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.
Yes. There's no reason to carry a gun if you are not a soldier or a peace officer.
Now, more than ever, citizens need to be armed to protect themselves and their families against the violent mobs that your leftist masters adore and refuse to control.
The police, especially in your Major Urban Heck Holes, are really unable to protect the people. They realize that, depending on the race and sexual preference of the perp, they are likely to be charged with a Hate Crime themselves if they run him in.
Rittenhouse has studied first aid but to my knowledge has not claimed that was why he was at the riotDiga me Tonto, what the fuck kind of "first aid" can you "provide" with a fucking AR15?
Great, Kyle can put that on his resume for cell block C.I don't need to try again... you lied. You quoted an exception to the law as stating...You're wrong as always. Of course I'll post it...Bullshit. Of course you will not cite the Wisconsin law that says you are only allowed to carry a weapon if you are hunting, simply because no such law exists.Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.So he was hunting people then?He was under adult supervision.Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.www.bucherlawgroup.com
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
You're an idiot.
Furthermore, the video evidence clearly shows that Kyle was the prey being pursued by a pack of aggressive predators. He was the huntee, not the hunter.
The predators separated the calf from the herd and had him cornered. Predators pursue the littlest prey. But he had an equalizer.
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings
Answers to questions like does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law and other relevant information on the fatal Kenosha shootings.www.jsonline.comBut John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
And then there's Rittenhouse’s own attorneys who said they're planning on challenging that charge based on federal statutes which allow militia members to carry firearms even at 17 years of age. At no point did he say they would fight that charge because Wisconsin law allowed Rittenhouse to legally be in possession of a gun.
(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 under the supervision of an adult... in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.
Kyle was under the supervision of adults.
Try again, you idiot child molester apologist.
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 under the supervision of an adult... in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.
When it actually states (parts you left out are in red)...
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.
You literally altered the text of that law to make it read as though Rittenhouse is legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm for reasons even his own attorney isn't arguing. Of course, his own attorney can't alter that law in a courtroom the way you did here.
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
IF we are going to be technical, for a kid that wants to grow up to be a cop, actually protecting a building from being destroyed by rioters, under the supervision of adults,
would be quite educational.
Indeed, in a sane world, the cool manner in which Kyle handled himself, when separated from his group (by the police) and attacked by a violent mob led by a child molester,
would be fantastic resume builder.
Apparently you are so ignorant that you do not know what the word "or" means, dumbass. The part about target practice is irrelevant in this case because he was not engaged in target practice.I don't need to try again... you lied. You quoted an exception to the law as stating...You're wrong as always. Of course I'll post it...Bullshit. Of course you will not cite the Wisconsin law that says you are only allowed to carry a weapon if you are hunting, simply because no such law exists.Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.So he was hunting people then?He was under adult supervision.Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
You're an idiot.
Furthermore, the video evidence clearly shows that Kyle was the prey being pursued by a pack of aggressive predators. He was the huntee, not the hunter.
The predators separated the calf from the herd and had him cornered. Predators pursue the littlest prey. But he had an equalizer.
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60
What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings
Answers to questions like does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law and other relevant information on the fatal Kenosha shootings.www.jsonline.comBut John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
And then there's Rittenhouse’s own attorneys who said they're planning on challenging that charge based on federal statutes which allow militia members to carry firearms even at 17 years of age. At no point did he say they would fight that charge because Wisconsin law allowed Rittenhouse to legally be in possession of a gun.
(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 under the supervision of an adult... in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.
Kyle was under the supervision of adults.
Try again, you idiot child molester apologist.
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 under the supervision of an adult... in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.
When it actually states (parts you left out are in red)...
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.
You literally altered the text of that law to make it read as though Rittenhouse is legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm for reasons even his own attorney isn't arguing. Of course, his own attorney can't alter that law in a courtroom the way you did here.
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
Dumbfuck, you altered the law. You lied. You lost. You're done.Apparently you are so ignorant that you do not know what the word "or" means, dumbass. The part about target practice is irrelevant in this case because he was not engaged in target practice.I don't need to try again... you lied. You quoted an exception to the law as stating...You're wrong as always. Of course I'll post it...Bullshit. Of course you will not cite the Wisconsin law that says you are only allowed to carry a weapon if you are hunting, simply because no such law exists.Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.So he was hunting people then?He was under adult supervision.Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
You're an idiot.
Furthermore, the video evidence clearly shows that Kyle was the prey being pursued by a pack of aggressive predators. He was the huntee, not the hunter.
The predators separated the calf from the herd and had him cornered. Predators pursue the littlest prey. But he had an equalizer.
Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60
What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings
Answers to questions like does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law and other relevant information on the fatal Kenosha shootings.www.jsonline.comBut John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.
And then there's Rittenhouse’s own attorneys who said they're planning on challenging that charge based on federal statutes which allow militia members to carry firearms even at 17 years of age. At no point did he say they would fight that charge because Wisconsin law allowed Rittenhouse to legally be in possession of a gun.
(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 under the supervision of an adult... in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.
Kyle was under the supervision of adults.
Try again, you idiot child molester apologist.
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 under the supervision of an adult... in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.
When it actually states (parts you left out are in red)...
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.
You literally altered the text of that law to make it read as though Rittenhouse is legally allowed to be in possession of a firearm for reasons even his own attorney isn't arguing. Of course, his own attorney can't alter that law in a courtroom the way you did here.
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
Contrary to fake news reports, Kyle was under the supervision of an adult and the video evidence proves it. Furthermore, the second amendment US Constitution says that he has a right to keep and bear arms.
Actually, a reporter for the Daily Caller, Richard McGinnis, interviewed Kyle and the EMT he was with just minutes before The shooting. In the interview, Kyle was carrying a first aid kit and specifically said that he was there to provide medical assistance and is on camera offering medical assistance to people.Rittenhouse has studied first aid but to my knowledge has not claimed that was why he was at the riot.
You are a truly SPECIAL kind of stupid.Is it your belief that citizens should be prohibited from carrying guns?
Yes. There's no reason to carry a gun if you are not a soldier or a peace officer.
Yes. Joey actually believes that a woman who has been beaten, raped, and strangled with her own stockings is morally superior to a woman whose attacker has acquired a sucking chest wound.Is it your belief that citizens should be prohibited from carrying guns?
Yes. There's no reason to carry a gun if you are not a soldier or a peace officer.
So Self-Defense isn't a reason?
If some thug comes up to a senior citizen with a gun, or a other weapon, are they supposed to just die in your world?
I already gave you the like where Ziminsky said he fired into the air. You are a democrat.LOLOhhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.Maybe he was shot by someone else.Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.By applying excessive force.How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.
Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.
Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings
A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…www.google.com
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.
I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.
Why such a tender heart for the chomo?
Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.
Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.
What the fuck were you watching?
Rittenhouse never fell down when shooting Rosenbaum.
There were not "shots fired" by Ziminski just before Rittenhouse fired his gun. There was one shot fired and it was fired into the air.
It was not caught on surveillance video; but by onlookers with phones or cameras.
Rosenbaum did not try to kick Rittenhouse.
If you've watched the videos and that ^^^ is what you saw, you're delirious.
And again, Rosenbaum fell face down after being shot. The 4th shot hit him in the back. That's not self-defense.
And then you deviated from your own source which said he fired a shot into the air and now you're claiming that "shots were fired" even though your own source doesn't state that.I already gave you the like where Ziminsky said he fired into the air. You are a democrat.LOLOhhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.Maybe he was shot by someone else.Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.By applying excessive force.How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.
Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.
Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings
A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.
I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.
Why such a tender heart for the chomo?
Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.
Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.
What the fuck were you watching?
Rittenhouse never fell down when shooting Rosenbaum.
There were not "shots fired" by Ziminski just before Rittenhouse fired his gun. There was one shot fired and it was fired into the air.
It was not caught on surveillance video; but by onlookers with phones or cameras.
Rosenbaum did not try to kick Rittenhouse.
If you've watched the videos and that ^^^ is what you saw, you're delirious.
And again, Rosenbaum fell face down after being shot. The 4th shot hit him in the back. That's not self-defense.
At least 16 shots were fired other than those fired by Rittenhouse.And then you deviated from your own source which said he fired a shot into the air and now you're claiming that "shots were fired" even though your own source doesn't state that.I already gave you the like where Ziminsky said he fired into the air. You are a democrat.LOLOhhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.Maybe he was shot by someone else.Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.By applying excessive force.How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.
Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.
Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings
A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.
I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.
Why such a tender heart for the chomo?
Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.
Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.
What the fuck were you watching?
Rittenhouse never fell down when shooting Rosenbaum.
There were not "shots fired" by Ziminski just before Rittenhouse fired his gun. There was one shot fired and it was fired into the air.
It was not caught on surveillance video; but by onlookers with phones or cameras.
Rosenbaum did not try to kick Rittenhouse.
If you've watched the videos and that ^^^ is what you saw, you're delirious.
And again, Rosenbaum fell face down after being shot. The 4th shot hit him in the back. That's not self-defense.
Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".
Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.
Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.
Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.
1) the kid lives in Illinois.2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.
He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.
My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?
And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.
I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.
1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree
None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.
Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.
C'mon man.
You go get an assault gun --- which you don't have to do.
You take it, on purpose, to a site of civil unrest --- which again, is a place you didn't have to go.
I mean do the friggin' math. If I don a baseball cap and glove and walk toward the stadium an hour before game time, is it not a logical assumption that I'm going to the game? This kid went to another state. With an illegal gun. To a place known to be in chaos -- which serves as opportunity to get away with it. As I said it's far more credible to suggest that James Fields did not go to Charlottesville with the specific intent of running people down in the street.
I don't know anything about epinephrine (sp?) but again firearms have one and only one purpose. What would be the point of walking around with one without that purpose in mind? It would be extra baggage. Extra weight too. Let alone an illegal one.
I carry for instance my wallet everywhere, not just to have the documentation to drive but because I know I'll use it in myriad ways. On the other hand I rarely carry my phone unless I'm specifically going to need to call somebody.
So? Only one shot is heard being fired before Rittenhouse gets off 4 rounds. The rest came after.At least 16 shots were fired other than those fired by Rittenhouse.And then you deviated from your own source which said he fired a shot into the air and now you're claiming that "shots were fired" even though your own source doesn't state that.I already gave you the like where Ziminsky said he fired into the air. You are a democrat.LOLOhhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.Maybe he was shot by someone else.Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.By applying excessive force.How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.
Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.
Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings
A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.
I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.
Why such a tender heart for the chomo?
Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.
Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.
What the fuck were you watching?
Rittenhouse never fell down when shooting Rosenbaum.
There were not "shots fired" by Ziminski just before Rittenhouse fired his gun. There was one shot fired and it was fired into the air.
It was not caught on surveillance video; but by onlookers with phones or cameras.
Rosenbaum did not try to kick Rittenhouse.
If you've watched the videos and that ^^^ is what you saw, you're delirious.
And again, Rosenbaum fell face down after being shot. The 4th shot hit him in the back. That's not self-defense.
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
Is it your belief that citizens should be prohibited from carrying guns?
Yes. There's no reason to carry a gun if you are not a soldier or a peace officer.
Didn’t you know that making it illegal to have guns will stop bad guys from having them?Is it your belief that citizens should be prohibited from carrying guns?
Yes. There's no reason to carry a gun if you are not a soldier or a peace officer.
Except for the 1.1 million Americans a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, who use their legal guns to save lives from rape, robbery and murder...
Post a video with a the time stamp of them just trying to get him to leave without harming him.If he was threatened by armed people, he would be dead? Why is that? What kind of assumption is that? I think a safer assumption would be if he wasn’t armed himself, he may have been dead.(2) Kenosha Shooter TALKS w/ His Victim - Kyle Rittenhouse Video | LNOD - YouTube
Watch the video. It's a clear case of self-defense.
The prosecutor should be arrested for treason and punished to the full extent of the law. Capital punishment. The people demand it.
All 3 separate incidents where he shot people?
If he was threatened by 3 armed people, he would have been dead.
Only one person he killed was armed, and no weapon was ever drawn on him.
If by “armed” you mean in possession of a firearm... he didn’t kill the guy with the gun. He wounded him. what do you mean “no weapon was drawn on him”?? The guy had it in his hand as he came running up on rittenhouse as he was knocked to the ground. He is creeping up on him with it DRAWN in his hand as rittenhouse turns and blasts him (wounding him).
If by “armed” you meant in the traditional sense of the word... in possession of a weapon, then the guy hitting him with a skateboard who attempted to bash his head in would be considered “armed” as well. So there were 2 armed people.
You seem to be implying he wasn’t in danger in “all 3 seperate incidents where he shot people”.
Did you actually watch the videos??
Makes no sense.
if anyone one wanted to harm Rittenhouse, they could just have shot him in the head while his back was turned.
Obviously that was not the intent of anyone.
Instead they were just trying to get him to take his open carry, and leave.
He was the only one threatening anyone.
He was the clear and present danger to everyone.
He was never in danger.
A skateboard is not arm because it is not capable of being deadly.
Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
Are you suggesting that Rittenhouse's possession of that rifle was legal?
Actually, it quite likely was.
There's not a single thing I've found which would support the idea that Rittenhouse legally possessed the rifle he had.
Do you have a link to something which would explain how his possession of it was legal?
Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
If he was supervised by someone who wasn't a minor while in the act of hunting, perhaps the possession wasn't illegal.
That simply wasn't the case...
