Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[jc456]

How is he a murderer he showed the sign that he was retreating.. also in Wisconsin the age to possess that type of weapon is 16 and older, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
so again what law did this kid break?

Actually, the age is 18.

He broke the law by bringing that gun across the state line and in violation of a curfew order.

Oh, yeah, and shooting three people.

Omg, you have been told repeatedly and you still post lies. He did not bring a gun across state lines and I know that you know this you lying propagandist.

it doesn't matter whether he did or didnot bring that gun across state lines - because he doesn't legally have a permit nor can legally have a weapon in his possession due to his age.

if he got that weapon from ' a friend ' then his buddy is also in deep doo doo.
[/QUOTE

My post wasn't so much about the gun being or not being brought acriss state lines but about the idiot lib poster knowingly lying and spreading propaganda.

other than the question about crossing state lines - what else is supposta be a 'lie & propaganda'?

that he went there to murder someone? so the question is, are the demofks saying they knew his intentions before he left his home? are you also saying americans can't cross state lines without your permission? trying to figure out what it is you are arguing. Did ten bullies chase him and two of them attack him? yes or no?

So, are you saying that because most all cops carry a gun, they want to murder someone? or is it for self protection for themselves. you all really are stupid fks.

 

[jc456]

Another shooting in Portland. Trump must be jerking off in front of his TV watching the reports.

you shouldn't advertise your habits in here.

 

[jc456]

If a woman invites you into her bedroom, and you stop off at a friends to get an assault rifle, and the husband walks in, and you shoot him while he has no weapon, it is going to be awful hard to prove you feared for your life.

wouldn't the fact one stopped and picked up a rifle be evidence one thought they'd be in fear for their lives if the husband walked in? See, not having a weapon is an indication of smugness that one doesn't care if the husband walks in. you're confused as usual.

 

[jc456]

Where, EXACTLY, does the law state he must be hunting? Cite the statute.

Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

No, but defending yourself from a pack of feral thugs (at least three with serious criminal records) is self-defense!

Sad, a boy takes a loaded assault rifle to a riot and has the intent to use it. Is that self-defense? Putting yourself in a situation where you must kill people to escape? Claiming, you are there to protect people? Is that still self-defense, or is it vigilantism.

The kid is in jail facing two murder charges and one attempted murder charges.

Even if the kid gets off, he is suffering, even if he wins, he loses. I would never hire him for a job, certainly not one in law enforcement. I have to wonder if the kid is all there mentally. Why did he ever run in the first place. I guess he got scared and figured he was in way over his head. He should of kept running when he got chased by the plastic bag.

self protection? seemed he was correct. the dude that hit him in the neck with his weaponized skateboard was taught a lesson. huh?

maybe the bully with the skateboard should have thought about the consequence huh?

 

[playtime]

How is he a murderer he showed the sign that he was retreating.. also in Wisconsin the age to possess that type of weapon is 16 and older, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
so again what law did this kid break?

Actually, the age is 18.

He broke the law by bringing that gun across the state line and in violation of a curfew order.

Oh, yeah, and shooting three people.

Omg, you have been told repeatedly and you still post lies. He did not bring a gun across state lines and I know that you know this you lying propagandist.

it doesn't matter whether he did or didnot bring that gun across state lines - because he doesn't legally have a permit nor can legally have a weapon in his possession due to his age.

if he got that weapon from ' a friend ' then his buddy is also in deep doo doo.
[/QUOTE

My post wasn't so much about the gun being or not being brought acriss state lines but about the idiot lib poster knowingly lying and spreading propaganda.

other than the question about crossing state lines - what else is supposta be a 'lie & propaganda'?

that he went there to murder someone? so the question is, are the demofks saying they knew his intentions before he left his home? are you also saying americans can't cross state lines without your permission? trying to figure out what it is you are arguing. Did ten bullies chase him and two of them attack him? yes or no?

So, are you saying that because most all cops carry a gun, they want to murder someone? or is it for self protection for themselves. you all really are stupid fks.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what pablum.

thanx for the giggles.

 

[jc456]

I bet kyle rittenhouse thinks that, now that he is looking at life in prison for two murders and one attempted murder.

Of course it was bad judgement, look what resulted.

