Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
People tend to move around when you shoot them. It's not uncommon.If he was running away, how was he able to shoot a man behind him? If he was running away, why did the incident happen in a parking lot adjacent to the street and not a quarter mile away?You're presuming intent to shoot someone.
If he was intent on doing so, then why was he running away?
The fact is, in the first shooting he stopped, took up a position, and shot Rosenbaum. I am wondering how he got one shot in Rosenbaum's back. He was spun around by the first three shots or after the first three he decided to turn and run?
I see your point, I agree one has the right to defend himself. But I also believe that if I run into a bar when I hear a fight, and I join that fight, I am not defending myself.Maybe.
But you see my point right?
Just because some behavior is ill addvised doesn't make it illegal.
And if it's legal, you still have a right to defend your life.
Yes, you did say that. And I said it wasn't the teen murderer. And no, they didn't go after the guy who did put it out.I said it was unconfirmed, didn't I?You heard wrong, the teen murderer was not involved in putting out that fire. But since you're so blindly accepting that putting out that fire was a catalyst to go after him, why didn't the mob go after the guy you actually put that fire out?I saw a video and heard one story, that a fire was set in a dumpster and Kyle was the one with the extinguisher who put it out. That pissed off the rioters and they turned their attention towards him and his compadres, and shortly after, he was attacked for the first time.He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.
Your claim is just not true.
And self defense is not murder.
Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.
People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.
This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.
Idk, did they?
I can agree with that. But, it is also something we would not want to have to defend ourselves over, in court.People tend to move around when you shoot them. It's not uncommon.
I have shot several people with an M4 which is similar and probably half of them kept moving for a few moments.
I had to shoot one guy 5 times before he went down.
We're in agreement that he should not have been there.I see your point, I agree one has the right to defend himself. But I also believe that if I run into a bar when I hear a fight, and I join that fight, I am not defending myself.Maybe.
But you see my point right?
Just because some behavior is ill addvised doesn't make it illegal.
And if it's legal, you still have a right to defend your life.
I see a riot, I join that riot with any type of weapon and kill someone? It is self-defense? I do not put myself into those kind of situations. I think you are asking for trouble open-carrying during a riot.
I think a good prosecutor, could prove he was looking for trouble. I was in North Carolina looking at guns. I asked the man which one he thought was best, for home defense. He said I should by a Junior 20 gauge shotgun because I do not want to stand trail and have the prosecutor hold an assault rifle up. The prosecutor will argue that I bought the AR with the intent to kill. I certainly do not want this kid on the street, with any sort of firearm. At best, the next time it gets taken away and then the criminals now have a nice weapon.
View attachment 382404
It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
Yes, you did say that. And I said it wasn't the teen murderer. And no, they didn't go after the guy who did put it out.I said it was unconfirmed, didn't I?You heard wrong, the teen murderer was not involved in putting out that fire. But since you're so blindly accepting that putting out that fire was a catalyst to go after him, why didn't the mob go after the guy you actually put that fire out?I saw a video and heard one story, that a fire was set in a dumpster and Kyle was the one with the extinguisher who put it out. That pissed off the rioters and they turned their attention towards him and his compadres, and shortly after, he was attacked for the first time.He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.
Your claim is just not true.
And self defense is not murder.
Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.
People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.
This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.
Idk, did they?
I've defended myself in court before.I can agree with that. But, it is also something we would not want to have to defend ourselves over, in court.People tend to move around when you shoot them. It's not uncommon.
I have shot several people with an M4 which is similar and probably half of them kept moving for a few moments.
I had to shoot one guy 5 times before he went down.
Like I said, it's going to depend.It's a very high profile case. Can't imagine a DA letting the kid walk if everyone on the jury but one is ready to convict.That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.True, and that does happen, but it's rare.Well, no, if one person won;t agree to convict with the others, that only results in a mistrial which the state can retry. If they decide not to, then he walks.The fact that he was overcharged before the investigation was complete leads me to agree with you that the prosecutor is throwing this kid to the wolves, and trying to railroad him, for political purposes.Sure, but a rifle is not what the prosecutor will hold up. They will hold up the dreaded AR-15 military assault rifle, they will most likely remind the jury how many people can and have been killed with this deadly weapon. You can disagree with me all you want but what do you think the prosecutor is planning? This dumb ass kid fucked up royally. He should argue he was just a kid, that he fucked up, and ask to be treated like a kid. As it is now he is on his way to jail as a murder that is an adult.You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.
