn’t fire warning shots.  Warning shots are illegal.  And Rosenbaum was only shot four times.  If you are going to lie, at least be consistan


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, Grosskreutz did NOT say he was pointing his gun at Kyle when he was shot.
> He testified he had pointed his gun at Kyle, BEFORE he was shot, LONG BEFORE.
> The jury was not given accurate information, because the prosecution was not interested in getting a conviction.


Under cross examination he admitted it after the defense showed stills showing the event.  Grosskruetz lied in his direct testimony several times and got caught.


----------



## Flash (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> No, Grosskreutz did NOT say he was pointing his gun at Kyle when he was shot.
> He testified he had pointed his gun at Kyle, BEFORE he was shot, LONG BEFORE.
> The jury was not given accurate information, because the prosecution was not interested in getting a conviction.


If anybody ever points a loaded Glock at me and I have an AR they had better be prepared for that to be the last milisecond of their life.

This Grosskreutz piece of shit got off lucky with only his arm being blown off.

You are confused and you obviously did not see the testimony because he blatantly admitted he had the Glock pointed at Kyle before Kyle had to shoot him.  I heard it, America heard it and most importantly the jury heard it.  That is when the Prosecution's case fell apart.  

You are either lying or confused.  Probably both. 









						Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Shooting victim Gaige Grosskreutz says he was pointing his gun at young man
					

The protester and medic who was wounded by Kyle Rittenhouse during the unrest on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, testified Monday that he was pointing his own gun at Rittenhouse when the young man shot him.




					www.foxnews.com
				




Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Shooting victim Gaige Grosskreutz says he was pointing his gun at young man​


----------



## Orangecat (Nov 22, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Yes it does.
> The forearm wound is roughly perpendicular to the bone.
> If Grosskreutz had been pointing a gun at Kyle at the instant then the only possible shot would have been a grazing surface shot, parallel to the bone.


Incorrect.
Regardless, the verdict is in, and your shitbags lost. 
The only question remaining is: How long are you going to cry about it?


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 22, 2021)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> I CLEARLY remember MINORS having loaded rifles in the back of their pickup trucks in high school.
> NO ONE ever got shot.
> 
> What changed?



Progressives.  They came in, realized they couldn't trust themselves to handle a gun at age 30 then decided that no one else could either then set out to prove it by making education so that kids were abject idiots well into adulthood!

Besides, if every person in America was proficient with a firearm, that makes the job of running everyone's life into the ground much much harder.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> He has a long criminal history.  He’s clearly NOT a good guy.



Wrong.
He let his CCW expire, but it was never rescinded.
And you can't get a CCW if you have any sort of significant record.
And in fact, he really was a MedTech, unlike Kyle, who just wanted to pretend to be one.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> A normal person doesn’t fire warning shots.  Warning shots are illegal.  And Rosenbaum was only shot four times.  If you are going to lie, at least be consistan



Wrong.
Warning shot are NEVER illegal.
Rosenbaum was only HIT 4 times, but Kyle fired 5 shots at him, which is totally overkill for someone unarmed and not particularly threatening.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Under cross examination he admitted it after the defense showed stills showing the event.  Grosskruetz lied in his direct testimony several times and got caught.



Grosskruetz was shot, passed out, and given lots of pain killers.
He also may have a political motive to not always trust police.
But there is  nothing that could be construed as a lie, or else they would be prosecuting for perjury.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 22, 2021)

Flash said:


> If anybody ever points a loaded Glock at me and I have an AR they had better be prepared for that to be the last milisecond of their life.
> 
> This Grosskreutz piece of shit got off lucky with only his arm being blown off.
> 
> ...



Totally wrong.
The pointing of the Glock at Kyle was a long time period before Kyle racked to recock, and fire a second time.
By then Grosskreutz has his hands in the air.

The testimony is deliberately out of sequence and disjoint.
If you want to find out what really happened, you have to watch one of the interviews Grosskreutz gave.