I bet the dude with the skateboard is rethinking his actions. the pediphile dude too, right? the kid will be out and about soon. self defense. you should watch the video. especially the still picture with the skateboard hitting his neck ahead of the shooting. And the still of the gun in his face. seems he protected himself really well. still waiting for your explanation of what his options were besides the one he took.

 

[jc456]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what pablum.

thanx for the giggles.

I always enjoy educating you stupid fks. I honestly find the constant stupid of the demofks in here amusing as shit. you all know every republican's next step better then themselves.

 

[playtime]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

what pablum.

thanx for the giggles.

I always enjoy educating you stupid fks. I honestly find the constant stupid of the demofks in here amusing as shit. you all know every republican's next step better then themselves.

^^^

doubles down his pablum WITH spew.

 

[Correll]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

 

[jc456]

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer​

Kyle Rittenhouse and The Law of the Pursuer
30 Aug 2020 ~~ By Civis Americanus
Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what I can see from the videos, attacking him with weapons. Whether Rittenhouse should have been in Kenosha in the first place, and with a weapon a 17-year old cannot legally carry in public, is a separate issue for courts of law to decide. The question at hand is however why he was charged with murder while his surviving alleged assailants were, as far as I know, not charged with anything.
This leads to the need to educate potential jurors (i.e. all citizens who are eligible to serve on juries) proactively about important self-defense principles. This must happen before they are called for jury duty because it is illegal to do so afterward. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, "the law of the pursuer." This gives defense attorneys a single word – rodef -- to explain the concept if jurors are not already familiar with it.

Rodef = One Who Pursues
A rodef (plural rodfim) is somebody who pursues somebody else with the objective of causing death or serious physical injury. Din rodef entitles the one pursued, or a bystander, to use reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to stop the rodef from completing the intended violent crime. The principle is actually very similar to most modern laws. Deadly force cannot be used if lesser force will suffice, and the rodef ceases to be a rodef the instant he desists from his violent actions. Din rodef is also reflected by the modern adages (in the context of a fight or argument) such as "Never follow anybody into the parking lot" and "Never follow the other guy home" because these are prima facie evidence of malicious and violent intent. It's hard for a rodef to claim innocence or self-defense when things go bad.
[Snip]
None of this article constitutes legal advice. I believe, however, it is consistent with prevailing self-defense laws and also common sense. A rodef cannot menace others, pursue others to instigate or perpetuate confrontations, or corner others while making overt or implied violent threats, and retain even one shred of any mantle of innocence should anybody get hurt. It is up to readers as to whether they agree. Fightback.law, which features the prominent attorney Lin Wood who is representing Melissa Rolfe against Equity Prime Mortgage LLC, is collecting money to support Rittenhouse's defense.


Comment:
I firmly suggest you read this and compare this case to the latest assassination of of the Patriot For Prayer identified as Joey Gibson.
Gibson was not pursuing or attacking someone/anyone, yet he was killed callously by Michael Reinoehl.
Will the Portland Police Chief/Mayor call for the arrest of Reinoehl? Will Reinoehl surrender himself to the authorities? I don't think so....
That is the difference between law abiding individuals as compared to anarchist terrorists espousing Communist ideology..

View attachment 382367

look at the dude with his weapon skateboard ready for the hatchet job.

 

[Correll]

The act of standing there, is not legal justification for assault.

Your claim is just not true.

And self defense is not murder.

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?

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.

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.

This is unconfirmed AFAIK, but plausible, considering the attitudes of the mob.

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?

Because Rittenhouse was the one forced by the police to wander around in the war zone, alone, for the mob to attack for the crime of preventing them from rioting and looting and burning.


The others were together as a group. Ritterhouse was one guy, and a very young and polite guy. Bullies and barbarians see politeness as weakness.


You know all of this. Why are you playing stupid?

 

[jc456]

doubles down his pablum WITH spew.

nothing better than being right all the time.

 

[Correll]

Kid shouldn't have been there, but that's not the same as having no right to be there. And it sure as hell doesn't mean he can't defend himself.

If a woman invites me into her bedroom and her husband violently objects, I still have a right to keep him from killing me for it, even though I never should have been there.

