Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[XponentialChaos]

How is it, that when you have to lie to make a point, does that not make you realize that you are thus, in the wrong?

Neat.

Well, we disagree.

 

[Persuader]

Your link above does not work............here is one that makes pretty clear all that transpired................................

 

[Faun]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

If you look at the law you will see that it is so vague that any lawyer could drive a truck through it. Kyle has a dream team legal representation. Just ask Nick Sandmann how good they are. I contributed to his defense yesterday. All Americans should.

If he is somehow guilty of possessing a gun that he should have been carrying because of his age that "crime" sure as hell ain't murder. The killing of the Communists was clear cut self defense. He never should have been charge. The Moon Bat DA is an asshole for charging him. Shame on her!

What's vague about it? The law seems perfectly clear on that infraction. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

"that 'crime' sure as hell ain't murder"

Who said a class A misdemeanor is murder? Of course it's not the same thing. I think he's going to get a relatively light sentence of 9 months.

most likely just a fine and a slap on the wrist,,,
and then he can sue the city for allowing violent riots to happen unopposed,,,

And...with Nick Sandmann's lawyer...sue all of the news networks who called him a racist and white supremacist..........

Which networks called

Update: Here's the suspect:

It is still unclear whether this is a right-wing militia member or a left-wing protester belonging to a group such as antifa.
Liability would be very high for police if found to be giving right-wing militia members the right to kill. But let's not rush to judgment.
Details should be revealed soon:

Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say | CNN

A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois.

www.cnn.com

Geez...he is just a kid. And he is going to have to live with this the rest of his life. Where the hell were his parents?

More kids need to do what this kid did.. he’s a hero

Murder does make a hero.

No 17 year old should have been put in that position or allowed to bring a gun that to a protest, you sick ****! They are not mature, they do not have good judgement, he got in way over his head, and ended two lives and ruined his own forever. And from all accounts he doesn’t seem like a bad kid! Where in the hell were his parents? How did he get a gun?

If you had watched the videos and read the articles you would know the answers to those questions. He works In Kenosha was helping clean graffiti after work, he also had plans to provide medic assistance to protesters. He and friends were asked to guard the business he was at,and was provided the gun by his friend. He was targeted And attacked by the rioters because he was protecting a business they wanted to destroy.

At least 16 shots were fired during said attack not from his gun...including the first shot that started the whole thing.

I already pointed out he was carrying a medic bag. Like I said, I don't think he is a bad kid. But a lot of idiotic decisions were made by "adults". He should NOT have armed (that was illegal) and should not have been guarding a business. He's a minor.

And there are more questions.

There was a curfew. That is usually a pretty good tool in preventing riots.

Why were the demonstrators out there after the curfew?

Why were armed citizens out there after curfew?

Why were the police out there - doing nothing to disperse the crowd, but passing out water to this private militia?

Why did the police allow an armed suspect (and, if you watch one of the videos, it shows demonstrators calling to the police that Rittenhouse had just shot someone) - walk on past and go home?

There was a lot wrong here that could have easily been prevented if people did their jobs, and that doesn't even touch on what happened with Blake. Heads ought to roll.

you called him a murderer now youre calling him a good kid,,,
WTF!!!

And you are overly literal when it suits you. I said from the start I don't think he was a bad kid, but killing those people should not have happened and he should not have been there. Your main tool in defending this is to shred the characters of the dead folks so as to justify killing.

Maybe if those criminals...and yes, at least two of them were convicted criminals...hadn't tried to attack him they would still be alive...that's on them, not him....

That's an unproven claim so far. One, from what I read (the first guy he shot who was unarmed) had a 2002 conviction for statutory rape. Do you have something more definite and provable, like maybe a mainstream (even Fox) article showing they were convicted criminals? Haven't seen it, so I'm asking seriously because there is a lot of fakery flying around.

When someone guns down a person what does a crowd usually do? Run and scream, go after the shooter, attempt to subdue the shooter (and it's noteworthy that the police appeared to be doing NOTHING other than letting him walk away).