Grosskreutz did nothing illegal and had no criminal record.
Vastly superior to Kyle, who illegally brought a rifle to a volatile political event.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 23, 2021)




----------



## 2aguy (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> Of course Kyle shot Grosskreutz AFTER he had pointed a gun at Kyle.
> But LONG after Grosskreutz had raised the pistol up into the air.
> Grosskreutz at first assumed Kyle was the "active shooter".
> ...




You never fire warning shots, doofus.....you don't know where it will go......

Have you ever had to shoot in self defense....?   shooting the child rapist was Kyle's first self defense shooting, he was afraid and filled with adrenaline...ask any expert and they will tell you how distorted your perceptions are....he likely didn't realize he fired 4 times into the violent child rapist.

Grosscrud said his pistol was pointed at Kyle.........troll.


----------



## Peace (Nov 23, 2021)

TNHarley said:


> I dont remember seeing an age restriction in the constitution.


There isn’t one but I am proposing that we amend the constitution to where it says “ If you are not tall enough to reach the bar and order ten rounds of tequila then you can not own a firearm “…

Ohhh, I am so wrong but can not care any longer.


----------



## Peace (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Who is "Little Finger"?
> Any WI resident already should know the law is extremely clear that minors can't legally possess firearms.
> There can be absolutely no doubt about that, in any way, ( except under the few conditions listed).
> 
> ...


He thinks but until ruled on he is unsure…

First you wrote it as Kyle was carrying a short barrel rifle and when told it fall under the long barrel rule you pivoted and try this.

The charge was tossed and Kyle was found not guilty by the court, so what you believe should be matter not…


----------



## Peace (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> Of course Kyle shot Grosskreutz AFTER he had pointed a gun at Kyle.
> But LONG after Grosskreutz had raised the pistol up into the air.
> Grosskreutz at first assumed Kyle was the "active shooter".
> ...


The court did not agree and found Kyle did not murder those people but killed them in self defense…


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> He let his CCW expire, but it was never rescinded.
> And you can't get a CCW if you have any sort of significant record.
> And in fact, he really was a MedTech, unlike Kyle, who just wanted to pretend to be one.


He has a long criminal history. It’s been posted.  I said it either expired or was rescinded because I wasn’t sure which.  What I was sure of was that he was carrying illegally the night of the riot.  And his status or Kyle’s had nothing to do with the shooting.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Warning shot are NEVER illegal.
> Rosenbaum was only HIT 4 times, but Kyle fired 5 shots at him, which is totally overkill for someone unarmed and not particularly threatening.


Look I have a CCW, warning shots are illegal.  They can hit bystanders, we were taught to give verbal warnings IF POSSIBLE, then shoot center of mass.  According to everything I have heard and my own lying ears Kyle fired four times In THREE QUARTERS OF A SECOND.  There was no time to asses his hits.  Rosenbaum was touching the flash hider of the rifle when he was shot.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Grosskruetz was shot, passed out, and given lots of pain killers.
> He also may have a political motive to not always trust police.
> But there is  nothing that could be construed as a lie, or else they would be prosecuting for perjury.


He lied under direct examination on the stand.  Not at the time he was shot.  He won’t be prosecuted for perjury because prosecution witnesses rarely are.  
why do you keep telling transparent lies?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 23, 2021)

Abatis said:


> View attachment 567448



What?
That sure looks like just an image of Robert Downey Jr., to me?


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 23, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You never fire warning shots, doofus.....you don't know where it will go......
> 
> Have you ever had to shoot in self defense....?   shooting the child rapist was Kyle's first self defense shooting, he was afraid and filled with adrenaline...ask any expert and they will tell you how distorted your perceptions are....he likely didn't realize he fired 4 times into the violent child rapist.
> 
> Grosscrud said his pistol was pointed at Kyle.........troll.



