Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[JoeB131]

Anyone with eyes can clearly see it's the SAME person:

Yes, photohop is fun... I could put you in a picture with Hitler.

When you have a credible source this guy did something serious, let me know.

 

[L.K.Eder]

That's what happens when mayors and governors don't stop the riots, people defend their property....using....
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.

Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule | Gimbel, Reilly, Guerin & Brown, LLP

A Wisconsin court's recent ruling could affect defendants who claim self-defense when facing criminal charges. Call a Milwaukee defense lawyer to learn more.

www.grgblaw.com

does that apply to riot tourists?

It applies to anyone in that state. Do you not know how laws work?

so anyone can go to a protest with a gun, then feel threatened and shoot people? cool

Yes.

interesting interpretation of castle doctrine, where is the castle? LOL

 

[jc456]

What we do have is the peacful skateboarders police record

Um, the Offenses you circled were committed by other people before he was born...There are six people's names list there, the earliest one is in 1994. Huber was 24, which means he was born in 1996.

View attachment 380597

Let's see what else you have.

Antifa and blm has a large transsexual and child molester following / membership

Its insane

Okay, the offense by Rosenbaum is from 2002. Which means that when he was 18, he probably had sex with a slightly younger girlfriend.

is it an offense? yes or no?

The level that Leftists go to to defend POS like this is amazing.

he shot a bunch of bullies attacking him. and they get upset that what, the kid didn't get killed? I have no mercy for glory seekers.

 

[Blues Man]

This whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.

You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.

Circular reasoning.

This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.

That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.

 

[jc456]

No jail time? I just posted the RECORD where it clearly says he served a 12.5 YEAR sentence in an Arizona prison. So a 12 and a half year prison sentence. But you defending CHILD RAPISTS is FULLY NOTED.

Well, first, we don't know if it is the same guy... it probably isn't. The guy who was killed on Tuesday is 36 and has a 2 year old daughter.

The guy in that record is clearly a LOT older than 18 in 2002, which is what the person would have been.

So you guys essentially scoured the records for someone with a similar name, and this is what you came up with.

Anyone with eyes can clearly see it's the SAME person:

View attachment 380613

ewwww he's a tough guy at that!!!! hahahahahahahahaha

 

[martybegan]

So was pretty much everyone else there. The rioters made the mistake of attacking an armed man.

No jury is going to convict him.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people. The Soros DA will pack an all black, all BLM jury. He should never be charged, armed men chased him brandishing firearms.


Kyle Rittenhouse - TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT

View attachment 380602

He was a criminal in violation of WI gun laws.

If you think otherwise you are a hypocrite

The DEAD guy who attacked him with a skateboard was guilty of assault, though he will never be indicted / charged now. The terrorists destroying the car dealership violated the law and instigated the entire thing.

If you decide to destroy someone's business and end up getting shot while doing it, don't bitch afterwards about how YOUR rights were violated and laws were broken.

It was not his business.

This kid was breaking the law. The same laws you criticize others for breaking.

Not the same laws.

By carrying open he was breaking a procedural law, one who's breaking results in zero harm to anyone or society.

Destroying people's property and assaulting people are not procedural issues.

That you try to equate the two shows your utter dishonesty.

And again, as always, go fuck yourself.

Which procedural law? Open carry is allowed in Wisconsin. A free man has the right to carry a rifle openly in Wisconsin.

Moe than likely his is quibbling about the age of the guy, and that he brought the weapon across state lines.

Procedural bullshit.

So quibbling about protesters who cross state lines and break the law is nothing but procedural bullshit too right?

No, because destroying property and attacking police officers is not procedural.

If you can't get that through your dime store head, go fuck yourself.

 

[jc456]

Anyone with eyes can clearly see it's the SAME person:

Yes, photohop is fun... I could put you in a picture with Hitler.

When you have a credible source this guy did something serious, let me know.

he bullied a 17 year old in Kenosha. there's that. probably the kind of bully that would have wanted the kid to suck his unit.

BTW, you're on the wrong side of this one mate.

 

[martybegan]

So was pretty much everyone else there. The rioters made the mistake of attacking an armed man.

No jury is going to convict him.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people. The Soros DA will pack an all black, all BLM jury. He should never be charged, armed men chased him brandishing firearms.


Kyle Rittenhouse - TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT

View attachment 380602

He was a criminal in violation of WI gun laws.

If you think otherwise you are a hypocrite

Procedural bullshit.

People have a right to defend property from lawlessness. Chickenshit gun grabber laws don't stop that.

It's amazing how you ignore the rioters and focus on this guy because he had the audacity to defend himself and someone's property.

Maybe the rioters should visit your property.

It was not his property.

He was acting illegally as armed security.

At the point of the attack he was defending himself.

What the hell is even illegal armed security?

Can you point out that law?

I already linked to WI gun laws.

Anyone under 18 cannot legally carry a firearm in public.

If a person under 18 is acting as protection of a public business while carrying a firearm in WI he is doing so illegally.

If the owner of the business hired a 17 tear old to carry a gun on his property he would be breaking the law by illegally hiring a minor to act as armed security. If the minor proclaimed that it was his job to protect a business that someone else owned while carrying a firearm he was acting as illegal armed security.

This is not high level reasoning

Procedural bullshit.


Keep defending rioters you SJW pansy.

 

[martybegan]

This whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.

You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.

Circular reasoning.

This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.

That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.

By equivocating you are defending them, you slimy gutless SJW poseur twat.

 

[Blues Man]

So was pretty much everyone else there. The rioters made the mistake of attacking an armed man.

