Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[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?

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.

right? these demofks have no concept of how hard it can be at times to put someone down. one in the head is really the only one shot kill.

I carried an M14 on one deployment, that put people down with only one round, regularly.
Bigger really is better most of the time.

so your example is standard?

 

[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.

And you are clueless-----being audited is not a sign of wrong doing. In fact, it very common in businesses especially in ones that don't pay off the right politicians----like the dems Bezos Buffet and others.

uh-huh ... alrighty then - after nearly 4 years of 'auditing' ... why hasn't donny given his taxes up for review, then? nixon did.

donny won't.

but we know why & sooner or later they will be made public; since new york has 'em & deutche bank is cooperating.

Here is a video of the "hero", Kyle Rittenhouse sucker-punching a girl. What a guy, huh? Although it is pretty funny to watch him crawling away from the guys who intervened in Kyle's punching the girl from behind.

No, it doesn't show anything from the riots. But I think it shows plenty about Kyle.

Why are two these foul mouth black guys hiding in a car recording a video and focusing in on minor kyle calling the supposed kyle by his name? And fyi, the video does not show what you or they claim.

They are the schools resident bullies and terrorists who were harassing and attacking kyle so much that a restraining was requested to be put against them

ok............. which has nothing to do with him being in wisconsin.

is it illegal to be in Wisconsin? why?

 

[bripat9643]

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

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

What's "insane" about it? What's a private citizen going to do with an air-to-air missile, and how could they possibly get the materials to build a nuclear weapon?

 

[progressive hunter]

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

It is if you are 17 years old in Wisconsin you can not open carry, that is breaking the law.
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

who cares what his intentions were,,the 2nd amendment is specifically for weapons of war,,,

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.

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.

thanx for proving just how insane you really are.

are you ever going to respond to my statement??

the 2nd doesnt say anything about guns or their capacity nor does it say you need to be in a militia,,,
nor does it allow for restrictions of any arms,,,,

 

[elektra]

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.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

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.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

It was not my narrative, I simply commented on it.

Kyle came to the riot and inserted himself into a violent situation. The mob did not attack kyle's property, where he lived. Kyle sought out the mob with a loaded assault rifle ready to kill.

Kyle was not trained to control riots, he was a boy in over his head. Kyle panicked. He never should of wandered away from the other folks carrying rifles, but he did.

Kyle had no business being there, that is all the prosecutor has to say.

Now kyle is postponing his trail? Gee? It is cut and dry going to get thrown out of court so why the sudden postponement? Why fight extradition? Clear case of self defense, hell, it would be thrown out this morning had kyle not fought extradition?

The kid got himself in serious trouble.

 

[elektra]

Unless the dems in the courts manage to railroad the kid.

Well, certainly it was not right to attack him. But it was even more wrong to leave home with your favorite assault rifle and put oneself in the middle of a riot. The only logical outcome of that is the outcome we see.

The dems wont have to railroad the kid. They will have to simply state what I just did while holding up his weapon. View attachment 382121

yep

 

[freyasman]

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.

Liar. My argument is more reasonable than yours. I pointed out he employed more force than was necessary to prevent being attacked. I also pointed out he may not have legally been allowed to carry that gun.

1. It is insane and unjust to hold a man defending himself in a life and death situation to such a standard of behavior.

2. Any gun rule, is a minor technicality in comparison to whether or not Ritterhouse was being attacked by a violent mob and had the right to defend himself or if he had to let himself be beaten possibly to death.

LOLOLOL

Yeah, we can't hold him to the law. We should hold him to what makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

And no, it's not a technicality. It's the law. Or better known to you, a pesky law.

Except not, though.





And.......... you're wrong again.

 

[freyasman]

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?

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.

right? these demofks have no concept of how hard it can be at times to put someone down. one in the head is really the only one shot kill.

I carried an M14 on one deployment, that put people down with only one round, regularly.
Bigger really is better most of the time.

so your example is standard?

There were 4 or 5 other guys in my company carrying M14s and all of us were very happy with that heavy motherfucker.

 

[freyasman]

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.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

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.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

It was not my narrative, I simply commented on it.

Kyle came to the riot and inserted himself into a violent situation. The mob did not attack kyle's property, where he lived. Kyle sought out the mob with a loaded assault rifle ready to kill.

Kyle was not trained to control riots, he was a boy in over his head. Kyle panicked. He never should of wandered away from the other folks carrying rifles, but he did.

Kyle had no business being there, that is all the prosecutor has to say.

Now kyle is postponing his trail? Gee? It is cut and dry going to get thrown out of court so why the sudden postponement? Why fight extradition? Clear case of self defense, hell, it would be thrown out this morning had kyle not fought extradition?

The kid got himself in serious trouble.

Under our fucked up legal system, anyone who shoots someone in self defense finds themselves in serious trouble.
And being white makes it worse.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

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.

Kyle wasn't doing the equivalent of having sex with another man's wife in that man's house, so your whole narrative falls apart at that point.

Nothing Kyle kid justifies being chased by a violent mob. Kyle didn't riot. The people he shot at were the ones rioting. Kyle did run, and the mob still chased him down and tackled him to the ground.

Your determination to make Kyle the guilty one despite the evidence is duly noted.

Frankly, you're a douchebag. You believe vicious mobs are entitled to assault innocent people.

It was not my narrative, I simply commented on it.

You comment on it because you endorse it.

Kyle came to the riot and inserted himself into a violent situation. The mob did not attack kyle's property, where he lived. Kyle sought out the mob with a loaded assault rifle ready to kill.

Kyle has the right to be on every public street in the country. He doesn't suddenly lose his rights because a bunch of violent BLM thugs are occupying the street. The mob didn't attack Kyle's property. They attacked Kyle. The term "sought out the mob" is meaningless loaded horseshit.