If someone has any sort of criminal record, does that in and of itself make them a legitimate target in your eyes? Does political ideology in and of itself make them a legitimate target? (lots of accusations flying around calling them commies yada yada as if that means it's ok to kill).

back to twisting the facts I see,,,

Which "facts"?

he didnt gun someone down for starters,,,he killed a guy that was chasing him trying to take his gun and when he got cornered he fired in self defense,,,

same goes for the other two,,

now stop lying,,,

Stop lying. He wasn't cornered. He was running between parked cars.

against a wall,,,

Stop lying. He was standing between 2 cars -- which he continued to around one of them after shooting his victim. That is not the definition of "cornered." "Cornered" means he would have had no place else to go. He did. And Wisconsin doesn't have a stand-your-ground law. It was his duty to retreat if he felt threatened.

17 year old being attacked by what a 36 year old pedo---and you think that he shouldn't have shot to defend himself. The boy hid from the pedo all day--------and the pedo just kept going after him and then finally he snuck up on the boy so the boy had to defend himself.

LOL

You still have zero evidence he's a "pedo."

Are you defending a pedo lol what is this mambla?

What pedo?

The one with 4 bullets In his head lol

No one there had 4 bullets in their head. Thanks for admitting you were full of shit all along.

2 bullets? Lol you still don’t know who I’m talking about ? Haha

Keep guessing, lying Russian troll ... no one had 2 shots to the head.

 

[freyasman]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

 

[progressive hunter]

he worked in the town and the property owner asked them for help,,,

Link please.

I really wish you mother fuckers would educate yourself before commenting,,,

Kyle Rittenhouse Defended Himself, ‘Did Nothing Wrong,' Attorney Says

The attorneys representing Kyle Rittenhouse, the Antioch 17-year-old charged with the shooting deaths of two protesters in Kenosha, released a statement Friday night, saying the teen “did nothing wrong” and acted in self-defense. Earlier in the day, a judge agreed to delay for a month a decision...

www.nbcchicago.com

 

[progressive hunter]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

multiple guns with large amounts of extra ammo,,,not to mention a few knives and body armor,,,

a single gun doesnt even come close,,,not to mention a standard capacity magazine,,,

 

[Persuader]

and yet you failed to say what that is,,,

Failed to say what what is?

how he initiated an altercation,,,

That's just speculation based on what we know. He showeHd up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot that he has no connection to.

Wrong on both counts...........he lived 30 mins away.

He was helping prevent damage to property as well as to assist anyone injured....he was carrying a medical bag and a rifle for self defense as in he might have to go into harms way...which proved to be the case.

I cannot understand how so many can watch the available videos of how it all went down and not see Kyle was engaged in legitimate self defense.

Thus I have to wonder of some you have actually watched the available videos...if you did??? You have let your bias blind you.


Here again....one of the best of all the videos regarding Kyle....who he was, why he was there and what he did.

 

[XponentialChaos]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it is.

Carry on, and please avoid jury duty...… don't need you sending some innocent to gaol.

Your entitled to your opinions as well.

I was on a jury not long ago, just some minor case. If I were on this jury, I don't think there would be enough evidence to convict him on murder, so I wouldn't. What I think and what I can prove are different, at least for now unless more evidence rolls in.

I expect him just to get 9 months misdemeanor charge.

 

[XponentialChaos]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

multiple guns with large amounts of extra ammo,,,not to mention a few knives and body armor,,,

a single gun doesnt even come close,,,

I asked you to site your source.

If you don't have a source, then it's subjective. Therefore you can't say my subjective definition is inaccurate if there is no set definition.

 

[Faun]

Slobbers the USMB fucking moron.

It all on video ... Rosenbaum chased across the front of a boarded up auto shop. The teen murderer ran in between 2 cars where Rosenbaum followed and got shot as he got near the teen murderer. It was then the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum and then continued walking between those same two cars, emerging past them and then circling around the car on the left. That shows he was not cornered. He just stopped running.

You can't tell that from the video. It's too shaky and too distant.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron ... even the charging document that's been released describes what I just described is in the video....

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “Fuck you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.” ​

​

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Complaint-Criminal_1-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H-2020CF000983-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H._3753097_1.pdf

There is something seriously wrong with your deformed brain that you deny what you see with your own eyes.

You can't see from the video that Kyle shot Rosenbaum. The police description doesn't say that because they couldn't tell either. It says four shots rang out, and then Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. It doesn't say Kyle shot Rosenbaum four times.

Once again, you lie.

Fucking moron, the teen murderer confessed on the spot...

"I just killed somebody." ~ Kyle Rittenhouse​

Killing is one thing. Murder is another.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, fucking moron.