That is silly.
It is much easier to know where warning shots go, into the ground or up into the air, than to shoot directly at someone, with everyone else being behind them.
Anyone who does not shoot into the ground or up in the air, shows a deliberate intent to kill.
A ricochet from pavement or a bullet falling down has a very remote possibility of doing any significant harm.

The fact Kyle could have been effected by adrenaline is why it is illegal for a minor to be in possession, why he should not have brought a AR, and why he should not have had a 30 round magazine installed.
You are acting like these bad choices were not his fault.
They were.
All of it was due to Kyle's bad choices.

Assuming Grosskreutz was pointing his pistol at Kyle, how long do you think that was?
Grosskreutz had a full Medtech uniform, with lettering all over it.
So then Kyle SHOULD have been relieved.
What Kyle SHOULD have done is raised his hands, in order to surrender to Grosskreutz, just as he later did to police.
Clearly Grosskreutz had the pistol out and ready due to the shots already fired.
But he clearly was not an imminent threat because then he would have immediately shot Kyle, and he easily could have, at that close range.
But Grosskreutz was the one holding back and not firing.
So then there was zero reason for Kyle to rerack and then pull the trigger a second time.
That then was deliberate attempted murder.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 23, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> He thinks but until ruled on he is unsure…
> 
> First you wrote it as Kyle was carrying a short barrel rifle and when told it fall under the long barrel rule you pivoted and try this.
> 
> The charge was tossed and Kyle was found not guilty by the court, so what you believe should be matter not…



Wrong.
No one ever suggested the AR was undersized.
Barrel length is NOT one of the exclusions to the law making it illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm normally.
The exceptions include:
Being at a range
Being under adult supervision
Bring in the military
Hunting with a valid permit

Barrel length is only mentioned in passing, that these exceptions do not apply if the barrel is short.
Ask any WI NRA member.
This is not rocket science, and the laws are easily read and understood by anyone.

The judge clearly was in violation of the law when he dismissed this possession charge, so it will come back to harm both Kyle and the errant judge.
Unlike a jury verdict, this is supposed to get appealed.  If not, that would be proof the prosecutor also was biased in Kyle's favor.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Look I have a CCW, warning shots are illegal.  They can hit bystanders, we were taught to give verbal warnings IF POSSIBLE, then shoot center of mass.  According to everything I have heard and my own lying ears Kyle fired four times In THREE QUARTERS OF A SECOND.  There was no time to asses his hits.  Rosenbaum was touching the flash hider of the rifle when he was shot.



Wrong.
Warning shots are required by law because you are required to ensure possible threat has been properly warned to not advance any closer.
Shooting directly AT a person is about 1000 times more risk of hitting an innocent by stander.
While there is still some risk shooting into the ground or up into the air, it is miniscule.
Either will have a tiny fraction of the original energy.

Shooting at the center of mass is more likely to hit than shooting at skinny extremities, but if you are close enough to not miss, it is a lot less lethal to aim at an extremity.

Kyle fired 5 shot at Rosenbaum, and he did not have to assess.
The very first shot is so loud at close range, that the effect even if he missed, should have been sufficient.
Shooting 5 shots is insanely deliberate murder attempt.

Rosenbaum NEVER got close enough to actually touch the flash suppressor.
The forensics testing on the powder burns said 4'.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> He lied under direct examination on the stand.  Not at the time he was shot.  He won’t be prosecuted for perjury because prosecution witnesses rarely are.
> why do you keep telling transparent lies?



Grosskreutz never lied.
He did nothing illegal, so had no reason to lie.
At one time he was aiming at Kyle, but when shot, he could not have been.
There is no way Kyle's bullet could enter and leave perpendicular to Grosskreut's forearm bones, if the forearm was aimed at Kyle.
We do not need anyone to tell us their opinion on this, it is absolute fact.
Grosskreutz's arm had to be perpendicular to Kyle, meaning it was either pointing up, down, or to the side.
All of which would prevent any immediate threat to Kyle.
So there was no reason for Kyle to deliberately shoot a Medtech in uniform.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> What?
> That sure looks like just an image of Robert Downey Jr., to me?



