Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

Yes, that is the claim.

We'll see what happens at trial.

Right now, you and others are only speculating on the outcome.

 

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

He'll go to trial.

It will be very political.

We will see the outcome then.

All we are doing now is speculating (and in your case hoping).

I recall how O.J. walked when he was so "guilty".

 

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.

He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.

And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.

He was not allowed to be in possession of that gun since he wasn't hunting.

Are you saying he could not go to a shooting range ?

I see young people there all the time with their fathers who are firearms instructors.

I am guessing there is some provision for having one under adult supervision.

Just a guess.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

He went across state lines. I believe the Never said he was guilty and I was kidding anyway. I forgot That you’re a moron that takes everything literally

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

It was a joke. Christ, you’re stupid.

Poor, ShortBus, so farklemt, he responds twice in one post. Moron, crossing a state line isn't a federal crime. Impeached Trump can't pardon him.

It's like this, lil faun, the perv, I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property and I would be armed to the hilt. Once they are on private property and do need heed the warning? I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their sorry asses and that goes double if I was being threatened by a cowardly mob like ANTIFA and BLM. They will not be marching down the street of my suburb because in Texas, we don't put up with that shit and we believe in the right to protect ourselves and our property. Commie fucks like yourself are learning the hard way that we have tired of their shit and have lost the patience that those of your ilk viewed as weakness.

If these commie fucks are so fucking outraged and so fucking tough, why aren't they taking their angst out on "da gubermint" instead of destroying private property and attacking people that had nothing to do with the death of their heroes like George "light up a blunt" Floyd? Could it be because the police are armed? Rittenhouse isn't going to do any hard time and you can bank on that one.

(snicker)

Do that in Wisconsin, dickless delusional dale, and you will [go to] prison. Using lethal force in that state to protect someone else's property is illegal.

Trump will just pardon him. (For Faun...this was a joke used to trigger MarcATL...relax snowflake who takes everything literally)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice

Please tell the class what an assault rifle is puddinhead... Then identify anyone who was at the protest who had one... Thanks for your time...

Ones like Reagan banned - such as AR-15s. Would you have rather I said semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines?

Reagan was a racist gun grabber. What's your point?

And, no. You should have said semi-automatic sporting rifle with a standard-capacity magazine. Hi-cap doesn't start until 50+ rounds. 30-40 rounds is standard, in common use.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.

He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.

And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.

He was not allowed to be in possession of that gun since he wasn't hunting.

Here you are again, misinterpreting 939.48. THE PRESUMPTION (that deadly force was reasonable) does not apply if the actor was engaged in criminal activity. The PRESUMPTION does not apply, not the affirmative defense of self-defense.

Please stop misstating and mischaracterizing law.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

Yes he has.

He has not completely linked his position to the constitutionality of the law.

Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Says 17-Year-Old Acted ‘100 Percent’ in ‘Self-Defense,’ Was Legally Carrying Rifle | National Review

Rittenhouse carried an AR-15-style rifle and was attempting to protect businesses from being looted or set ablaze by demonstrators, his lawyer said.

www.nationalreview.com

“This is 100 percent self-defense,” Rittenhouse’s lawyer John Pierce said on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. “The only individuals Kyle shot were the three individuals attacking him and putting him at risk. This is a 17-year-old kid, this is amazing what he did.”

The article then goes on to say that the lawyer will challenge the constitutionality of the law.

But there is nothing to indicate that is what his entire case hinges on.

It largely does hinge on that law. If one cannot claim self defense because as the laws state, self does not apply to those engaged in criminal activity, then the judge will be obligated to instruct the jury that they cannot consider Rittenhouse’s argument of self defense. That's the reason his attorney wants to nullify Wis. 948.60.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

Yes, that is the claim.

We'll see what happens at trial.

Right now, you and others are only speculating on the outcome.

So? That's all any of us can do.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

He'll go to trial.

It will be very political.

We will see the outcome then.

All we are doing now is speculating (and in your case hoping).

I recall how O.J. walked when he was so "guilty".

OJ walked because the jury followed the law and the judge's instructions to the jury about the law.

If the same happens here, the jury should convict.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.

He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.

And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.

He was not allowed to be in possession of that gun since he wasn't hunting.

Are you saying he could not go to a shooting range ?

I see young people there all the time with their fathers who are firearms instructors.

I am guessing there is some provision for having one under adult supervision.

Just a guess.

I said nothing about shooting ranges. Wisconsin law might make exceptions for shooting ranges as they do for hunting. And irrelevant of course, as Rittenhouse wasn't at a shooting range when he murdered those folks. That you've seen minors at them is meaningless as such laws vary from state to state.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.

He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.

And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.

He was not allowed to be in possession of that gun since he wasn't hunting.

Here you are again, misinterpreting 939.48. THE PRESUMPTION (that deadly force was reasonable) does not apply if the actor was engaged in criminal activity. The PRESUMPTION does not apply, not the affirmative defense of self-defense.

