Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rittenhouse had the right to be there and his actions did not cause them to attack him
Wrong
There was no evidence withheld. The judeg never made any such claim.
No one was justified in disarming him
His not guilty verdict was based on self defense and his possession of the gun was legal. Those facts will be introduced by the defense. I doubt a jury will rule for the plaintiff.
He did not require a reason. He had every right to be there resident or not.Rittenhouse was not a resident of the state even, so had no reason to be there at all, much less illegally armed with a rifle.
If he has stayed on private property, it would not have been bad.
But he obviously was moving around in the crowd, trying to intimidate people with the rifle.
That is very criminal and everyone had a right to stop him.
His possession of a rifle was legal.His possession of the rifle was totally illegal.
The law is clear.
Those under 18 only can be armed under 3 conditions.
At a range where supervised.
While hunting with a valid permit.
Or in the military.
Wrong he was legally armed
Sorry but that is false as all legal experts agree.Wrong WI law clearly prohibits armed juveniles except under 3 supervised exemptions.
{...
Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
...}
Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
He did not require a reason. He had every right to be there resident or not.
He was legally armed
No he was not moving around in thr crowd trying to intimidate anyone he was in fact unilaterally attacked without provocation.
You are a liar and the facts i stated are proven
Yes there isThere is no way for a juvenile to be legally armed except under 3 adult supervised instances, none of which apply.
Anyone openly armed, moving around in a protest, is obviously being extremely provocative. One could say "threatening".
Sorry but that is false as all legal experts agree.
Your problem is that despite being legally armed his actions unintentionaly proved that the BLM riot was based on out right lies.
Yes there is
The law allows him to be armed to defend himself
He was not moving around any protest.
It was an invalid riot and he had every right to be there armed
Those are proven facts
You are confused Moon Bat.Wrong.
One of the charges was that Kyle was under age, and therefore is was illegal for him to be armed.
The judge threw out that charge.
Which was illegal.
The judge had no right to do that, since Kyle was obviously guilty.
He was under 18 and in possession of a rifle, not at a range or hunting with a valid permit.
{...
Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse Trial Dismisses Firearm Possession Charge
Zachary Evans
November 15, 2021...}
Rittenhouse's rifle was TOO LONG for the weapon to be considered a banned dangerous weapon according to Wisconsin law and both Rittenhouse's lawyers as well as the judge agreed.
You are confused Moon Bat.
This was discussed quite a bit in the trial. The law prohibiting people under 18 from carrying firearms did not apply to 17 year olds with a rifle having an overall length of an AR with a 16 inch barrel.
Just because you are an asshole that wanted it to apply to Kyle don't mean it was the law. The Judge threw it out because it was legal for Kyle under Wisconsin law to carry the AR-15. Stop denying the law. It just makes you look like an asshole.
However, you hate filled Moon Bat, it was illegal for Gaige Grosskreutz to have the Glock pistol that he used to threatened Kyle but I don't see you bitching about that criminal activity. Many of the goddamn destructive BLM shitheads doing the rioting that night were armed. The first person to fire a shot that night was a BLM peice of shit.
He did not dismiss it moron the prosecutor didThere is not a single legal expert who agrees with the judge about dismissing Kyle's juvenile firearms possession violation.
Are you claiming he was not a juvenile, or are you claiming that was not really a gun he killed people with?
Because the law is extremely clear and was obviously violated by Kyle.
You are confused Moon Bat.
This was discussed quite a bit in the trial. The law prohibiting people under 18 from carrying firearms did not apply to 17 year olds with a rifle having an overall length of an AR with a 16 inch barrel.
Just because you are an asshole that wanted it to apply to Kyle don't mean it was the law. The Judge threw it out because it was legal for Kyle under Wisconsin law to carry the AR-15. Stop denying the law. It just makes you look like an asshole.
However, you hate filled Moon Bat, it was illegal for Gaige Grosskreutz to have the Glock pistol that he used to threatened Kyle but I don't see you bitching about that criminal activity. Many of the goddamn destructive BLM shitheads doing the rioting that night were armed. The first person to fire a shot that night was a BLM peice of shit.
Grosskreutz wasn't even charged, even after admitting in open court that he threatened a minor child with a pistol that night.
Shouldn't he have been given a quick 20 years , no questions asked?
Yes he was legally armed sorry'Absolutely and totally wrong.
Here is the overview with all details.
{...
It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However, the exceptions are: “when a person under 18 possesses a rifle or shotgun” and "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."[8] Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."[9]\...}
Here is the actual statute:
{...
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
...}
You have to go deeper into the hunting exception to read about gun length, and the point is the hunting exception simply becomes unusable if the rifle is too short.
Rifle length no way allows Kyle to be in possession.
Wrong'Grosskreutz was a licensed and uniformed MedTech, legally carrying the pistol, which he NEVER fired.
After Kyle fired 8 rounds, everyone then had the right of self defense to end the obviously violent threat.