Wow, you are freakin brilliant!


----------



## Abatis (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> It is much easier to know where warning shots go, into the ground or up into the air, than to shoot directly at someone, with everyone else being behind them.
> Anyone who does not shoot into the ground or up in the air, shows a deliberate intent to kill.
> A ricochet from pavement or a bullet falling down has a very remote possibility of doing any significant harm.
> ...



Of all those hundreds of individuals in the leftist riotous mob, 100% of those who did not attack Kyle Rittenhouse, were completely unharmed by Kyle Rittenhouse.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no way Kyle's bullet could enter and leave perpendicular to Grosskreut's forearm bones, if the forearm was aimed at Kyle.
> We do not need anyone to tell us their opinion on this, it is absolute fact.
> Grosskreutz's arm had to be perpendicular to Kyle, meaning it was either pointing up, down, or to the side.



Hey dummy, where was Grosskreutz shot, the forearm or the bicep?

Moment of bullet impact:


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2021)

Orangecat said:


> Incorrect.
> Regardless, the verdict is in, and your shitbags lost.
> The only question remaining is: How long are you going to cry about it?


Correct.
All you need to say:
1:  Not Guilty
2:  Your opinion doesn't matter


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2021)

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> The court did not agree and found Kyle did not murder those people but killed them in self defense…


Correct
1:  Not Guilty
2:  Your opinion doesn't matter


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Warning shots are required by law because you are required to ensure possible threat has been properly warned to not advance any closer.
> Shooting directly AT a person is about 1000 times more risk of hitting an innocent by stander.
> While there is still some risk shooting into the ground or up into the air, it is miniscule.
> ...



*Warning shots are required by law *

Cool story, bro.
Post the law.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Warning shots are required by law....


^^^^
If you never needed a reason to put Rigby on ignore, this is it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> If you never needed a reason to put Rigby on ignore, this is it.



He's not very bright.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He's not very bright.


More accurately:   He lies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> More accurately:   He lies.



He doesn't believe in limiting himself.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He doesn't believe in limiting himself.


... to the truth.
Right.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 26, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is silly.
> It is much easier to know where warning shots go, into the ground or up into the air, than to shoot directly at someone, with everyone else being behind them.
> Anyone who does not shoot into the ground or up in the air, shows a deliberate intent to kill.
> A ricochet from pavement or a bullet falling down has a very remote possibility of doing any significant harm.
> ...


Your ignorance is appalling.  If you shoot into the ground the round is likely to ricochet and hit someone.  If you fire into the air, the bullet is going to come down somewhere and hurt someone or damage property.  I have personal experience with that fact.  One Fourth of July, a bullet that an idiot like you fired up in the air came down and but a hole in the roof of my car.
And we are not “ASSUMING” that Grosskreutz pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse, he testified to it under oath, to go further, he admitted rhat Kyle stopped targeting him when he raised his hands and only reacquired him as a target when he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.  You have been told these facts many times, why do you continue to spout transparent lies?  Have you no self-respect?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 26, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> Your ignorance is appalling.  If you shoot into the ground the round is likely to ricochet and hit someone.  If you fire into the air, the bullet is going to come down somewhere and hurt someone or damage property.  I have personal experience with that fact.  One Fourth of July, a bullet that an idiot like you fired up in the air came down and but a hole in the roof of my car.
> And we are not “ASSUMING” that Grosskreutz pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse, he testified to it under oath, to go further, he admitted rhat Kyle stopped targeting him when he raised his hands and only reacquired him as a target when he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.  You have been told these facts many times, why do you continue to spout transparent lies?  Have you no self-respect?



