Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[progressive hunter]

It’s trial stupid

No kidding, one trail of maybe many more to come. Now the boy sits in jail, pondering why he was so stupid as to get himself charged with murder.

You think you out to do the same thing, get on a plane and go to riot, first of course finding an assault rifle to take with you?

it was a defense rifle not an assault rifle you dumbass,,,

Ahh, so he had a DR-15, not an AR-15. Thanks for clarifying that.

AR doesnt stand for assault rifle you stupid fuck,,,

 

[XponentialChaos]

Speaking of which, I think there's a playbook forming on how to murder.

1. Instigate someone.
2. Wait for them to attack you.
3. Shoot them.

That's called "provocation with intent", and it's illegal.

Make sure you tell George Zimmerman.

How dare he call the cops on a druggy thief and a guy with a history of attacking other people. It is all zimmermans fault for daring to care about his community and try to stop the violent criminals which trayvon absolutely was.

PUll your head out of the sand and get a clue...buy a vowel if you have to.

Martin wasn’t doing anything wrong.

Call the cops and leave it alone. Let them handle it. We don't need pretend cops instigating problems that leave other people dead.

Bull chit--------------he was casing the neighborhood peeking into homes and their fenced areas to break in at a later date. He was snagged with stolen jewelry and a burglary kit.......criminals casing homes to rob do look suspicious. And fyi, he had no money and no job and his dad was a dead beat so he had no other means but to rob to get his drug money. Wanna play some more? Want talk about where he got the guns he was pictured with or the drugs he was also pictured with?

Bullshit.

You have no proof that he was casing the neighborhood.

Yes we do---------he was a criminal and his suspicious behavior of peeking into peoples homes and yards out in the rain is what caught zimmerman (who is part black btw) attention. Again, casing is very noticeable and suspicious. Trayvon was a violent druggy stealing criminal---as such he was suspicious and got snagged.

You keep saying that yet you still don't have proof of it.

Wanna say it some more? That's cool. It still won't be proof.

What do you think druggy thief Trayvon was doing in the rain that day? Zimmerman saw the thief peeking into peoples homes and enclosed areas as per his phone call to the police dispatch before trayvon got himself killed.

Still not proof.

Honey, there isn't a crow bar big enough in the world to get your head pulled out of your behind to listen to facts and reason. You are like a child who covers their ears and screams. You need to grow up. Trayvon was a thief--he was casing the neighborhood----and poor dem zimmerman was attacked for having a white sounding name and trying to protect his neighborhood. Then he was railroaded because it scored Obama and his crew of communist marxist morons political points by motivating the weak minded want-to-be victims to vote and vote illegally. Such stupid tools---who keep covering their ears and screaming.

Oh and I have nasty habit of dealing with morons who want the last word by spinning nonsense by repeating myself over and over---I'm obnoxious that way.

Neat. Let me know when you have proof though.

Seems like you’re having a real hard time with that.

 

[Turtlesoup]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.

There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.

Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.

Fact, he shot in self defense. Right?

Yep, but the communists don't want you to know this.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a shame he's saddled with a Trumpster attorney. He actually has a good defense in going after the fuckers who organized the militia "outing". They are culpable for sending an armed minor into a riot. What the fuck were they thinking? That's why Trump sent his guy in there - to avoid charging the militia (and the cops who helped them) and keep on good terms with the rednecks, even if it means throwing the kid under the bus.

What's the shame?

The shame is that the motherfuckers responsible for the whole mess - the militia goons and the LEOs that helped them - won't see justice.

The dead perps are the ones responsible, shit for brains. The got what they had coming.

We (and by "we" I mean sane, patriotic Americans, not Trumpsters) don't do vigilante justice. If you buy yourself a fancy rifle and go kill someone, it doesn't matter whether you think they have it coming. You're still a murderer.

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

And if the police aren't going to protect us, then we might have to do vigilante justice.

 

[Faun]

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593"
(Kyle is 17, so not applicable.)

He was not hunting, unless of course, rioters are, "in season".

Looks like they were. Even attacked him

It's impossible for the teen murdered to have been in compliance with 29.304 ... that applies to people under 17.

 

[elektra]

Actually, I think they are.

I guess it is all a big mistake that he faces murder charges as an adult? There was no way he could of avoided this situation?