Please stop misstating and mischaracterizing law.

I didn't say Rittenhouse can't claim self defense court. I said the jury does not have to accept it because he was himself committing a crime. A reasonable fear is the crux of a self defense case and he loses that, as you point out, presumption.

 

[Lakhota]

At least Trump can't pardon Rittenhouse for state crimes.

 

[Faun]

At least Trump can't pardon Rittenhouse for state crimes.

Tell that to ShortBus, aka AzogtheDefiler. He didn't know that until I explained it to him.

 

[AZrailwhale]

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

Wrong. Someone else in the crowd fired their hand gun, possibly striking the pedo in a red shirt who was chasing Kyle.

I heard a rumor, that the skateboard guy, maybe, received a shot in the back. If that were true, then it means someone else was shooting their weapon into the melee.

It wasn't the one with the skateboard, it was the first guy to attack Rittenhouse near the gas station before the mob chased and ultimately attacked him. The shot in the back was also the one that killed Kyle's attacker, not the rounds from Kyle's rifle. That's according to the autopsy.

 

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

Yes he has.

He has not completely linked his position to the constitutionality of the law.

Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Says 17-Year-Old Acted ‘100 Percent’ in ‘Self-Defense,’ Was Legally Carrying Rifle | National Review

Rittenhouse carried an AR-15-style rifle and was attempting to protect businesses from being looted or set ablaze by demonstrators, his lawyer said.

www.nationalreview.com

“This is 100 percent self-defense,” Rittenhouse’s lawyer John Pierce said on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. “The only individuals Kyle shot were the three individuals attacking him and putting him at risk. This is a 17-year-old kid, this is amazing what he did.”

The article then goes on to say that the lawyer will challenge the constitutionality of the law.

But there is nothing to indicate that is what his entire case hinges on.

It largely does hinge on that law. If one cannot claim self defense because as the laws state, self does not apply to those engaged in criminal activity, then the judge will be obligated to instruct the jury that they cannot consider Rittenhouse’s argument of self defense. That's the reason his attorney wants to nullify Wis. 948.60.

Thank you for providing your view on the matter.

As stated elsewhere, there will be a court hearing and a verdict. Probably an appeal if there is a guilty verdict.

I'll just watch and see.

 

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

He'll go to trial.

It will be very political.

We will see the outcome then.

All we are doing now is speculating (and in your case hoping).

I recall how O.J. walked when he was so "guilty".

OJ walked because the jury followed the law and the judge's instructions to the jury about the law.

If the same happens here, the jury should convict.

Give me an S

Give me a P

.........

 

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.

He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.

And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.

He was not allowed to be in possession of that gun since he wasn't hunting.

Are you saying he could not go to a shooting range ?

I see young people there all the time with their fathers who are firearms instructors.

I am guessing there is some provision for having one under adult supervision.

Just a guess.

I said nothing about shooting ranges. Wisconsin law might make exceptions for shooting ranges as they do for hunting. And irrelevant of course, as Rittenhouse wasn't at a shooting range when he murdered those folks. That you've seen minors at them is meaningless as such laws vary from state to state.

When someone makes an unqualified claim, I point it out.

There are plenty of other places he could legally have a gun.

Where he was that night was NOT one of them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

First shooting
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

Second shooting
Mr. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene. Several people chase him, some shouting, “That’s the shooter!”

As Mr. Rittenhouse is running, he trips and falls to the ground. He fires four shots as three people rush toward him. One person appears to be hit in the chest and falls to the ground. Another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm and runs away.

Mr. Rittenhouse’s gunfire is mixed in with the sound of at least 16 other gunshots that ring out during this time.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

I've heard various comments from people, including Trump, that Kyle Rittenhouse was only "defending" himself from attacks. However, in reality, it appears that Rittenhouse was only attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head.

View attachment 383306

Your own story says the first guy was "lunging for him". Why do you suppose he was doing that, because he was desperate to shake Kyle's hand and wish him a pleasant evening?

As always, you are even more stupid in service of your pusillanimous agenda than nature made you, which is frankly amazing.

 

[Jitss617]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

Wisconsin is an open carry state:

Wisconsin is an open carry state. This means that gun owners can carry a loaded gun in public. Gun owners do not need a permit or license to carry a gun in public. A person is considered to be “openly carrying” a gun when a casual observer can see the weapon.

Wisconsin open carry state - Google Search

So, this essentially says civilians can pack guns whereever they'd like.

Would you care to amend your claim ?

Rittenhouse was only 17 - which made it illegal.

Why was he running from the first guy / mob?

 

[Cecilie1200]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

Unless they happen to be BLM/Antifa, and patrolling a self-proclaimed "autonomous zone", apparently, since I don't recall your hypocritical "How dare you defend yourself when we want to oppress you!" ass saying a fucking WORD about "should be disarmed" back then.

You continue to be a stain on the human race.