I'm still waiting for him to post the law that requires warning shots be fired first.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 26, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Your ignorance is appalling.  If you shoot into the ground the round is likely to ricochet and hit someone.  If you fire into the air, the bullet is going to come down somewhere and hurt someone or damage property.  I have personal experience with that fact.  One Fourth of July, a bullet that an idiot like you fired up in the air came down and but a hole in the roof of my car.
> And we are not “ASSUMING” that Grosskreutz pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse, he testified to it under oath, to go further, he admitted rhat Kyle stopped targeting him when he raised his hands and only reacquired him as a target when he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.  You have been told these facts many times, why do you continue to spout transparent lies?  Have you no self-respect?



No its not.
The only way a shot into the ground could ricochet is if it hit a very large and flat rock, and even then, a ricochet has about 1/10 the energy.
Bullets shot into the air have so much area they can fall in, that the odds are essentially nil, and the speed of a bullet simply from gravity is about 1/10 that of an actual gunshot.

The testimony was deliberately made to sound contradictory, but the explanation to the press later made it clear.
Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.
Kyle never had time to "reacquire" as you claim.
It all happened much too fast for that.
The point is that Grosskreutz was confused by what the lawyer was asking him, and his answer was not correct.
The proof is that the Rittenhouse shot was perpendicular to the arm, so the arm had to be pointed up, NOT at Rittenhouse.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 26, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm still waiting for him to post the law that requires warning shots be fired first.



I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone, so if one does not fire off a warning shot, they can not claim they were forced to kill and had no alternative.
Clearly a warning shot is an alternative.
So anyone deliberately not firing a warning shot when it would have been possible, is guilty of deliberate attempted murder.


----------



## Faun (May 27, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No its not.
> The only way a shot into the ground could ricochet is if it hit a very large and flat rock, and even then, a ricochet has about 1/10 the energy.
> Bullets shot into the air have so much area they can fall in, that the odds are essentially nil, and the speed of a bullet simply from gravity is about 1/10 that of an actual gunshot.
> 
> ...



Holyfuckingshit! 

Aside from the reality a shot will ricochet off of concrete, not just rocks -- this case is done. Rittenhouse prevailed. Deal with it, Loser.


----------



## maybelooking (May 27, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> He probably wouldn't have ran down the road to stop those looters if he was unarmed.
> 
> 2 people would still be alive.


and of course,  HE would be dead....which you would be fine with.

idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No its not.
> The only way a shot into the ground could ricochet is if it hit a very large and flat rock, and even then, a ricochet has about 1/10 the energy.
> Bullets shot into the air have so much area they can fall in, that the odds are essentially nil, and the speed of a bullet simply from gravity is about 1/10 that of an actual gunshot.
> 
> ...



*Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.*

Show the moment of the shot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 27, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone, so if one does not fire off a warning shot, they can not claim they were forced to kill and had no alternative.
> Clearly a warning shot is an alternative.
> So anyone deliberately not firing a warning shot when it would have been possible, is guilty of deliberate attempted murder.



*I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone*

By putting innocent people in danger. Stupid idea.

*so if one does not fire off a warning shot, they can not claim they were forced to kill and had no alternative.*

You're lying.

*Clearly a warning shot is an alternative.*

A bad alternative. In some jurisdictions, an illegal alternative.

*So anyone deliberately not firing a warning shot when it would have been possible, is guilty of deliberate attempted murder.*

Liar.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 27, 2022)

Not Guilty x5
/ Thread


----------



## Faun (May 27, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> I never said there was a law requiring it...



LOL

You're such a dumbfuck.  

_


Rigby5 said:



			Warning shots are required by law...
		
Click to expand...

_​


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...



Incorrect in that a short barrel is not necessary for the violation.
The law is clear and Rittenhouse was in violation.
Short barrels are not the intent or even mentioned in the ordnance.
Short barrels only are mentioned in that they make the 3 exceptions void.
The 3 exceptions where a juvenile is allowed to be armed is at a range, with a hunting license, or in the military.
These 3 exceptions are void if the weapon is short barreled.
Here is the actual ordnance.