 

[elektra]

Electra believes there is some clause in the law that says you can possess a rifle only while hunting, however that is defined

bipat9643 believes minors are allowed to break curfew, borrow assault rifles, and confront a riot with the intent to use the assault rifle.

 

[dblack]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Our ignorant vaginas believe these are strict liability crimes for which no defense is possible. So convinced of the rightness of their errors they will continue to argue long after Kyle Rittenhouse has gone home.

 

[Faun]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.

There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.

Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

He went to the "mostly peaceful protest" to use the gun in it's intended fashion, ie to use it's presence to deter aggression.


It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending.

Unfortunately, the police forced this lone teenager to be stranded by himself in a mob controlled war zone and he was attacked by the mob.

"It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."

The law does not allow lethal force to protect property you neither own nor operate.

It does allow you to stand there and defend yourself if attacked.

And it worked. They stood there, and the mob saw them and was deterred.

If you consider that behavior against the law, you should contact the local police and demand they issue warrants against the people that had guns and stood there.

Now, you will pretend to be too stupid to understand that you were talking about his and his group's intention, and not what happened with him, when the police forced him away from his group.

Moron, I responded to you pointing out the RWers prevented the destruction of property. Not to any of them being personally attacked. Try harder to focus.

As far as the initial attack on Rittenhouse, self defense laws are intended to allow someone to neutralize an imminent threat, up to lethal force if necessary. It's not a license to kill. The teen terrorist neutralized that threat with his first shot. Every shot after that was intended to kill the guy trying to take his gun from him.

1. The intention and actual action of the group was legal and it worked. No one is talking about tracking them down and arresting them for their actions.

2. Are you admitting that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense?

3. We don't know the results of the autopsy yet. Those other wounds could be friendly fire.

4. And a person in a life or death self defense situation, is giving some lee way, for the "pucker factor" "in the presence of an raised knife".

Their intention was not legal. It's not legal to use lethal force to protect someone else's property.

As far as the teen murderer, I have no doubt he acted in self defense. But his intent veered from self defense to reckless homicide after he continued shooting his victim after neutralizing him. There's also the possibility he was not legally allowed to be in possession of any firearm and by violating that law, he can't claim self defense.

That's bullshit. The law doesn't second guess how many shots were required after you have been assaulted. You are entitled to keep shooting until your assailant stops moving.

Fucking moron ...

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

He was only allowed to prevent the threat. Nothing more. Had one shot killed Rosenbaum, that would be a justified kill. But downing Rosenbaum with his first shot, but then continuing to shoot anyway is murder. After Rosenbaum went down, there is no reasonable belief Rosenbaum was still a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

 

[bripat9643]

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593"
(Kyle is 17, so not applicable.)

He was not hunting, unless of course, rioters are, "in season".

Looks like they were. Even attacked him

It's impossible for the teen murdered to have been in compliance with 29.304 ... that applies to people under 17.

Show us where he violated that provision.

 

[Turtlesoup]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.

There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.

Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

He went to the "mostly peaceful protest" to use the gun in it's intended fashion, ie to use it's presence to deter aggression.


It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending.

Unfortunately, the police forced this lone teenager to be stranded by himself in a mob controlled war zone and he was attacked by the mob.

"It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."

The law does not allow lethal force to protect property you neither own nor operate.

It does allow you to stand there and defend yourself if attacked.

And it worked. They stood there, and the mob saw them and was deterred.

If you consider that behavior against the law, you should contact the local police and demand they issue warrants against the people that had guns and stood there.

Now, you will pretend to be too stupid to understand that you were talking about his and his group's intention, and not what happened with him, when the police forced him away from his group.

Moron, I responded to you pointing out the RWers prevented the destruction of property. Not to any of them being personally attacked. Try harder to focus.

As far as the initial attack on Rittenhouse, self defense laws are intended to allow someone to neutralize an imminent threat, up to lethal force if necessary. It's not a license to kill. The teen terrorist neutralized that threat with his first shot. Every shot after that was intended to kill the guy trying to take his gun from him.

You are an idiot-----the videos all clearly show that he was attacked repeatedly and only shot the attackers who kept attacking even after he raised his gun as a warning.

