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

[Soupnazi630]

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.

Yes they were and it was found open and was more than a pocket knife.

He was attempting to abduct children and steal a car. They tried non lethal means to stop him and shot him in justified self defense. You and he are both liars.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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).

No he was not and you are ignoring facts.

They had no right to attack him and threatened no one by simply carrying a rifle.

He can and did claim self defense and his claim was proven

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

No they were not and it was legal for him to be there even with a rifle.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Not just "weird", but clearly not what the statute says.
It is absolutely illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, with only a few exceptions that did not apply.
And that clearly was an illegal attempt by both the defense and the judge to make it sound legal and reasonable for Kyle to bring the rifle to the demo/riot, when clearly it was not.
It was both illegal and incredibly provocative.

 

[struth]

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.
   ...}
   

Kyle never took up law enforcement duties

and your demafascist brownshirts certainly didn’t either

 

[struth]

Not just "weird", but clearly not what the statute says.
It is absolutely illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, with only a few exceptions that did not apply.
And that clearly was an illegal attempt by both the defense and the judge to make it sound legal and reasonable for Kyle to bring the rifle to the demo/riot, when clearly it was not.
It was both illegal and incredibly provocative.

i’m sorry can you provide the code section saying the gun he was in possession of was illegal?


if not you are simply a liar

 

[maybelooking]

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? ]

Im good with the Judges decision and explanation.

If hes wrong you can start a thread when he is corrected for it. At that time I will gladly admit I was incorrect.

Wreckless? 3 people attacked him. 3 people got shot. Sounds more like judicious marksmanship than recklessness to me!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rigby5]

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).

Yes I blame the businesses.
They essentially OWN the police.
The police do what they say and want.
If the police are murdering Blacks and not being prosecuted for it, then it is the businesses who are at fault.

You and I would be criminals for allowing the police to commit murder if we did nothing.
But obviously I am at least writing in order to start change.
Are you doing anything about reducing murder by police?
Are you a criminal or not?
I do not know what you do, so I can not say.
That is for you to decide.

 

[JoeMoma]

Yes I blame the businesses.
They essentially OWN the police.
The police do what they say and want.
If the police are murdering Blacks and not being prosecuted for it, then it is the businesses who are at fault.

You and I would be criminals for allowing the police to commit murder if we did nothing.
But obviously I am at least writing in order to start change.
Are you doing anything about reducing murder by police?
Are you a criminal or not?
I do not know what you do, so I can not say.
That is for you to decide.

I pay taxes that go to support the police, so apparently I am a criminal.....by your logic.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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.

The 60’s sure did a number on you.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

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

Feeeeeeeelingssssss
Nothing more than feeeeeeellingggssssss

 

[USAF 2023]

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).

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).

Where is the “ evidence” that he was threatening people? Rosenbaum was running after him, threatened to kill him and tried to grab his gun;?Huber started to plummet him with a skateboard and the prosecution witness admitted he aimed HIS gun at Kyle first
Please tell us why Kyle is a “ White Supremacist”

 

[Rigby5]

No he was not and you are ignoring facts.

They had no right to attack him and threatened no one by simply carrying a rifle.

He can and did claim self defense and his claim was proven

Wrong.
It is an illegal provocation, intimidation, and deadly threat to being a rifle to a demostration/riot.
If any of the demonstrators/rioters had done that, the police would have immediately and legally shot them.
Same goes for the demonstrators/rioters having the right to end the deadly threat Kyle created, by killing him as well.

This is a very dangerous and illegal escalation.
Now by letting Kyle off for his irresponsible and illegal act, all demonstrators will now have to be armed as well.
And since the demonstrators are in the right. are the majority, and have the right of defense, now there is no way to prevent them from all being armed.
This travesty of injustice has escalated the level of violence to the point society could easily break down now.
And it will be the failure of the legal system that was at fault.
Kyle acted illegally and irresponsibly by ANY measure.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.
It is an illegal provocation, intimidation, and deadly threat to being a rifle to a demostration/riot.
If any of the demonstrators/rioters had done that, the police would have immediately and legally shot them.
Same goes for the demonstrators/rioters having the right to end the deadly threat Kyle created, by killing him as well.

This is a very dangerous and illegal escalation.
Now by letting Kyle off for his irresponsible and illegal act, all demonstrators will now have to be armed as well.
And since the demonstrators are in the right. are the majority, and have the right of defense, now there is no way to prevent them from all being armed.
This travesty of injustice has escalated the level of violence to the point society could easily break down now.
And it will be the failure of the legal system that was at fault.
Kyle acted illegally and irresponsibly by ANY measure.

LOL dozens of rioters had weapons you imbecile and be specific now and cite the law that makes it illegal to carry openly in Wisconsin?

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

They were not protestors, they were rioters. Protestors carry signs and chant slogans, they may even practice civil disobedience and refuse dispersal orders to get arrested. They don’t destroy property, set fires and assault bystanders.

 

[Rigby5]

i’m sorry can you provide the code section saying the gun he was in possession of was illegal?


if not you are simply a liar

Sure.
The basic statue 948.60 says it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm.
{... 948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
...}
Then there are a few minor exceptions where it is allowed.
{...
(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.
...}

The one the defense and judge used to let Kyle off on the illegal possession charge was the last one, (c).
But clearly they are wrong
A short barrel is not required for guilt.
The minor is also guilty if they do not have a valid hunting permit and are hunting.
{... 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. ...}

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

Since Kyle was not hunting or in possession of a valid hunting license, he was not in compliance with these subsections, so has to access to their exemptions.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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.

Because it didn’t apply to this case. It’s a poorly written law, being a minor in possession of a firearm was the only “crime” Rittenhouse was guilty of and the judge, defense and prosecution all agreed it had to be dropped because it didn’t apply in this case.

 

[Rigby5]

Im good with the Judges decision and explanation.

If hes wrong you can start a thread when he is corrected for it. At that time I will gladly admit I was incorrect.

Wreckless? 3 people attacked him. 3 people got shot. Sounds more like judicious marksmanship than recklessness to me!!!!!!!!!

Wrong.
Judges are frequently wrong.
It should be appealed and corrected, but that would be the responsibility of the prosecutor, who likely is also corrupt and does not want to.

For example, remember the Dredd Scott decision?
Clearly even the SCOTUS has been wrong and racist in the past.

Reckless?
Of course anyone bringing a rifle to a riot/demo is being incredibly reckless.
That is obviously illegal, provocative, and an imminent and deliberate threat to everyone else there.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wrong.
Judges are frequently wrong.
It should be appealed and corrected, but that would be the responsibility of the prosecutor, who likely is also corrupt and does not want to.

For example, remember the Dredd Scott decision?
Clearly even the SCOTUS has been wrong and racist in the past.

Reckless?
Of course anyone bringing a rifle to a riot/demo is being incredibly reckless.
That is obviously illegal, provocative, and an imminent and deliberate threat to everyone else there.

Cite the Wisconsin law that supports your claim.

 

[Rigby5]

Because it didn’t apply to this case. It’s a poorly written law, being a minor in possession of a firearm was the only “crime” Rittenhouse was guilty of and the judge, defense and prosecution all agreed it had to be dropped because it didn’t apply in this case.

No, the statute is clearly written.
It exempts even the possession of a short barrel if used for hunting and with a valid hunting license.
That is obviously what the statues say.

Since Kyle was not legally hunting with a valid license, there is no exception that was applicable.