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.
He did not dismiss it moron the prosecutor did
Yes they all agree it was correc
The law is clear and he had every right to be armed
You are a liarThat is ridiculous.
I just quoted the headlines that say it was the judge who dropped the juvenile illegally in possession of a firearm charge.
And it is obvious he was not only guilty, but there was no way he could not have been guilty.
Which means the judge should then be prosecuted for his obvious guilt.
Wrong'
He was not uniformed nor legaly carrying.
rittenhouse posed no threat to Grosskreutz. Grosskreutz was attempting murder.
You are a liar
Judges do not drop charges and rittenhouse was not guilty that is proven fact
LIARObviously the hat and shirt Grosskreutz is wearing, says "ParaMedic".
Yes he can be if he were guilty.Judges dismiss charges all the time, and of course he can't be found guilty once the judge drops the charge.
Not at all. Someone posted a thread about an armed robber who shot the clerk that shot at him and the killing was ruled self-defense. So surely a scared kid being attacked can shoot his attackers even if he weren't supposed to have the gun in the first place.Yes he can be if he were guilty.
Dropping those charges made no difference and even people illegally aqrmed have the right to defend themselves.
Carrying an illegal weapon does not negate ones right to self defense moron
Bernie Goetz was also illegally armed and was convicted of it.Not at all. Someone posted a thread about an armed robber who shot the clerk that shot at him and the killing was ruled self-defense. So surely a scared kid being attacked can shoot his attackers even if he weren't supposed to have the gun in the first place.
Another good example.Bernie Goetz was also illegally armed and was convicted of it.
but he still had the right to defend himself and was acquitted.
All of those allegations, if true would call for a mistrial. Kyle would be retried. You better tell someone.There obviously was evidence withheld from the jury, because the judge illegally claimed it was legal for Kyle to be in possession of the rifle, even though he was under 18 and it clearly is illegal.
Then once Kyle was in the commission of a crime by being armed, the jury would have be forced to admit that everyone else was then justified in trying to take the gun from Kyle, in order to stop is irresponsible, dangerous, and illegal actions.
I am sorry Moon Bat but you have a confused interpretation of the Wisconsin law. You live in a Moon Bat world of confusion.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.
So every Democrat prosecutor who has refused to prosecute people for crimes that they are obviously guilty of should be prosecuted? Many of the them are being pretty open about it, so the cases would be easy.That is ridiculous.
I just quoted the headlines that say it was the judge who dropped the juvenile illegally in possession of a firearm charge.
And it is obvious he was not only guilty, but there was no way he could not have been guilty.
Which means the judge should then be prosecuted for his obvious guilt.
All of those allegations, if true would call for a mistrial. Kyle would be retried. You better tell someone.
That POS got away with murder!
One was a first responder, the other was a medical student. Where the fuck do you get criminal, asshole?It's only murder if you kill a human being. The two creatures that Mr. Rittenhouse put down were subhuman criminal pieces of shit, not actual human beings.
View attachment 739802
One was a first responder, the other was a medical student. Where the fuck do you get criminal, asshole?
That's bullshit! They did not have criminal records!From their established records of being convicted of criminal activities.
Ity was self defense not murder.That POS got away with murder!
WrongThat's bullshit! They did not have criminal records!
www.lawofficer.com