Pedo was chasing him down intent on doing bodily harm leading a mob of BLM and communist thugs because sweet little Kyle dared put out their rolling trash dumpster fiire to save property and lives. (Soccer moms aren't going to let the ignorant communists and blm put this boy in prison------and in election year bwahahah.) Its rather pathetic that you can't grasp this concept------we moms see him as our son. And you better fricking worry about that odd kill shot to the back on how if Kyle gave the kill shot trying to keep the mob from killing him.

Skateboard thug and also convicted felon--attacked him with a skateboard to the head and tried to kick him in the head---righteous kill.


One armed sexual predator and burglar was going to shoot him and possibly was the one that shot Pedo by accident.

Oh and even funnier is that in this case you likely won't even get most black blm mothers who will qualify to be on a jury to convict because Pedo was running around screaming "shoot me nigga" all day to the boys and black people. Most are going to agree that this communist that is giving BLM a bad rep as well needed to be shot.

 

[bripat9643]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.

There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.

Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

He went to the "mostly peaceful protest" to use the gun in it's intended fashion, ie to use it's presence to deter aggression.


It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending.

Unfortunately, the police forced this lone teenager to be stranded by himself in a mob controlled war zone and he was attacked by the mob.

"It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."

The law does not allow lethal force to protect property you neither own nor operate.

It does allow you to stand there and defend yourself if attacked.

And it worked. They stood there, and the mob saw them and was deterred.

If you consider that behavior against the law, you should contact the local police and demand they issue warrants against the people that had guns and stood there.

Now, you will pretend to be too stupid to understand that you were talking about his and his group's intention, and not what happened with him, when the police forced him away from his group.

Moron, I responded to you pointing out the RWers prevented the destruction of property. Not to any of them being personally attacked. Try harder to focus.

As far as the initial attack on Rittenhouse, self defense laws are intended to allow someone to neutralize an imminent threat, up to lethal force if necessary. It's not a license to kill. The teen terrorist neutralized that threat with his first shot. Every shot after that was intended to kill the guy trying to take his gun from him.

1. The intention and actual action of the group was legal and it worked. No one is talking about tracking them down and arresting them for their actions.

2. Are you admitting that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense?

3. We don't know the results of the autopsy yet. Those other wounds could be friendly fire.

4. And a person in a life or death self defense situation, is giving some lee way, for the "pucker factor" "in the presence of an raised knife".

Their intention was not legal. It's not legal to use lethal force to protect someone else's property.

As far as the teen murderer, I have no doubt he acted in self defense. But his intent veered from self defense to reckless homicide after he continued shooting his victim after neutralizing him. There's also the possibility he was not legally allowed to be in possession of any firearm and by violating that law, he can't claim self defense.

That's bullshit. The law doesn't second guess how many shots were required after you have been assaulted. You are entitled to keep shooting until your assailant stops moving.

Fucking moron ...

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.​

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.​

He was only allowed to prevent the threat. Nothing more. Had one shot killed Rosenbaum, that would be a justified kill. But downing Rosenbaum with his first shot, but then continuing to shoot anyway is murder. After Rosenbaum went down, there is no reasonable belief Rosenbaum was still a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Sorry, asshole, but if he is afraid for his life, then he's allowed to blow the assailant to kingdom come. You don't get to second guess exactly how much force was required after the fact. Armchair quarterbacks like you don't get to make the determination of whether too much force was used after the fact. Furthermore, you have no fucking clue what went on between those two cars in the dark.

 

[Turtlesoup]

It’s trial stupid

No kidding, one trail of maybe many more to come. Now the boy sits in jail, pondering why he was so stupid as to get himself charged with murder.

You think you out to do the same thing, get on a plane and go to riot, first of course finding an assault rifle to take with you?

He's in juvie and it is likely that they have them to protect him from violent communists and blm's....

Hun, you better worry about the silent types deciding that they need to get involved in taking care of the riots------quiet people tend to have more brain power, more ability plan, and self control and thusly far more capable of doing far more damage than you can imagine.

 

[Flash]

It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.

Rittenhouse did not do that. 17 year old Rittenhouse left his mother's apartment in Illinois, crossed the Wisconsin border, obtained a dangerous weapon from, "a friend". He then went into a riot prepared to use the deadly weapon.

There are so many details missing from this story. It will be interesting to find them all out.

