Kenosha: Trump declines to condemn violence from his supporters

[protectionist]

None of it seems to be rioting, it all seems to be rioting, nothing peaceful, nothing about the person who died. Just a bunch of people burning, looting, intimidation, violence, hate and nothing being accomplished and any messages are gone.

Even if they stuck to rioting over Jason Blake, they still would be wrong. Shooting was justified. Cops have to protect themselves.

 

[White 6]

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Somebody who wants him to protect his business ?

If it was, it was illegal. Has the owner of the weapon come forward to state that and take responsibility for arming the kid? Not bright, especially if a Wisconsin citizen and should have known the law.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Oh boy oh boy, when in doubt , make something up..

 

[Montrovant]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

What is illegal about defending yourself against armed attackers?

Let's shoot down some liberal arguments:

1. "He was too young to carry a gun."

Answer: Wrong, in Wisconsin 16 and 17yo's can have rifles and shotguns, as they are used to hunt.

2. He was illegally open carrying.

Answer: Wrong. Wisconsin is an open carry state.

3. He broke the law using deadly force.

Answer: Wrong. When attacked by someone who is chasing you that is fear for your life. Deadly force is reasonable.

4. He illegally transported the gun across state lines.

Answer: Wrong. The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. It never crossed state lines.

What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings

Answers to questions like does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law and other relevant information on the fatal Kenosha shootings.

www.jsonline.com

While 16 and 17 year olds can have guns for hunting, there are requirements involved. Here's the relevant statutes from my searching:

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Unless Rittenhouse was certified for hunting, and possibly unless he had the gun specifically for the purposes of hunting (I'm not certain about that), he had it illegally, based on those statutes. Even with that certification, if the rifle fits the criteria of a short barreled rifle, it would still be illegal.

It's a misdemeanor crime. Whoever gave or lent the gun to him, on the other hand, is apparently guilty of a felony.

It's not an SBR, not even close. Where do you come up with that nonsense?

I was pointing out the various stipulations involved in the Wisconsin gun law, one of which is for short-barreled rifles. I have no idea of the barrel length of Rittenhouse's gun.

I notice you ignored the rest of the post. Are you aware of evidence that Rittenhouse met the qualifications for a minor to carry a weapon in Wisconsin?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie fucks and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. Fuck'em and the horse they rode in on.

The domestic terrorist supporters here wanted the boy to die. It is as simple as that.

They all make a big deal out of the boy coming from out of state to PROTECT innocent people while totally supporting the terrorists coming from out of state to burn their businesses.

One of the key ingredients to psychopathy is the inability to feel empathy. Instead of feeling any empathy for the innocent people having their businesses burned down, all they can do is feel solidarity with the child rapists, arsonists and looters out there victimizing others.

 

[Oldestyle]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

As has been correctly noted several times, Trump thrives on chaos and conflict.

Trump and his supporters believe that Trump will benefit from this chaos and conflict.

You mean the chaos and conflict that's happening in cities controlled by Democrats? Trump benefits from it because it shows quite clearly what happens when liberal policies are given decades to fester! It's why Biden suddenly feels the need to do damage control on the riots! People observe what's happening and don't like what they see is being done by the Democrats in charge of these cities!

 

[Auld Phart]

Thread cleaned of inappropriate posts.

This is in Zone 1, if you don't know the rules, look them up.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

self defense is the most basic human right and the left is opposed to it

 

[Billy_Bob]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

WOW....

Lies right to the very last...

Trump is not telling his people that they must submit to the violence and that they have every right to defend themselves.

Its not the right that is creating the violence.. ITS THE LEFT WING FASCISTS and ANARCHISTS.

Another TDS outrage thread aimed at Americans defending thier very basic god given rights from fascists..

 

[beautress]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Self defense was not against the law, doll. Not ever.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Thread cleaned of inappropriate posts.

This is in Zone 1, if you don't know the rules, look them up.

[

.....and I quote

The Focus of the CDZ is Civil Discourse, regardless of the topic matter. Still, not all threads qualify for this forum. Some determinations are quick, some, are wait and see. If a thread is removed from this forum it is automatically trashed. Feel free to restart such a thread in a more appropriate forum. Understand that we are not here to run cover for propaganda or soap box preaching, be it left or right. Civil discourse is something we can each benefit from.

We are not here to run cover for propaganda or soap box preaching.
We are not here to run cover for propaganda or soap box preaching.
We are not here to run cover for propaganda or soap box preaching.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Kyl
[QUKyle killed three c="Daryl Hunt, post: 25404406, member: 51974"]

If that is the case, where is the cite?

