Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[JoeB131]

Very true. Leftists claim to care about poor black people and then relentlessly attack the public servants that are trying to keep them safe. The result it that the cops back off and the poor black people pay the biggest price.

There is no bigger racist than a white leftist.

Okay, here's the thing. How are black people being protected by the thug cops who pulls over a black person for a "Driving While Black" and then uses that as an excuse to escalate it up to a shooting incident?

 

[JoeB131]

Didn’t you know that making it illegal to have guns will stop bad guys from having them?
Just like murder laws have stopped murder, rape laws have stopped rape, robbery, etc etc.
And didn’t you know that the mere possession of a weapon makes you a criminal? I know every time I go home I see my gun safe watching me. Lurking. Just biding it’s time before the guns either go in a murder spree or use their mind control to cause me to go on a murder spree.
Pray for me.

Talking to an imaginary fairy in the sky isn't going to help you.

The best argument for gun control is letting you gun nuts talk about all the people you can't wait to kill.

 

[Correll]

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.)

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.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.

Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.

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.

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.

You're wrong as always. Of course I'll post it...

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.com

​

But 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.

I don't need to try again... you lied. You quoted an exception to the law as stating...

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.

Great, Kyle can put that on his resume for cell block C.

Your inability to address my point, was clear for all to see.

You lose, loser.

 

[Polishprince]

There is no guarantee that they "will be fine" if they give the loser anything. And the police are usually not able to get their stuff back, even if they would catch the perp. If the perp is a POC , the police aren't even interested in arresting him and risk being a victim of BLM mobs.

The safer move is to tell the robber to "fuck off loser, take a hike"

If someone is desperate enough to commit a crime, he's probably not going to be intimidated by an old person holding a gun in a shaking hand.

Apparently you don't know the criminal element that well. They aren't interested in a fight or facing down armed people who refuse to be a victim. They are looking for soft targets. That's what made "Death Wish" so unrealistic, Bronson doesn't look like a soft target, a victim.

 

[JoeB131]

Apparently you don't know the criminal element that well. They aren't interested in a fight or facing down armed people who refuse to be a victim. They are looking for soft targets. That's what made "Death Wish" so unrealistic, Bronson doesn't look like a soft target, a victim.

What made Death Wish so unrealistic was that every night he went out, he got mugged. And he never shot some poor person who just scared him.

The reality- DGU's are a myth.. they don't happen that often compared to the flood of gun violence.

 

[Polishprince]

Apparently you don't know the criminal element that well. They aren't interested in a fight or facing down armed people who refuse to be a victim. They are looking for soft targets. That's what made "Death Wish" so unrealistic, Bronson doesn't look like a soft target, a victim.

What made Death Wish so unrealistic was that every night he went out, he got mugged. And he never shot some poor person who just scared him.

The reality- DGU's are a myth.. they don't happen that often compared to the flood of gun violence.

Bronson was fearless, no person poor or otherwise was going to scare him.

But the film was a faithful representation of New York City life in the pre-Rudy 1970's, with the amount of crime. A school chum of mine in the mid 1970's was from the neighborhood of Queens in NYC and took the bus home from college. Always had to make sure his boys were at the Port Authority bus terminal so they could fight their way back to their hood where he would be safe.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

Didn’t you know that making it illegal to have guns will stop bad guys from having them?
Just like murder laws have stopped murder, rape laws have stopped rape, robbery, etc etc.
And didn’t you know that the mere possession of a weapon makes you a criminal? I know every time I go home I see my gun safe watching me. Lurking. Just biding it’s time before the guns either go in a murder spree or use their mind control to cause me to go on a murder spree.
Pray for me.

Talking to an imaginary fairy in the sky isn't going to help you.

The best argument for gun control is letting you gun nuts talk about all the people you can't wait to kill.

Whatever you say champ. You’re delusional.

 

[Faun]

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.)

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.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.

Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.

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.

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.

You're wrong as always. Of course I'll post it...

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.com

​

But 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.

I don't need to try again... you lied. You quoted an exception to the law as stating...

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.

Great, Kyle can put that on his resume for cell block C.

Your inability to address my point, was clear for all to see.

You lose, loser.

Nope, I addressed it. Since he'll be spending many years of his life in prison, it will be a great resume builder for the cell block in which he resides.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.)

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.

It is not required, if you read the entire law, including the other sections of the law referenced in it, rather than just stopping reading as soon as you think you've found what you wanted to see.

You certainly do like to assume you know what other people are thinking, don’t you?

You certainly do like to ASSume you're some big mystery, despite the fact that you're posting your thoughts and opinions right here on the board FOR ME TO READ.

Don't blame me if your thoughts aren't as impressive to other people as they are to you.

Then I'm sure you can quote me saying I stopped reading as soon as I thought I found what I wanted to see?

Or perhaps you just assume that anyone with a different opinion of what the law says than you must have had a preconceived notion about it and stopped looking as soon as they found something that fit with that notion?

Hell, the post of mine you quoted was me asking whether or not a certification is required, yet you seemingly took that to mean I have a firm opinion based on something you decided I wanted to see and that I stopped looking once that opinion was validated in any way.

LOL, I think I'm a big mystery.

Yeah, tell me that I'm obligated to take all your words at face value, and I'm not allowed to understand the meaning behind them. I'm sure that'll work, because we both know that I respect you so deeply that I'm going to take orders from you, especially to be deliberately obtuse so that you don't have to answer for what you reveal about yourself.