Rittenhouse also dropped out of High School, he certainly was not the smartest 17 year old.

It is not wrong to leave your friends apartment with your favorite gun and to to a public place and stand there.

He went to the "mostly peaceful protest" to use the gun in it's intended fashion, ie to use it's presence to deter aggression.


It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending.

Unfortunately, the police forced this lone teenager to be stranded by himself in a mob controlled war zone and he was attacked by the mob.

"It worked. The mob did not attack and destroy the property they were defending."

The law does not allow lethal force to protect property you neither own nor operate.

It does allow you to stand there and defend yourself if attacked.

And it worked. They stood there, and the mob saw them and was deterred.

If you consider that behavior against the law, you should contact the local police and demand they issue warrants against the people that had guns and stood there.

Now, you will pretend to be too stupid to understand that you were talking about his and his group's intention, and not what happened with him, when the police forced him away from his group.

Moron, I responded to you pointing out the RWers prevented the destruction of property. Not to any of them being personally attacked. Try harder to focus.

As far as the initial attack on Rittenhouse, self defense laws are intended to allow someone to neutralize an imminent threat, up to lethal force if necessary. It's not a license to kill. The teen terrorist neutralized that threat with his first shot. Every shot after that was intended to kill the guy trying to take his gun from him.

1. The intention and actual action of the group was legal and it worked. No one is talking about tracking them down and arresting them for their actions.

2. Are you admitting that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense?

3. We don't know the results of the autopsy yet. Those other wounds could be friendly fire.

4. And a person in a life or death self defense situation, is giving some lee way, for the "pucker factor" "in the presence of an raised knife".

Their intention was not legal. It's not legal to use lethal force to protect someone else's property.

As far as the teen murderer, I have no doubt he acted in self defense. But his intent veered from self defense to reckless homicide after he continued shooting his victim after neutralizing him. There's also the possibility he was not legally allowed to be in possession of any firearm and by violating that law, he can't claim self defense.

 

[bripat9643]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[jc456]

Some gave none

that's right.

like donny.

He’s giving his entire salary, you?

LOL!!!!

if donny isn't lying about his wealth, he makes more than a prez's salary in interest alone ... so he wouldn't miss it. i do give to charity...

lots of them. & the ones i give to, have never been shut down due to fraud.

oh & i pay my taxes, have never been audited, & am not under investigation for bank & insurance fraud either.

So did he give his salary away? Yes or no? Hahahaha hahaha

 

[jc456]

He didn't do vigilante justice. He defended himself.

That is (of course) idiotic. If walk into a bar and start waving a pistol around, and someone tries to take it from me and I kill them. That's not self-defense.

The kid went there to play cop. But he's not a cop. He wasn't deputized and he had no business walking the streets with a gun and a head full ideas about who "had it coming". Again, the real culprits are the cops that supported the vigilantes.

Bars don't allow anyone armed to enter, so that analogy is pure horseshit. Kyle was attacked. He wasn't waving his gun around. He was putting out dumpster fires.

End of story.

Furthermore, the open carry law specifically allows you to walk on the streets carrying a gun.

The real culprits are the BLM thugs who assaulted Kyle Rittenhouse.

He won’t answer if ten bullies attacked him! Too fking funny. Jedi omissions

 

[Turtlesoup]

Are you saying people do not have the right to go to work in another state?

Are you saying he was on his way to work? That his work required him to borrow an assault rifle? And that work was in the middle of a riot. And that he was allowed to break the emergency curfew?

Actually he had been at work earlier that day----he was a life guard and sorry but it is a free country, he is allowed to visit any city that he wants and he is allowed to borrow a gun, and he is allowed to put out fires, and he is allowed to help protect a business from rioters destroying property, and since he was legally on the property he didn't even break curfew.

WTH is wrong with you to think that we in america don't have the right to do these things? You think you say and everyone must cave?--you got another thing coming.

 

[Faun]

"(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593"
(Kyle is 17, so not applicable.)

He was not hunting, unless of course, rioters are, "in season".

Looks like they were. Even attacked him

It's impossible for the teen murdered to have been in compliance with 29.304 ... that applies to people under 17.

Show us where he violated that provision.

Fucking moron -- he had to be in compliance with 29.304. To be in compliance of 29.304, he needed to be under 17...

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.​