 

[XponentialChaos]

and yet you failed to say what that is,,,

Failed to say what what is?

how he initiated an altercation,,,

That's just speculation based on what we know. He showeHd up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot that he has no connection to.

Wrong on both counts...........he lived 30 mins away.

He was helping prevent damage to property as well as to assist anyone injured....he was carrying a medical bag and a rifle for self defense as in he might have to go into harms way...which proved to be the case.

I cannot understand how so many can watch the available videos of how it all went down and not see Kyle was engaged in legitimate self defense.

Thus I have to wonder of some you have wathed the videos...if you did??? You have let your bias blind you.


Here again....one of the best of all the videos regarding Kyle....who he was, why he was there and what he did.

What exactly am I wrong about? Quote me.

 

[progressive hunter]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

multiple guns with large amounts of extra ammo,,,not to mention a few knives and body armor,,,

a single gun doesnt even come close,,,

I asked you to site your source.

If you don't have a source, then it's subjective. Therefore you can't say my subjective definition is inaccurate if there is no set definition.

the two have nothing to do with each other,,,
a single gun with a standard capacity magazine is not heavily armed,,, it could be if youre a fucking pussy but not if your a man,,
are you saying they lied about his employment???

 

[progressive hunter]

Slobbers the USMB fucking moron.

It all on video ... Rosenbaum chased across the front of a boarded up auto shop. The teen murderer ran in between 2 cars where Rosenbaum followed and got shot as he got near the teen murderer. It was then the teen murderer shot Rosenbaum and then continued walking between those same two cars, emerging past them and then circling around the car on the left. That shows he was not cornered. He just stopped running.

You can't tell that from the video. It's too shaky and too distant.

LOLOLOL

Fucking moron ... even the charging document that's been released describes what I just described is in the video....

The video shows that as they cross the parking lot, Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant and a second video shows, based on where the object landed, that it was a plastic bag. Rosenbaum appears to be unarmed for the duration of this video. A review of the second video shows that the defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot. A loud bang is heard on the video, then a male shouts, “Fuck you!”, then Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard. Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum. The defendant appears to get on his cell phone and place a call. Another male approaches, and the defendant turns and begins to run away from the scene. As the defendant is running away, he can be heard saying on the phone, “I just killed somebody.” ​

​

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Complaint-Criminal_1-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H-2020CF000983-Rittenhouse-Kyle-H._3753097_1.pdf

There is something seriously wrong with your deformed brain that you deny what you see with your own eyes.

You can't see from the video that Kyle shot Rosenbaum. The police description doesn't say that because they couldn't tell either. It says four shots rang out, and then Rosenbaum then falls to the ground. It doesn't say Kyle shot Rosenbaum four times.

Once again, you lie.

Fucking moron, the teen murderer confessed on the spot...

"I just killed somebody." ~ Kyle Rittenhouse​

Killing is one thing. Murder is another.

Shooting someone 4 times, including a shot in the back, is murder, not self defense, fucking moron.

got a link to that court conviction???

 

[Faun]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

If you look at the law you will see that it is so vague that any lawyer could drive a truck through it. Kyle has a dream team legal representation. Just ask Nick Sandmann how good they are. I contributed to his defense yesterday. All Americans should.

If he is somehow guilty of possessing a gun that he should have been carrying because of his age that "crime" sure as hell ain't murder. The killing of the Communists was clear cut self defense. He never should have been charge. The Moon Bat DA is an asshole for charging him. Shame on her!

What's vague about it? The law seems perfectly clear on that infraction. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

"that 'crime' sure as hell ain't murder"

Who said a class A misdemeanor is murder? Of course it's not the same thing. I think he's going to get a relatively light sentence of 9 months.

most likely just a fine and a slap on the wrist,,,
and then he can sue the city for allowing violent riots to happen unopposed,,,

And...with Nick Sandmann's lawyer...sue all of the news networks who called him a racist and white supremacist..........

Which networks called

Update: Here's the suspect:

It is still unclear whether this is a right-wing militia member or a left-wing protester belonging to a group such as antifa.
Liability would be very high for police if found to be giving right-wing militia members the right to kill. But let's not rush to judgment.
Details should be revealed soon:

Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say | CNN

A 17-year-old Illinois resident connected to an overnight shooting during a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was taken into custody Wednesday morning, according to police in Antioch, Illinois.

www.cnn.com

Geez...he is just a kid. And he is going to have to live with this the rest of his life. Where the hell were his parents?

