Reactions to Kyle verdict define different views of the meaning of “justice.”

[Rigby5]

Blake PULLED a KNIFE on the cops you stupid FUCK

Wrong.
In the video you can see there was no knife, no knife was ever found, and Blake never even turned around.
His back was to the police.
He could not threaten the police even if he had a knife, with his back turned to them.
But again, there was NO knife.
No knife was ever found.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Wrong.
You clearly are not reading simple English properly.

It does NOT just say " 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".

Besides being able to be in violation of 941.28, is also says the minor is guilty if they fit other criteria, "or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304and 29.593".

What the whole sentence says is that a minor can be legal in possession of a short barreled firearm if they are hunting and have a valid hunting license.
Kyle did not need to have a short barrel to be guilty.
He was already guilty.
The whole main part of the statute is about it being illegal for minors to be in possession of any firearm.
This is just the fine details on little exceptions.
And the exception here is about valid hunting with a license.
Kyle is not eligible for that exception since he was not hunting and had no hunting permit.

Only a total idiot who can not read and understand plain English would ever begin to claim this tiny exception then totally invalidated the entire statute.

The judge, defense AND PROSECUTION all disagree with you, so will you please shut up about the gun possession charge. If you doubt me look it up in the minutes of the trial or watch the video from the live stream. When forced, the prosecution had to admit the gun possession charge was incorrect.

 

[Rigby5]

Lakhota, by posting Tucker's documentary, (and that he was in cahoots with the prosecution) you are implying that every sane, intelligent person did not know Kyle was innocent from day one.

Anyone hearing a kid brought a rifle to a riot far from his home, knows immediately he is guilty.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Read the statute.
Clearly the barrel length is not relevant if Kyle had no valid hunting permit.
No one can read the statute and find Kyle not guilty, without lying.
So that just makes the 3 also guilty.

You are not only ignorant and opinionated, you are an idiot.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Lots of racist judges have lied for eons.
Why do you think we had to hang the judges from the lamp posts in 1776?
It may well be we will have to do it again.

Just read the statute.
It is clear the barrel length is of no consequence, since Kyle had no valid hunting permit.

It is also clear that the charge was dismissed for good reason.

There is no evieence of racism and the prosecutor agreed

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.
In the video you can see there was no knife, no knife was ever found, and Blake never even turned around.
His back was to the police.
He could not threaten the police even if he had a knife, with his back turned to them.
But again, there was NO knife.
No knife was ever found.

Jacob Blake admits he had a knife when he was shot by police so much for your ignorance

 

[Soupnazi630]

Anyone hearing a kid brought a rifle to a riot far from his home, knows immediately he is guilty.

Not when attacked by others which no one was justified to do.

 

[Rigby5]

Last chance for you to cure your ignorance.

State Law: Why the Jury MUST Aquit Kyle Rittenhouse of Gun Charge - Minnesota Right Now

Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying the rifle LEGALLY on the night of the Kenosha shootings, despite the fact he was 17. That's because of the complicated language

minnesotarightnow.com

.

Apply English to the subsection that mentions short barrels.

{...
(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.
...}

It clearly says, "or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593".

Here is 29.304.
{...
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
...}

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304/3/b

Here is 29.593.
{...
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
...}

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593/3

So what 948.60 is saying is that it is illegal for a minor to possess a firearm, with the exception of when hunting with a valid hunting permit.

 

[Rigby5]

Jacob Blake admits he had a knife when he was shot by police so much for your ignorance

Wrong.
There was only a little folded pocket knife and it was not unfolded, so was not yet a knife.
{...
"I realized I had dropped my knife, I had a little pocketknife, so I picked it up," Blake said of his scuffle with the Kenosha officer, who had tazed him.
...}

At no time were the police ever under any threat of a knife.

 

[Rigby5]

Not when attacked by others which no one was justified to do.

Yes they are.
Anyone bringing a deadly weapon like a rifle, to oppose the demostration/riot, is deliberately and illegally threatening them with bodily harm.
So anyone was justified in killing Kyle to end the threat.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

This was explained at the trial. The judge was correct and followed the law.

I presented the Wisconsin statute which sets the age limit that wreckless 17-year-old kid violated. If an ACTUAL exception to the statute exists, present it! Lacking that, your assertion that the judge was correct is baseless. Judge Schroeder essentially ruled that a person LESS than 18 years of age can carry any weapon EXCEPT short-barreled rifles or shotguns when the cited statue forbids minors from carrying ANY dangerous weapons!

"As Schroeder and attorneys from both sides debated the wording of jury instructions on Monday the defense renewed its request to dismiss the possession charge. Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that reading the statute to allow minors to carry any weapon except a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun basically negates the prohibition on minors carrying weapons.