Kyle was not trained to control riots, he was a boy in over his head. Kyle panicked. He never should of wandered away from the other folks carrying rifles, but he did.

Even if true, it's irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.

Kyle had no business being there, that is all the prosecutor has to say.

Sure he did. He was asked to be there by a local business owner.

Now kyle is postponing his trail? Gee? It is cut and dry going to get thrown out of court so why the sudden postponement? Why fight extradition? Clear case of self defense, hell, it would be thrown out this morning had kyle not fought extradition?

The kid got himself in serious trouble.

How is this relevant to his guilt or innocence? The BLM thugs are the ones who created the trouble. They're dead because of their own actions. All they had to do to stay alive was stop chasing Kyle. They couldn't do that. They won the Darwin award.

 

[bripat9643]

Another analogy; if you go to a shitty bar and get attacked there, you still can legally defend yourself, in spite of the fact that going there was a bad idea.

what if you knowing go in a bar where a fight is going on the shoot somebody? You know there is a fight so you grab the gun and walk into the middle of the fight. It is still self defense, kyle took a gun to a riot reasonably sure he would have to use it.

That is what will br argued in court. Analogies will not be a defense.

I think the kid has no chance ar all.

That isn't self defense. Your comparison is invalid.

 

[jc456]

it's not? then why was he arrested & charged with a couple felonies & lesser charges?

wow... the restof yer reply is projectional pablum

that's a very good question. The first one I have is was he chased or not? And it has nothing to do with the legality of the gun in his possession. was he or not? Did someone kick him, hit him with a skateboard? point a gun at him? Are you an honest human or scum demofk filth?

 

[Faun]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

 

[jc456]

There were 4 or 5 other guys in my company carrying M14s and all of us were very happy with that heavy motherfucker.

is it standard?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

They have tried to use the excuse that Kyle was violating the curfew. The fact is that everyone there was violating the curfew.

 

[bripat9643]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

No judge would agree with that opinion. Once you have to fire on someone, you are justifed in firing until the assailant stops moving. Cops have fire as many as 40 rounds into a suspect, and it has still been ruled a justifiable homicide. In the heat of the moment, no one is required to make these fine distinctions between firing one shot or two.

 

[Jitss617]

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.

Facebook posts
stated on August 27, 2020 in a post:

“At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”

Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by carrying an assault-style rifle in Kenosha?

If Your Time is short

• Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, of Antioch, Ill., has been arrested on five felony charges related to the shooting of three people at a protest in Kenosha, Wis. Two of the victims died.
• In addition to the felonies, Wisconsin court records show that prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18.
• Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.”

See the sources for this fact-check

The 17-year-old accused of shooting three people during a protest in Kenosha, Wis., faces several charges — including first-degree intentional homicide. But some widely shared Facebook posts say he should be cleared of at least some of them.

In an Aug. 27 post, one Facebook user said it was "perfectly legal" for Kyle Rittenhouse — who was arrested in Antioch, Ill., after fleeing Wisconsin — to brandish an assault-style rifle on the streets of Kenosha.

"Carrying a rifle across state lines is perfectly legal," the poster said. "Based on the laws I can find of this area at 17 years old Kyle was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision."

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

On Aug. 25, two protesters were killed and one injured after police say someone opened fire on them. The violence occurred on the third night of protests over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer in Kenosha. Blake survived, but he is partially paralyzed from a bullet that severed his spinal cord.

Rittenhouse stands accused of shooting the protesters. Since his lawyer has said that Rittenhouse obtained the assault-style rifle from a friend in Wisconsin (meaning that he didn’t transport it with him from Illinois), we’re going to focus on the second half of the claim — that it was "perfectly legal" for the teenager to carry a firearm in Kenosha.

Is that true? State laws suggest not.


The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.
PolitiFact - Did Kyle Rittenhouse break the law by carrying an assault-style rifle in Kenosha?

The age is 16 to carry that rifle, and it’s a open carry state.

 

[freyasman]

You know, not everyone gasps in horror when they see a rifle.

Just saying....

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.

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

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.
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.

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.

True, and that does happen, but it's rare.

A murder case like this would almost certainly be retried if there was only one holdout.

That would depend entirely upon whether the prosecutor thinks it will benefit him to do so.

This shit is always political.

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.

Hopefully, the jury selection would weed out psychopaths such as yourself who are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

The mere fact that you keep on insisting that self defense is murder says to me that no jury in America would ever want such a nut case on it.

I never said self defense is murder. Right there you exhibit mental retardation.

What I actually said is what the teen murderer did does not constitute self defense.

You're wrong about that, and either you know it and simply don't want to admit it, or you really are a very ignorant and unthinking person.

Which is it?

Self defense is the legal right to use the amount of force necessary to prevent an imminent attack. The teen murderer did that with his first shot. Anything after that used agains

t Rosenbaum is no longer self defense.

Certainly can be self defense......... sorry, but neither real life nor the law work the way you desperately want it to.

You can only use the amount of force reasonably necessary to prevent the injury or death from occurring.FAQs on Wisconsin's self-defense laws answered | Nicholson, Gansner & Otis, S.C. | Madison, Wisconsin​

The teen murderer accomplished that with his first shot as Rosenbaum is seen falling. Every shot after that was excessive force.

That's your opinion and your opinion is actually worthless.

 

[freyasman]

There were 4 or 5 other guys in my company carrying M14s and all of us were very happy with that heavy motherfucker.

is it standard?

??

 

[Jitss617]

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.

His lawyer is a fire arms lawyer and he’s not a arm chair lawyer like you and that rifle because you can just with it you had to be over 16 to possess. Which he is. And Wisconsin is open carry state