More kids need to do what this kid did.. he’s a hero

Murder does make a hero.

No 17 year old should have been put in that position or allowed to bring a gun that to a protest, you sick ****! They are not mature, they do not have good judgement, he got in way over his head, and ended two lives and ruined his own forever. And from all accounts he doesn’t seem like a bad kid! Where in the hell were his parents? How did he get a gun?

If you had watched the videos and read the articles you would know the answers to those questions. He works In Kenosha was helping clean graffiti after work, he also had plans to provide medic assistance to protesters. He and friends were asked to guard the business he was at,and was provided the gun by his friend. He was targeted And attacked by the rioters because he was protecting a business they wanted to destroy.

At least 16 shots were fired during said attack not from his gun...including the first shot that started the whole thing.

I already pointed out he was carrying a medic bag. Like I said, I don't think he is a bad kid. But a lot of idiotic decisions were made by "adults". He should NOT have armed (that was illegal) and should not have been guarding a business. He's a minor.

And there are more questions.

There was a curfew. That is usually a pretty good tool in preventing riots.

Why were the demonstrators out there after the curfew?

Why were armed citizens out there after curfew?

Why were the police out there - doing nothing to disperse the crowd, but passing out water to this private militia?

Why did the police allow an armed suspect (and, if you watch one of the videos, it shows demonstrators calling to the police that Rittenhouse had just shot someone) - walk on past and go home?

There was a lot wrong here that could have easily been prevented if people did their jobs, and that doesn't even touch on what happened with Blake. Heads ought to roll.

you called him a murderer now youre calling him a good kid,,,
WTF!!!

And you are overly literal when it suits you. I said from the start I don't think he was a bad kid, but killing those people should not have happened and he should not have been there. Your main tool in defending this is to shred the characters of the dead folks so as to justify killing.

just his actual criminal record.


Maybe if those criminals...and yes, at least two of them were convicted criminals...hadn't tried to attack him they would still be alive...that's on them, not him....

That's an unproven claim so far. One, from what I read (the first guy he shot who was unarmed) had a 2002 conviction for statutory rape. Do you have something more definite and provable, like maybe a mainstream (even Fox) article showing they were convicted criminals? Haven't seen it, so I'm asking seriously because there is a lot of fakery flying around.

When someone guns down a person what does a crowd usually do? Run and scream, go after the shooter, attempt to subdue the shooter (and it's noteworthy that the police appeared to be doing NOTHING other than letting him walk away).

If someone has any sort of criminal record, does that in and of itself make them a legitimate target in your eyes? Does political ideology in and of itself make them a legitimate target? (lots of accusations flying around calling them commies yada yada as if that means it's ok to kill).

back to twisting the facts I see,,,

Which "facts"?

he didnt gun someone down for starters,,,he killed a guy that was chasing him trying to take his gun and when he got cornered he fired in self defense,,,

same goes for the other two,,

now stop lying,,,

Stop lying. He wasn't cornered. He was running between parked cars.

against a wall,,,

Stop lying. He was standing between 2 cars -- which he continued to around one of them after shooting his victim. That is not the definition of "cornered." "Cornered" means he would have had no place else to go. He did. And Wisconsin doesn't have a stand-your-ground law. It was his duty to retreat if he felt threatened.

17 year old being attacked by what a 36 year old pedo---and you think that he shouldn't have shot to defend himself. The boy hid from the pedo all day--------and the pedo just kept going after him and then finally he snuck up on the boy so the boy had to defend himself.

LOL

You still have zero evidence he's a "pedo."

Try posting words next time. It really does help in a text based format such as this one.

 

[freyasman]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

Why did you say "highly armed" rather than simply "armed"?

You seem to be trying to craft a narrative.

 

[XponentialChaos]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

multiple guns with large amounts of extra ammo,,,not to mention a few knives and body armor,,,

a single gun doesnt even come close,,,

I asked you to site your source.

If you don't have a source, then it's subjective. Therefore you can't say my subjective definition is inaccurate if there is no set definition.

the two have nothing to do with each other,,,
a single gun with a standard capacity magazine is not heavily armed,,, it could be if youre a fucking pussy but not if your a man,,
are you saying they lied about his employment???

Still waiting on you to site your source about the definition of "highly armed".

 

[XponentialChaos]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

Why did you say "highly armed" rather than simply "armed"?