If a woman invites you into her bedroom, and you stop off at a friends to get an assault rifle, and the husband walks in, and you shoot him while he has no weapon, it is going to be awful hard to prove you feared for your life.

How in the hell can you fear for your life while you are prepared to kill with an assault rifle?

I do not see it as being self-defense. The kid made the choice to join a riot armed and ready to kill. You can not join a riot and kill somebody then claim it was simple self defense. He could of just as easily as walked away. He could of dropped the clip and ran with the gun. He could of kept the clip dropped the gun and ran.

This kid made the choice, to join a riot, armed, prepared to kill. It might be different, if the kid could show somebody was beating him up or did something more than have a bag thrown at him or been chased.

It is clear from the stated position and actions of the group he was with, that they were stupid enough to believe the media's lies, that these were "mostly peaceful protests" and that they were they to deter the small number of bad actors abusing the situation for the change to commit arson and loot.

So, your characterization is wrong on many levels.

 

[playtime]

doubles down his pablum WITH spew.

nothing better than being right all the time.

the only thing 'right' about you in what side of the aisle you're on.

 

[jc456]

Not if it's a shotgun or long gun, moron. This law has already been discussed ad nauseum.

The law states he must be hunting.
Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

He is allowed to stand there and defend himself if attacked.

Not if he was in the commission of a crime himself.

Standing there is not a crime. YOu are trying to dodge the ill intent and responsibility of your violent brown shirt mobs, on a technicality, and rail road an innocent man in the process.


You are vile beyond measure.

He's not innocent.

See the thing is, I supported my conclusion with a reasoned argument based on the facts of the case.

All you had to attempt to counter that, was a flat unsupported assertion.


We all saw that you were unable to explain how he was guilty of something, by the act of just standing there.

he left the state of Illinois therefore he deserved to die for it. ask them. They still haven't presented another option than the one the kid chose.

 

[jc456]

doubles down his pablum WITH spew.

nothing better than being right all the time.

the only thing 'right' about you in what side of the aisle you're on.

and yet you still haven't presented an argument that will find the kid guilty. so there is that. And, it is the intended discussion point in this thread. you chose to wander off off topic. Because I was kicking ass in here. So feverishly that an insult was required by you.

 

[Correll]

He was not rioting. Indeed, supposedly these protests are "mostly peaceful".

Having an assault rifle is not a provocation. If anything, for the attackers to see the rifle and still attack indicates a very high level of commitment and seriousness in their attacking.

There is no pretzel to my logic nor am I in denial.

Then why do you state, "he was simply standing".

Having an assault rifle, is most certainly a provocation. The fact that they attempted to take the assault rifle away shows it was a provocation.

Or, having seen a boy with a man's weapon, they assumed a bit too much, and then attempted to take it away.

Like I have said repeatedly, the kid was pretty stupid.

Simply having a weapon is not a provocation.

And even if it is, feeling provoked does not normally justify a violent assault.

How does having the opinion that a "boy" has a "man's weapon" justify them attempting to take away that weapon?


You are giving the mob a pass for their criminal and violent behavior, while holding rittenhouse to an unreasonable standard.

 

[jc456]

Yet he has already been charged?

he hasn't been charged yet. he's still in Illinois.

 

[jc456]

You're presuming intent to shoot someone.

If he was intent on doing so, then why was he running away?

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?

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?

still haven't watched the video huh? so you're just making shit up.

 

[Correll]

Where, EXACTLY, does the law state he must be hunting? Cite the statute.

Either way, it is not self-defense to cross state borders, take an assault rifle from somebody, then to go to a riot to attempt to enforce peace, as a minor.

No, but defending yourself from a pack of feral thugs (at least three with serious criminal records) is self-defense!

Sad, a boy takes a loaded assault rifle to a riot and has the intent to use it. Is that self-defense? Putting yourself in a situation where you must kill people to escape? Claiming, you are there to protect people? Is that still self-defense, or is it vigilantism.

The kid is in jail facing two murder charges and one attempted murder charges.

Even if the kid gets off, he is suffering, even if he wins, he loses. I would never hire him for a job, certainly not one in law enforcement. I have to wonder if the kid is all there mentally.

Most kids who get sucked into the police/military mentality aren't. They're usually maladjusted and looking for revenge.

That's a load of crap.