Just saying....
The kids father should be going to jail with him.
The kid is pretty fucked if he does not accept a plea bargain.
View attachment 382269
But that doesn't change the fact that all it takes is one person on a jury to call bullshit, and the kid walks on everything...…. and there are plenty of people out there who will do so.
This shit is always political.
I never said he should not defend himself. I stated he put himself in the situation where he had to defend himself, hence it is not self-defense. I do not see how putting one in this exact situation can be called a clear case of self-defense.We're in agreement that he should not have been there.
We disagree that he should not have defended himself.
If you have money for lawyers, even if you won, you lost. I know as well, I have been defended myself in court. I have seen the sleazy side of justice. I have also seen the just side.I have defended myself in court before.
I'm not trying to repeat the experience.
It was expensive too.
Yes, you did say that. And I said it wasn't the teen murderer. And no, they didn't go after the guy who did put it out.I said it was unconfirmed, didn't I?You heard wrong, the teen murderer was not involved in putting out that fire. But since you're so blindly accepting that putting out that fire was a catalyst to go after him, why didn't the mob go after the guy you actually put that fire out?I saw a video and heard one story, that a fire was set in a dumpster and Kyle was the one with the extinguisher who put it out. That pissed off the rioters and they turned their attention towards him and his compadres, and shortly after, he was attacked for the first time.He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.
Your claim is just not true.
And self defense is not murder.
Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.
People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.
This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.
Idk, did they?
Hard to tell if it was him or not.
Pretty sure it doesn't matter though.
Yes, you did say that. And I said it wasn't the teen murderer. And no, they didn't go after the guy who did put it out.I said it was unconfirmed, didn't I?You heard wrong, the teen murderer was not involved in putting out that fire. But since you're so blindly accepting that putting out that fire was a catalyst to go after him, why didn't the mob go after the guy you actually put that fire out?I saw a video and heard one story, that a fire was set in a dumpster and Kyle was the one with the extinguisher who put it out. That pissed off the rioters and they turned their attention towards him and his compadres, and shortly after, he was attacked for the first time.He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.
Your claim is just not true.
And self defense is not murder.
Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.
People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.
This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.
Idk, did they?
Hard to tell if it was him or not.
Pretty sure it doesn't matter though.
No, not hard at all. Teen murderer, white hat; this guy, no hat. Teen murderer, light green shirt; this guy, dark shirt. Teen murderer, dark pants; this guy, light pants. Teen murderer, rifle; this guy, no rifle.
I can see how you were easily confused between the two.
It's still self defense.I never said he should not defend himself. I stated he put himself in the situation where he had to defend himself, hence it is not self-defense. I do not see how putting one in this exact situation can be called a clear case of self-defense.We're in agreement that he should not have been there.
We disagree that he should not have defended himself.
Another point I have made, is I believe a good lawyer should plea down the charges. I have not stated that he is guilty of murder. That is a point so many others fail to acknowledge.
I see it as a clear case of manslaughter, and that the defense needs to focus on the fact this is not a man, he is a minor. Huge differences but relevant and factual. I think the kid needs guidance. I do not know him. Maybe if I met him and actually know his personality, I would agree to charge him as an adult for murder.
But much of what I read and heard sounds like this kid was over the top naive.
Yes, you did say that. And I said it wasn't the teen murderer. And no, they didn't go after the guy who did put it out.I said it was unconfirmed, didn't I?You heard wrong, the teen murderer was not involved in putting out that fire. But since you're so blindly accepting that putting out that fire was a catalyst to go after him, why didn't the mob go after the guy you actually put that fire out?I saw a video and heard one story, that a fire was set in a dumpster and Kyle was the one with the extinguisher who put it out. That pissed off the rioters and they turned their attention towards him and his compadres, and shortly after, he was attacked for the first time.He just stood there? He said nothing? He was just standing and a peaceful protest formed around him. Suddenly someone tried to take his borrowed assault rifle away and that is justification for murder?The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.
Your claim is just not true.
And self defense is not murder.
Yep, running into a peaceful riot brandishing a deadly assault rifle will get you attacked. The kid lost, regardless of how you try to call it self defense, the kid faced murder charges as an adult.
People have every right to self defense, even if that is defending themselves against an armed teen threatening them with an assault rifle.
This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.
Idk, did they?
Hard to tell if it was him or not.
Pretty sure it doesn't matter though.
