Kyle Rittenhouse is an American Political Hero far wise and mature beyond his years.

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

 

[easyt65]

Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, etc....wasted life resulting from piss-poor decisions. If thought out and other choices would have been made they would still be alive.

KW made a bad decision, as did the people who decided to chase down and attack someone with a gun....

Life is, many times, completely UNFORGIVING.

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Nope. He doesn't have a criminal record, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

That doesn't make a bit of difference. Black maintained possession. Therefore he owned it.

He shouldn't have had possession? Was it illegal for him to have possession of a fire arm? No. Saying "it resulted in the deaths of two people" is just a back handed way of saying he murdered them, which is pure horseshit. He defended himself, and they got what they deserved.

Your attempt to accuse Rittenhouse of murder couldn't be sleazier.

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

firearms arent illegal and there isnt an age limit in the 2nd A,,

and what crime has he been convicted of that makes him a criminal??

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

He isn't a criminal, and the firearm isn't illegal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Now, isn't THAT profound? I'd say the primary contributing factor to my never being shot and killed is, in fact, my choice to never engage in violent riots and assaults on other people. Seems to be a really effective method.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

POSSIBLY illegal, in fact, because that law is the most convoluted nest of legal snakes I've seen recently. I expect arguing about the content of that law is going to be a major factor in his trial, which makes all these leftist rushes to judgement about, "Well, it IS illegal, and therefore he IS guilty, it's completely cut-and-dried" the complete crapfest that they are.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Nope. He doesn't have a criminal record, moron.

Oh, but the day is young, you goofy little simp.

If you think Rittenhouse is walking away from this scott-free, you're high...

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That doesn't make a bit of difference. Black maintained possession. Therefore he owned it.

There's a vast difference between ownership and possession. Yes, Black technically owns the gun. But Rittenhouse was in possession of it. If you think he didn't, you're seriously out of your league here. Rittenhouse was in possession of the gun. We know he was, because he killed two people with it...

He shouldn't have had possession? Was it illegal for him to have possession of a fire arm? No.

Under both Illinois and Wiscosin law, yeah, dummy, it was illegal for him to be in possession of the rifle.

Do you seriously not fucking know that?

Saying "it resulted in the deaths of two people" is just a back handed way of saying he murdered them, which is pure horseshit.

Stop being such a little drama queen.

In one of the instances where I drew my weapon, it resulted in the death of another. I didn't murder him, as murder has a very specific set of circumstances whgich need to be present for a homicide to be considered murder...

Your attempt to accuse Rittenhouse of murder couldn't be sleazier.

I think he went there hoping to find himself in a position where he could fire that rifle. That you believe that's "sleazy" could not be more meaningless to me...

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Nope. He doesn't have a criminal record, moron.

Oh, but the day is young, you goofy little simp.

If you think Rittenhouse is walking away from this scott-free, you're high...

He's guilty of violating the curfew, a misdemeanor. That's the same severity as getting a speeding ticket.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

If you believe that it was perfectly okay for him to conspire to illegally get a hold of a rifle, break curfew, and end up killing people, then you and I have nothing to discuss. I can sit back and wait for the outcome of the case...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

Something for which it was illegal for him to do...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Nope. He doesn't have a criminal record, moron.

Oh, but the day is young, you goofy little simp.

If you think Rittenhouse is walking away from this scott-free, you're high...

He's guilty of violating the curfew, a misdemeanor. That's the same severity as getting a speeding ticket.

Really?

I'll have to find it again, but I'm pretty sure he could go to jail for 9 months on that misdemeanor...

 

[bripat9643]

That doesn't make a bit of difference. Black maintained possession. Therefore he owned it.

There's a vast difference between ownership and possession. Yes, Black technically owns the gun. But Rittenhouse was in possession of it. If you think he didn't, you're seriously out of your league here. Rittenhouse was in possession of the gun. We know he was, because he killed two people with it...

He shouldn't have had possession? Was it illegal for him to have possession of a fire arm? No.

Under both Illinois and Wiscosin law, yeah, dummy, it was illegal for him to be in possession of the rifle.

Do you seriously not fucking know that?

Saying "it resulted in the deaths of two people" is just a back handed way of saying he murdered them, which is pure horseshit.

Stop being such a little drama queen.

In one of the instances where I drew my weapon, it resulted in the death of another. I didn't murder him, as murder has a very specific set of circumstances whgich need to be present for a homicide to be considered murder...

Your attempt to accuse Rittenhouse of murder couldn't be sleazier.

I think he went there hoping to find himself in a position where he could fire that rifle. That you believe that's "sleazy" could not be more meaningless to me...

He was in possession for the evening because black loaned it to him. That happens every day when people go hunting.

No, it is not illegal for someone under 18 to possess a rifle, although the law on this point is poorly written.

Who cares what you think? All that matters is what you can prove in court, and in that light he hasn't committed any felonies.

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

Something for which it was illegal for him to do...

not according to the 2nd amendment,,,

and how many other people that night were arrested for breaking curfew???
cause if the answer is zero he cant be charged for that either,,

 

[bripat9643]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

He didn't own the firearm, so how was it illegal?

The manner in which he obtained the gun makes it illegal.

Black put the gun in his name (which was stupid) simply because he knew Rittenhouse couldn't legally own it.

Also, it's illegal for Rittenhouse to possess a firearm due to his age...

Also, the forearm wasn't "obtained." Rittenhouse doesn't own it.

Both Rittenhouse and Black have confessed that Rittenhouse gave Black the money to buy the gun since Rittenhouse couldn't buy it himself. You can parse words, I suppose, but they both admitted why Rittenhouse gave him the money. It was so Black could buy him a gun.

Now, that's a separate issue altogether from the possession of a firearm, though, which cannot be argued. Rittenhouse had possession of the firearm and he shouldn't have, and the fact that he had it resulted in the deaths of two people...

I would say that the violent and criminal actions of those two people are what led to their deaths.

Yes, at the hands of a criminal wielding an illegal firearm...

Illegal because he was 17 instead 18. ANd if not for that, not a criminal.

Meanwhile you want to take responsibility for a violent assault, away from the people that made the violent assault and place the responsibility for the assault on their intended victim, who defended himself.



Yeah, I don't see the moral justification for your position. It seems to be based primarily on legal technicalities.

That's because you have some weird need to see this in terms of one party being right and the other party being wrong when, in fact, both parties were in the wrong...

You're in the wrong. Rittenhouse exercised his constitutional right to defend himself.

and carry a weapon,,,

Something for which it was illegal for him to do...

Nope.