EvilCat Breath
Diamond Member
- Sep 23, 2016
- 79,081
- 55,114
So he's not a child murderer. You agree.The shooter.
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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
So he's not a child murderer. You agree.The shooter.
The shooter.
That's for a jury of his peers to decide.So he's not a child murderer. You agree.
So? Commit adult crimes, pay adult penalties. Still, he was a child when he killed two people.He's being tried as an adult.
So? Commit adult crimes, pay adult penalties. Still, he was a child when he killed two people.
His age at the time dictates he was a child. You don't like that? Tough shit. Go cry in a dictionary.I have no problem trying him as an adult. But if you are going to try someone as an adult and have them face adult time,
to at the same try characterize them as a "child" is....
very strange of you.
His age at the time dictates he was a child. You don't like that? Tough shit. Go cry in a dictionary.
The dictionary defines a child as someone who has not yet reached the age of majority...No, his age dictates that he was legally a "minor". Considering his actions, I have been mostly referring to him as a "Young man".
What kind of person WANTS to put a "child" away for life?
Or maybe stupid is your default setting.He shot two adult white men. Which was the child ? Where is the charge of harming a child?
It was you who said Kyle Rittenhouse was a child murderer. Where's the dead child?Or maybe stupid is your default setting.
Oh please, continue. Apparently, the best way to embarrass you is just to let you talk.It was you who said Kyle Rittenhouse was a child murderer. Where's the dead child?
So you cannot prove your assertion that Rittenhouse is a child murderer. Why did you say it? Did you just get carried away?Oh please, continue. Apparently, the best way to embarrass you is just to let you talk.
The dictionary defines a child as someone who has not yet reached the age of majority...
![]()
Definition of CHILD
a young person especially between infancy and puberty; a person not yet of the age of majority; a childlike or childish person… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
And the age of majority in Wisconsin is 18. So yes, by definition, he was a child.
It was self defense. There won't be a conviction for murder. It's time to let this go...lol![]()
Hunting laws allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to carry weapon, lawyers say
Prosecutor Thomas Binger dismissed the defense argument, saying Rittenhouse's attorneys should tell a jury he was "hunting on the streets" in Kenosha.www.nbcnews.com
"Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting two people during a protest in Wisconsin last year, argued that hunting laws allowed him to carry the assault-style weapon used during the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under age 18 from being armed, but Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that state laws only forbid minors to carry short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger responded that if the defense wants to tell a jury that Rittenhouse was only hunting, it should do so. “They can submit evidence that the defendant had a certificate to hunt and he was engaged in legal hunting on the streets of Kenosha that night,” Binger said Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied a defense motion to drop the weapons possession charge."
It is quite possible the defense team is just trolling the prosecutors and if so, that is pretty brilliant...this would also give potential jurors a nice laugh to lighten the mood...This also shows that the defense team is pretty confident that Rittenhouse will be found innocent...
The defense claim is that Kyle was allowed to carry an AR-15 styled rifle across state lines to protect businesses there from rioters; because all he was really doing was just hunting....and according to Wisconsin law; this is allowed..although Kyle is not a resident of Wisconsin nor has a hunting license there; however as long as he believed he was hunting, he should be ok...That will help clear him from any weapons possession charge the prosecutors charged him with.
No, I would never seek that. Of course, in this case, he's no longer a child. So should he be convicted of the charges against him, then yeah, lock him up with adult murderers and rapists for life.You want to lock up a child, with adult murderers and rapists for life?
Unfortunately for him, his trial [hopefully] starts in a few weeks.It was self defense. There won't be a conviction for murder. It's time to let this go...lol
The political officers prosecuting him will look like dumb fucks.Unfortunately for him, his trial [hopefully] starts in a few weeks.
The political officers prosecuting him will look like dumb fucks.