{...
*948.60* * Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.*

(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

(3)

(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
...}


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2022)

Rambunctious said:


> And he would not of been there at all if there wasn't a riot that threatened his friends store....while cops were told to stand down....



He had no friend with a store there.
Rittenhouse had intended to defend a car dealership, but they told him to move on.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2022)

Faun said:


> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> Aside from the reality a shot will ricochet off of concrete, not just rocks -- this case is done. Rittenhouse prevailed. Deal with it, Loser.



Nonsense.
I have watched thousands of bullets hit concrete, and ricochets are not only extremely rare, but with so little energy left as to be almost harmless.
If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered.  It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.  
Rittenhouse did not prevail by the application of law, but by an obviously corrupt judge who deliberately intimidated and limited the prosecution.  And the prosecution likely was already prejudiced in his favor as well.
If we had been armed back on the Vietnam protest days, you can bet the police would have gunned us down.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.*
> 
> Show the moment of the shot.



That is impossible because stop action images could easily be before or after.
But we know Grosskreutz had to be pointing his pistol up into the air because Rittenhouse's bullet went perpendicular to the forearm bone.
Since Rittenhouse was shooting level with the ground, that means Grosskreutz had to be pointing his forearm straight up.
If Grosskreutz had been pointing AT Rittenhouse, then is bullet would have traveled parallel to the forearm bone instead of perpendicular to it.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jul 2, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone*
> 
> By putting innocent people in danger. Stupid idea.
> 
> ...



Warning shots endanger no one.
Deliberately shooting directly at someone is infinitely more dangerous.

And no, warning shots are the historic norm, and are never illegal anywhere, ever.
Anyone who does not fire a warning shot shows an intent of deliberate murder.
The only exception would be if the other person was already shooting and there no longer was time for warning shots.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> But we know Grosskreutz had to be pointing his pistol up into the air because Rittenhouse's bullet went perpendicular to the forearm bone.



Up? At what angle?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Warning shots endanger no one.
> Deliberately shooting directly at someone is infinitely more dangerous.
> 
> And no, warning shots are the historic norm, and are never illegal anywhere, ever.
> ...



*Warning shots endanger no one.*

You're lying.

*Deliberately shooting directly at someone is infinitely more dangerous.*

It was dangerous to the two dead felons. And to Lefty.

*And no, warning shots are the historic norm, and are never illegal anywhere, ever.*

If only you could post some proof.

*Anyone who does not fire a warning shot shows an intent of deliberate murder.*

Murder? What about self-defense?


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> I have watched thousands of bullets hit concrete, and ricochets are not only extremely rare, but with so little energy left as to be almost harmless.
> If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered.  It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.
> Rittenhouse did not prevail by the application of law, but by an obviously corrupt judge who deliberately intimidated and limited the prosecution.  And the prosecution likely was already prejudiced in his favor as well.
> If we had been armed back on the Vietnam protest days, you can bet the police would have gunned us down.





You are so full of shit.  Ricochets happen all of the time, and if you know how to do it, they are controllable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> I have watched thousands of bullets hit concrete, and ricochets are not only extremely rare, but with so little energy left as to be almost harmless.
> If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered.  It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.
> Rittenhouse did not prevail by the application of law, but by an obviously corrupt judge who deliberately intimidated and limited the prosecution.  And the prosecution likely was already prejudiced in his favor as well.
> If we had been armed back on the Vietnam protest days, you can bet the police would have gunned us down.



*If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered. It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen. *


----------



## westwall (Jul 3, 2022)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered. It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen. *





Rigby knows very little about anything.  Oh, he DOES love fascism.

Tells you all you need to know


----------



## Rambunctious (Jul 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> He had no friend with a store there.
> Rittenhouse had intended to defend a car dealership, but they told him to move on.


Thanks for the clarification but just whom told him to move on?...
He has a right to defend his friends property... especially when the cops are ordered to stand down to the rioting....


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 3, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.
> 
> The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.
> 
> ...


----------