In Post # 66, and about 100 others in the internet.

Wrong. The Source is from Kyle, himself making that claim to his lawyer. And Kyle isn't exactly the most credible source right about now. Where is the claimed business owners sworn testimony to back it up? You just made another splat on the wall.

If that is the case, where is the cite?

In Post # 66, and about 100 others in the internet.

Wrong. The Source is from Kyle, himself making that claim to his lawyer. And Kyle isn't exactly the most credible source right about now. Where is the claimed business owners sworn testimony to back it up? You just made another splat on the wall.

Kyle is far more credible than ANY of you people. He was THERE, you weren't. He shot three convicted felons. They have ZERO credibility because they are FELONS.

So no, it is YOU who went splat against the wall.

You do that a lot.

Mod Edit -- Removed content not legal in CDZ..

Cites, real cites. And if you did any research on Kyle you would note he's more than a bit of a crackpot himself. And his defense depends on a judge and jury believing in this crap with no credible proof. It ain't going to make it in the court room. And it ain't making it in here either.
[/QUOTE]
Kyle wasn't the only one there. There is a witness to the entire event from beginning to end.

 

[Mac1958]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Trump remains up-to-the-minute abreast of all positions and opinions maintained by Hannity, Limbaugh and Carlson, and therefore we can depend on him to respond appropriately to all questions and challenges.

He is sticking to script, not deviating one iota from what got him elected.

It's just a sad, ugly time in this country. A profoundly damaged President with zero principles, obediently playing directly to his base, and only to his base.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's just a sad, ugly time in this country. A profoundly damaged President with zero principles, obediently playing directly to his base, and only to his base.

For what it is worth, Trump's policies and initiatives greatly benefit people well beyond those who make up his base.

Want proof / evidence?

Six dim mayor's in dim state backing Trump

Things beginning to fall into place. Common sense will win. https://fox4kc.com/news/six-democrat-mayors-in-minnesota-endorse-trump-over-biden/

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[White 6]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie fucks and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. Fuck'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

 

[Chuz Life]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie fucks and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. Fuck'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Do me a favor.

Quote the 2nd Amendment and then tell me what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

OH do shut up.....Kyle did nothing wrong and everything right. The Left's terrorist squad of anti-fa and blm attacked the city and then him for trying to defend it. Tired of morons trying to pretend that the 17 year trying to help is the bad guy. The demonstrators (rioters, criminals, thugs, terrorists) attacked him for putting out their fire that they were going to use to burn more of the city down with. Trump did the right thing and tired of Trump being blamed for the DEMS terrorists attacking people. What type of twisted idiot blames Trump and kyle for the dems violent criminals attacking people---Dems are literally burning cities down and murdering people while theirs and the chinese progandists are trying to blame trump and spread fear hoping to scare people into allowing the violent socialists in---let us take over or we attack more Tom Paine? Is this the message you are trying to give?

 

[White 6]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie fucks and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. Fuck'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Do me a favor.

Quote the 2nd Amendment and then tell me what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is.

OK. Here goes. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[1]
It gives me the right (which I exercise) to keep and bear arms for my own defense, particularly my home, as well as if needed to act as part of a regulated force in defense of the common good. That "well regulated" part has always been a sticky wicket. It gives me the right to possess and use, but not necessarily the right to define "regulated" or necessarily to engage in defining defensive or offensive operation with weapons, totally on my own volition.
What does it mean to you?

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie fucks and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. Fuck'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.

Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

My OP is aimed principally at Donald Trump, not at the 17 year old kid.

The wannabe cop / actual vigilante clearly was acting as he thought he should, as his mother and his President encouraged him to. There is no denying that he was illegally roaming about three hours after curfew, acting as a fully armed vigilante 22 miles from home, and whatever his intentions his presence led to the unnecessary killing of two unarmed white guys who apparently rather foolishly (if heroically) tried to disarm him — because they perceived him as a threat or a fleeing shooter. They also had families and friends and loved ones and also thought they were there doing the right thing. One was a young father. Apparently one had medical training and brought a medical kit to treat others. Whatever the facts, the violence and deaths would never have occurred if the child vigilante and his mother did not think they were supported by our President. Many more will die unnecessarily if our President continues to encourage vigilante activities, and encourages the fantasy that our cities are filled with murderous BLM/Antifa rioters out to take over the country. This is part of his electoral strategy, which he believes will — and may in fact — get him re-elected.