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

[Soupnazi630]

Only at a range, under adult supervision, if they are in the military, if they are hunting with a valid permit, etc.
Kyle fit NONE of the exceptions, so was guilty.

The legal experts prove you wrong

 

[theHawk]

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.

Liar. Case was nothing like Zimmerman at all. We know you didn’t watch the trial or even read the details. He intimated no one. Most of those rioters had guns themselves. Kyle never pointed his weapon at anyone before being chased and threatened himself.

You’re a liar and a moron.

 

[theHawk]

Only at a range, under adult supervision, if they are in the military, if they are hunting with a valid permit, etc.
Kyle fit NONE of the exceptions, so was guilty.

The Democrat judge says differently. The language of the law is vague, he pointed that out.

 

[struth]

That is exactly what the WI law states, that is it illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm, except in a few circumstances.
And the short barrel has nothing to do with it.
The subsection 3(c) clearly requires the minor to have a valid hunting license before they can use that exception.

Only at a range, under adult supervision, if they are in the military, if they are hunting with a valid permit, etc.
Kyle fit NONE of the exceptions, so was guilty.

hahaa

Only at a range, under adult supervision, if they are in the military, if they are hunting with a valid permit, etc.
Kyle fit NONE of the exceptions, so was guilty.

that is not what subsection C says.

once again you either got caught lying or have really hard time with reading comp

 

[Rigby5]

So, it's ok for the "peaceful protestors" to be armed, but not anybody else?!? LOL

Retired St. Louis Police captain killed after ... - CNN​

It was wrong for anyone to be armed except the police, who could be trusted to not start shooting people.
None of the "peaceful protestors" were armed.
It would be illegal for them to be armed.
Grosskreutz was armed, but had a concealed carry permit and was there professionally.
If you look at this image, you will see his hat identified him as a paramedic.

 

[Rigby5]

The Democrat judge says differently. The language of the law is vague, he pointed that out.

The judge deliberately lied.
There is nothing remotely vague about the legislation.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It was wrong for anyone to be armed except the police, who could be trusted to not start shooting people.
None of the "peaceful protestors" were armed.
It would be illegal for them to be armed.
Grosskreutz was armed, but had a concealed carry permit and was there professionally.
If you look at this image, you will see his hat identified him as a paramedic.

Wrong.

It was a riot not a peaceffuly ptotest and many of them were armed.

Grosskreutz was ILLEGALLY armed.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The judge deliberately lied.
There is nothing remotely vague about the legislation.

No he did not YOU lied

 

[Rigby5]

hahaa

that is not what subsection C says.

once again you either got caught lying or have really hard time with reading comp

Here is exactly what subsection 3(c) says.

{...
(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.
...}

It clearly says the subsection 3(c) only applies if the firearm had a short barrel or the person is not hunting with a valid hunting permit.
That is all it covers.
It does nothing to negate the 948.60 statute when subsection 3(c) does not apply.

Since Kyle was not hunting or had a valid hunter permit, this subsection has no bearing at all.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

It was a riot not a peaceffuly ptotest and many of them were armed.

Grosskreutz was ILLEGALLY armed.

Wrong. Grosskreutz was not a felon and had a concealed carry permit.
And you will notice he was not charged with anything.

 

[DukeU]

It was wrong for anyone to be armed except the police, who could be trusted to not start shooting people.
None of the "peaceful protestors" were armed.
It would be illegal for them to be armed.
Grosskreutz was armed, but had a concealed carry permit and was there professionally.
If you look at this image, you will see his hat identified him as a paramedic.

I don't see how he had a ccp with his past.

Sole survivor of Rittenhouse shootings has criminal past ...​

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong. Grosskreutz was not a felon and had a concealed carry permit.
And you will notice he was not charged with anything.

He did not have a permit.

He was illegally carrying

 

[Lakhota]

‘Chilling’ Rittenhouse Verdict ‘Emboldens’ Vigilantes, Warns Wisconsin Newspaper​

Yep, NaziCon hell will now get even more racist and violent.

 

[Lastamender]

Wrong.
You can't go to a riot out of state, with a rifle, and claim "self defense".
It is not like he had property there to defend, or that the rioters had rifles.

I believe his uncle had a business there.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We should start a pool for how long before the murder weapon shows up for auction on unitedgungroup.com

The jury said it wasn't murder, you moron fucking Nazi..

 

[Meister]

‘Chilling’ Rittenhouse Verdict ‘Emboldens’ Vigilantes, Warns Wisconsin Newspaper​

Yep, NaziCon hell will now get even more racist and violent.

I guess you shouldn't go rioting then. I know it kills the weekend, but......the alternative isn't very pleasant.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Based on the case presented by the prosecution the correct verdict was reached .

Corrupt, dumbfuck?

Yeah, civil rights prevailed - which causes as Nazi fuck like you to melt down.

 

[Uncensored2008]

First Virginia takes a stand against the democrats. Now the verdict being NOT GUILTY restores our 2nd amendment.

More than that, the verdict confirms the very concept of civil liberties. democrats are dedicated to ending ALL civil liberties, The most basic being the right to defend oneself. This was a MAJOR blow to the fascist fucks like Golfing Gator

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It was wrong for anyone to be armed except the police, who could be trusted to not start shooting people.

The Second Amendment to our Constitution, which is the very highest law in this nation, very clearly says otherwise.

 

[BackAgain]

‘Chilling’ Rittenhouse Verdict ‘Emboldens’ Vigilantes, Warns Wisconsin Newspaper​

Yep, NaziCon hell will now get even more racist and violent.

Like all of Chief Shitting Bull’s pronouncements and predictions, the above waste of electrons will also prove absolutely worthless.