No, not hard at all. Teen murderer, white hat; this guy, no hat. Teen murderer, light green shirt; this guy, dark shirt. Teen murderer, dark pants; this guy, light pants. Teen murderer, rifle; this guy, no rifle.
I can see how you were easily confused between the two.
Cost me 40k.If you have money for lawyers, even if you won, you lost. I know as well, I have been defended myself in court. I have seen the sleazy side of justice. I have also seen the just side.I have defended myself in court before.
I'm not trying to repeat the experience.
It was expensive too.
If he doesn't get convicted, why are his dreams of a career in law enforcement over?He's going to be traumatized, scarred, and disillusioned at a core level.Kyle's legal team sees this as classic self defense
Nothing the internet unlicensed lawyers have come up with is as reasonable
Of course it's self defense.
He'll be ok.
And his dreams of a career in LE are over.
Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.
You don't know what his intent was when he left IL, and the BLM thugs created the situation by attacking him.gee, I only wipe my ass to get jc456 off of it, shit stinks.State the statute asswipe . I think the ten guy’s chasing him created the situation. How did you miss that? Hmm odd you didn’t even watch the videos
You have proof I did not watch the videos?
When he left Illinois with the intent to obtain an assault rifle and confront the protestors in Wisconsin, that created situation.
When you take an assault rifle to a fist fight you are a murderer. Nobody was armed in this situation except the person charged with murder. Sad as well, is that fact that Rittenhouse shot a man in the back. It will be hard to prove that it was not the shot in the back that killed the victim. How did you miss that.
The statue? Wisconsin statue 940.01 First-degree intentional homicide.
No LE agency is going to hire him. Too much liability.If he doesn't get convicted, why are his dreams of a career in law enforcement over?He's going to be traumatized, scarred, and disillusioned at a core level.Kyle's legal team sees this as classic self defense
Nothing the internet unlicensed lawyers have come up with is as reasonable
Of course it's self defense.
He'll be ok.
And his dreams of a career in LE are over.
Sometimes, the process IS the punishment.
There's no reason you shouldn't own an air-to-air missile. Of course, owning a nuke would be impossible because the technology is classified.who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.It is not wrong to leave your house with your gun, nor to go to a public place and stand there.
It was also breaking the curfew law in place.
It is also against the law to take an assault rifle to a riot with the intent to kill.
It is going to be very hard for the teenager to defend his actions when the prosecutor holds up a terrifying assault weapon to the jury and proclaims, "this is the military assault weapon this man intended to murder somebody with"
View attachment 382165
So far you are wrong on just about everything you posted....
The hispanic teenager may not have been breaking the law....there is an exception for long guns for under 21 year olds....and you have no evidence to show he wanted to kill people, in fact, the actual video evidence shows the exact opposite, you dumb shit.....
And it isn't a military weapon you dumb ass........the AR-15 has never been used by the military....
You don't know what you are talking about.
Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians
June 16, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC / Updated June 16, 2016, 6:24 PM UTC
By Tony Dokoupil
Family of AR-15 creator speaks out
June 16, 201601:56
The AR-15 is the most talked about gun in America.
But the AR-15’s creator died before the weapon became a popular hit and his family has never spoken out.
Until now.
"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."
Once Banned, These Assault Rifles Are Hugely Popular in the U.S.
June 14, 201600:52
The inventor’s surviving children and adult grandchildren spoke exclusively to NBC News by phone and email, commenting for the first time on their family’s uneasy legacy. They requested individual anonymity in order to speak freely about such a sensitive topic. They also stopped short of policy prescriptions or legal opinions.
But their comments add unprecedented context to their father’s creation, shedding new light on his intentions and adding firepower to the effort to ban weapons like the AR-15. The comments could also bolster a groundbreaking new lawsuit, which argues that the weapon is a tool of war — never intended for civilians.
Eugene Stoner would have agreed, his family said.
The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.
And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.
"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."
He designed the original AR-15 in the late 1950s, working on it in his own garage and later as the chief designer for ArmaLite, a then small company in southern California. He made it light and powerful and he fashioned a new bullet for it — a .223 caliber round capable of piercing a metal helmet at 500 yards.
The Army loved it and renamed it the M16.
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn’t Intend It for Civilians
CASE CLOSED,,,
the 2nd amendment has its legal limits.
why can't you own a ground to air missile launcher? hell, how about yer own little nuke? those are shirley weapons of war.
uh-huh uh-huh uh-huh.
case blown wide open.