“I believe that this . . . essentially swallows the entire statute,” Kraus said."
[ EXPLAINER: Why Did Judge Drop Kyle Rittenhouse Gun Charge? ]

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

JackOfNoTrades

I said it and stand by it. You seem to be grunting some disagreement. LOL. Sheesh.

Your rhetoric is always dull and plodding.

Try something new for you. Try something factual. I’ll start:

If we had two systems of justice — as you “liberals” so often contend — then people of color would never be acquitted. But we know that people of colors do get acquitted. It happens on a regular basis. So, it can’t be true that there are “two systems” of justice.

I look forward to seeing from you a reasonable and factually-based effort at rebuttal.

Look. I'm not expecting much here. I've watched you post for a while and you're just the latest flavor of right wing bent "flooding the zone".
But, I'll try. There are literally hundreds of examples of this. Tamir Rice and Breonna Taylor spring to mind immediately. Two people shot and killed out of hand
with no consequences for the white men (police admittedly). But the two tiered system of justice works everyday. You just don't hear about it. Or you will
after the black man is executed.

Brennan Center for Justice Op-Ed: End the Two-Tiered System of Justice | U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts

www.warren.senate.gov

I understand you'll dismiss this. But the hard truth here is, if Kyle Rittenhouse was black, he'd be heading to prison right now...for a long time.
And people like you, wouldn't be standing up to defend him. No one asked him to come to Kenosha, it was illegal for him to posses and brandish
the rifle he had on that night, and he can thank his lucky stars his last victim wasn't more determined...cause he would have been dead.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

You think a teen with gun trying to stop criminals from burning down businesses is the threat and not the criminals burning and looting? Hun, you need some help...

They were protesters. They had a legal right to protest. No one asked him to come to Kenosha and sport a rifle that wasn't legal for him to carry.
His last victim thought he was an active shooter. And I have no doubt that poor little Kyle was lying on the ground to aim his rifle..not duck.

 

[Rigby5]

This is pretty interesting. Former prosecutor says the case probably shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

Wrong.
It is still illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, it is illegal to cross state lines in order to intimidate a legal political protest, it is illegal to use a rifle to intimidate at a protest, and you can not legally claim self defense when you deliberately provoke the confrontation.

 

[Rigby5]

?? say what?

Both Kyle and the protestors/rioters fit the description of vigilantes equally.

{...
vigilante
[ˌvijəˈlan(t)ē]

NOUN

1. a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
   ...}
   
   

 

[USAF 2023]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

The witness for the Prosecution admitted he aimed his Gun at Kyle first. One of the Scumbags he shot tried to hit him in the head with a Skateboard . The Child Molester ran after him, threatened to kill him and tried to grab his gun
Please tell us how his “ Victims” were trying to defend themselves. You’re a moron

 

[Rigby5]

Blake PULLED a KNIFE on the cops you stupid FUCK

Wrong.
A folded pocket knife is not a deadly weapon.
There was no grounds for anyone to pull any trigger.

 

[Mac1958]

Wrong.
It is still illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, it is illegal to cross state lines in order to intimidate a legal political protest, it is illegal to use a rifle to intimidate at a protest, and you can not legally claim self defense when you deliberately provoke the confrontation.

Well, that was the prosecution's case. Didn't work.

I don't know why they dropped the minor-with-a-firearm charge. That seemed weird.

 

[JoeMoma]

Businesses need to get burned down if the businesses are going to encourage or allow deliberate attempted murder like the police did to Blake.
There is no excuse for what those police did, and even worse is those police not being prosecuted.
That is above everything else, and totally negates the entire government.
It makes the government and anyone paying taxes to support them, the criminals.

Even if you disagree that the shooting of Blake was a legit shooting by the police, you blame the businesses? OMG!

Do you pay taxes? If so, by your own logic you are a criminal. (And so am I).

 

[Rigby5]

The witness for the Prosecution admitted he aimed his Gun at Kyle first. One of the Scumbags he shot tried to hit him in the head with a Skateboard . The Child Molester ran after him, threatened to kill him and tried to grab his gun
Please tell us how his “ Victims” were trying to defend themselves. You’re a moron

All the demonstrators were trying to defend themselves because being in possession of a long range rifle, Kyle was deliberately attempting to threaten them all with deadly force.

Notice that no one else who was not threatening anyone with deadly force was attacked.
Only the one threatening everyone with a deadly rifle was attacked.
And he should have been attacked.
Threatening everyone with a rifle is illegal.

He can't claim defense, when clearly he was the one who was escalating the violence with a rifle, and was deliberately causing a lethal threat to everyone.
All he had do in order to be safe, like everyone else, was simply to stop threatening everyone with a rifle.
The rifle in no way was defensive, and was offensive instead.
No sane person brings a rifle to a riot/demonstration, (with the exception of store owners who stay on their own property).