Alternatively, I can dismiss you as a dishonest, hypocritical piece of shit.

Guess which one I'm going with.

Hell, the post of mine that you quoted was me telling you that the law states certification is not required, and you would know that if you had bothered reading the entire law, yet you seemingly thought you could bully me out of noticing that you didn't do the homework before opening your ignorant mouth.

You want to talk to me? Read the ENTIRE law, and then speak to it. Do not speak to only the parts that serve your purpose, and then throw a tantrum because I point it out. Because believe me, Punkin, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation at the moment that I would miss if you storm off with your panties ruffled.

 

[Faun]

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.)

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.

It is not required, if you read the entire law, including the other sections of the law referenced in it, rather than just stopping reading as soon as you think you've found what you wanted to see.

You certainly do like to assume you know what other people are thinking, don’t you?

You certainly do like to ASSume you're some big mystery, despite the fact that you're posting your thoughts and opinions right here on the board FOR ME TO READ.

Don't blame me if your thoughts aren't as impressive to other people as they are to you.

Then I'm sure you can quote me saying I stopped reading as soon as I thought I found what I wanted to see?

Or perhaps you just assume that anyone with a different opinion of what the law says than you must have had a preconceived notion about it and stopped looking as soon as they found something that fit with that notion?

Hell, the post of mine you quoted was me asking whether or not a certification is required, yet you seemingly took that to mean I have a firm opinion based on something you decided I wanted to see and that I stopped looking once that opinion was validated in any way.

LOL, I think I'm a big mystery.

Yeah, tell me that I'm obligated to take all your words at face value, and I'm not allowed to understand the meaning behind them. I'm sure that'll work, because we both know that I respect you so deeply that I'm going to take orders from you, especially to be deliberately obtuse so that you don't have to answer for what you reveal about yourself.

Alternatively, I can dismiss you as a dishonest, hypocritical piece of shit.

Guess which one I'm going with.

Hell, the post of mine that you quoted was me telling you that the law states certification is not required, and you would know that if you had bothered reading the entire law, yet you seemingly thought you could bully me out of noticing that you didn't do the homework before opening your ignorant mouth.

You want to talk to me? Read the ENTIRE law, and then speak to it. Do not speak to only the parts that serve your purpose, and then throw a tantrum because I point it out. Because believe me, Punkin, you aren't contributing anything to the conversation at the moment that I would miss if you storm off with your panties ruffled.

The law is it is illegal for Rittenhouse to have been in possession of the firearm in the manner in which he was using it. You would know that if you had a brain which was capable of comprehending Rittenhouse's attorney's would be challenging the charge of illegal possession of a deadly weapon by a person under 18 based on Wisconsin law; but they're not, they're challenging it based on federal law which allows militias to be in possession of such weapons as young as 17.

 

[Correll]

STOP SPAMMING THE FUCKING THREAD!

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.


A certain asshole, keeps making a stupid response.


I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

 

[danielpalos]

He should have stayed home. All he did was prove the worthlessness of the unorganized militia regarding the security of our free States.

 

[Faun]

STOP SPAMMING THE FUCKING THREAD!

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.


A certain asshole, keeps making a stupid response.


I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOLOL

You keep posting the exact same thing over and over while expecting a different result. You do know what that defines, don'tcha?

 

[Correll]

He should have stayed home. All he did was prove the worthlessness of the unorganized militia regarding the security of our free States.

He protected the building and himself. That the government arrested him for it, is not an argument against teh Militia, but against the corrupt government.

 

[Correll]

STOP SPAMMING THE FUCKING THREAD!

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.


A certain asshole, keeps making a stupid response.


I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOLOL

You keep posting the exact same thing over and over while expecting a different result. You do know what that defines, don'tcha?

I was making a valid point. YOu were the one acting like a retarded faggot.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So far the left is trying to make a case for a misdemeanor citation and that's all.

 

[Faun]

He should have stayed home. All he did was prove the worthlessness of the unorganized militia regarding the security of our free States.

He protected the building and himself. That the government arrested him for it, is not an argument against teh Militia, but against the corrupt government.

The business owner didn't ask him to. Just because he decided to play Rambo doesn't mean he's allowed to.

 

[Correll]

So far the left is trying to make a case for a misdemeanor citation and that's all.

And one that could fail, based on it's own merits, as I pointed out.

 

[danielpalos]

He should have stayed home. All he did was prove the worthlessness of the unorganized militia regarding the security of our free States.

He protected the building and himself. That the government arrested him for it, is not an argument against teh Militia, but against the corrupt government.

As an individual, he can only do that for his individual self and property. No one hired him and he was not ordered to secure the area by his chain of command.

 

[Faun]

STOP SPAMMING THE FUCKING THREAD!

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.


A certain asshole, keeps making a stupid response.


I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOLOL

You keep posting the exact same thing over and over while expecting a different result. You do know what that defines, don'tcha?

I was making a valid point. YOu were the one acting like a retarded faggot.

LOL

Actually, you ridiculously claimed you "dismissed" me. Proven factually false since you kept repeating you were dismissing me. No one has to dismiss the same thing more than once unless they're really just bluffing, as you were.

And it matters not if he was being a tidy little boy scout. He illegally obtained a gun and then used it to shoot someone in the back. He's going to prison for a loooong time.