You seem to be trying to craft a narrative.

Change it to armed if it makes you feel better. It's just minor semantics to me.

 

[progressive hunter]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

multiple guns with large amounts of extra ammo,,,not to mention a few knives and body armor,,,

a single gun doesnt even come close,,,

I asked you to site your source.

If you don't have a source, then it's subjective. Therefore you can't say my subjective definition is inaccurate if there is no set definition.

the two have nothing to do with each other,,,
a single gun with a standard capacity magazine is not heavily armed,,, it could be if youre a fucking pussy but not if your a man,,
are you saying they lied about his employment???

Still waiting on you to site your source about the definition of "highly armed".

beings that youre a fucking pussy you wouldnt understand,,,

is that your mom calling with more cookies and milk,,,

 

[XponentialChaos]

At the 1:22 mark on the video...Colin Noir is a lawyer...

He doesn't sound very optimistic about it.

I expect him to be in violation of this law.

Could be, and they may hang him on that since they are likely going to fail on the murder charges.

Seems pretty clear to me that he was in violation of that law. Not much wiggle room there. "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

They're going to try to get him on the pre-meditated thing, which I believe is likely true, but will be extremely difficult for the prosecutors to actually prove. Personally, I don't see the murder charges sticking.

I don't see how they get Pre-meditated since in each case he was the one being attacked by the mob.....the reporter was an eye witness to the first provocation, and we have video of the mob attacking him while he was on the ground.

Well he went out of his way to defend a car dealership that he had no connection with. And it can at least be debated how much of a threat the first guy was. Initial claims were that he threw a Molotov cocktail, but I don't think that was the case.

I would argue that he was looking for a fight. He wanted an excuse to use deadly force in self-defense. Kind of like the Florida shooter at the convenient store.

But, even though I believe that may very well be true, I don't think it can be proven. So I think they'll try that, but I don't expect it to stick.

You think he was the one looking for a fight? Not the guy who kept coming at him on multiple videos, the guy who kept aggressing towards armed people? And then chased him?
You think the kid was the one who was there looking to start trouble?

Seriously...… wtf is wrong with you?

It's not an either/or.

The ones who got shot were definitely looking for a fight. No question about that.

I've done security work for a large part of my life, nearly all of it if you count the military...… is a bouncer in a nighclub "looking for a fight"? Yes.
Is he ready willing and able to deal with one? Yes.
Is he there to "instigate" one? No.

There is a fundamental difference here between the rioters who showed up intending to do damage and cause carnage, and the folks who showed up ready and willing to prevent them from doing so.

Does the bouncer of the night club travel across state lines to defend a club he has no connection with just for fun?

How does that distinction make a difference?

He shows up heavily armed in a different state to defend a car lot he has no connection to. Looks like an excuse to me. That's my opinion.

excuse to do what??/
two of the guys he shot came from further away,,,

and he had a single gun,,thats not heavily armed in my book

Excuse to shoot someone.

I'm not talking about victims 2 and 3. Just the first one.

I didn't ask for your personal definition of heavily armed.

the first one attacked him and tried to take his gun,,,


your definition sucks and is highly inaccurate,,,

What's the accurate definition of "highly armed"? Make sure you site your source.

multiple guns with large amounts of extra ammo,,,not to mention a few knives and body armor,,,

a single gun doesnt even come close,,,

I asked you to site your source.

If you don't have a source, then it's subjective. Therefore you can't say my subjective definition is inaccurate if there is no set definition.

the two have nothing to do with each other,,,
a single gun with a standard capacity magazine is not heavily armed,,, it could be if youre a fucking pussy but not if your a man,,
are you saying they lied about his employment???

Still waiting on you to site your source about the definition of "highly armed".

beings that youre a fucking pussy you wouldnt understand,,,

is that your mom calling with more cookies and milk,,,

Still no link.

So maybe now you understand that it's subjective. There's no set definition. Therefore you can't say that my definition is inaccurate and it's stupid to get hung up on definitions that don't actually exist.

Good. You're all caught up now.

 

[Persuader]

Who was Joseph rosenbaum?

Sex Offender: Joseph Rosenbaum & Anthony Huber killed by Kyle Rittenhouse - BingiNews

Joseph Rosenbaum a Sex Offender? Joseph Don Anthony Huber killed by Kyle Rittenhouse I can't find what exactly Joseph Rosenbaum did to catch a Class 3

binginews.com