No jury is going to convict him.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people. The Soros DA will pack an all black, all BLM jury. He should never be charged, armed men chased him brandishing firearms.


Kyle Rittenhouse - TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT

View attachment 380602

He was a criminal in violation of WI gun laws.

If you think otherwise you are a hypocrite

The DEAD guy who attacked him with a skateboard was guilty of assault, though he will never be indicted / charged now. The terrorists destroying the car dealership violated the law and instigated the entire thing.

If you decide to destroy someone's business and end up getting shot while doing it, don't bitch afterwards about how YOUR rights were violated and laws were broken.

It was not his business.

This kid was breaking the law. The same laws you criticize others for breaking.

Not the same laws.

By carrying open he was breaking a procedural law, one who's breaking results in zero harm to anyone or society.

Destroying people's property and assaulting people are not procedural issues.

That you try to equate the two shows your utter dishonesty.

And again, as always, go fuck yourself.

Which procedural law? Open carry is allowed in Wisconsin. A free man has the right to carry a rifle openly in Wisconsin.

Moe than likely his is quibbling about the age of the guy, and that he brought the weapon across state lines.

Procedural bullshit.

So quibbling about protesters who cross state lines and break the law is nothing but procedural bullshit too right?

No, because destroying property and attacking police officers is not procedural.

If you can't get that through your dime store head, go fuck yourself.

Illegally carrying a firearm is not procedural either yet you say it is..

 

[jc456]

Anyone with eyes can clearly see it's the SAME person:

Yes, photohop is fun... I could put you in a picture with Hitler.

When you have a credible source this guy did something serious, let me know.

BTW, for you, there is no such source. just say it out loud and feel better that you stood up to that mean old Lucy who pulls the football when you go to kick it. hahahaahahahahahahahaha

 

[jc456]

That's what you wish. That is not the law.

then post the law.

The Fourth Amendment.

post the part that backs your claim. quote the piece.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

where does that say that a cop's stop order can be ignored? BTW, there was probable cause, the man admitted to having a knife in his vehicle. one was found. so again, even with your made up attempt to undermine the debate, there is that. And the cop was called out there, and there's that.

Lesson number 594

When Can a Police Officer Detain Me?

If an officer has put you into handcuffs and detained you for questioning, it is possible that your rights have been violated. Check out this informative blog for more information about when a law enforcement officer can detain you and what can happen if they do.

www.pickporter.com

When a police officer has sufficient reason to suspect that you may have been involved, or soon will be involved, with a criminal activity, he can detain you for questioning. Although this might involve being placed in handcuffs in some cases, being detained is not being arrested. Detainment is temporary and all questioning must be concluded within an acceptable timeframe, whereas being arrested means you are to be taken into custody and can’t leave.

At best, sufficient reason to suspect criminal activity is a vague expression. As shown in a case recently taken to the District Court of Appeal of Florida ( Mike Naim Musallam v. State of Florda), a police officer can’t act on just a “hunch” or a “gut feeling.” When the appellant was detained because the police officer thought he saw a bulge in his pocket that wasn’t there before and would be searched, he willingly disclosed that he did had an illegally hidden firearm on his person. But, other than that, he wasn’t breaking any crimes and was giving full cooperation to the officer. In short, he hadn’t acted in a way that would suggest any sort of criminal activity whatsoever.

 

[Blues Man]

This whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.

You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.

Circular reasoning.

This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.

That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.

By equivocating you are defending them, you slimy gutless SJW poseur twat.

I am not equivocating.

I do not support anyone who breaks the law. Period.

By defending the illegal actions of this Rittenhouse kid you are supporting a person who breaks the law

 

[martybegan]

So was pretty much everyone else there. The rioters made the mistake of attacking an armed man.

No jury is going to convict him.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people. The Soros DA will pack an all black, all BLM jury. He should never be charged, armed men chased him brandishing firearms.


Kyle Rittenhouse - TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT

View attachment 380602

He was a criminal in violation of WI gun laws.

If you think otherwise you are a hypocrite

The DEAD guy who attacked him with a skateboard was guilty of assault, though he will never be indicted / charged now. The terrorists destroying the car dealership violated the law and instigated the entire thing.

If you decide to destroy someone's business and end up getting shot while doing it, don't bitch afterwards about how YOUR rights were violated and laws were broken.

It was not his business.

This kid was breaking the law. The same laws you criticize others for breaking.

Not the same laws.

By carrying open he was breaking a procedural law, one who's breaking results in zero harm to anyone or society.

Destroying people's property and assaulting people are not procedural issues.

That you try to equate the two shows your utter dishonesty.

And again, as always, go fuck yourself.

Which procedural law? Open carry is allowed in Wisconsin. A free man has the right to carry a rifle openly in Wisconsin.

Moe than likely his is quibbling about the age of the guy, and that he brought the weapon across state lines.

Procedural bullshit.

So quibbling about protesters who cross state lines and break the law is nothing but procedural bullshit too right?

No, because destroying property and attacking police officers is not procedural.

If you can't get that through your dime store head, go fuck yourself.

Illegally carrying a firearm is not procedural either yet you say it is..

yes it is. You can tell procedural crimes because of the lack of impact on anyone besides a given law being broken.

Also they tend to be things legal in some States, but illegal in others.

He had the right to the firearm in his home state, and if he was 1 year older he would be perfectly fine carrying it in Wisconsin.

Procedural.

Compare to destroying property, or assaulting a person, which is actual harm to another party, and pretty much illegal everywhere.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I hope this kid walks and I am GLAD those commie fucks are dead. I wish he would have kill 100 more. We need more dead commies.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

No jail time? I just posted the RECORD where it clearly says he served a 12.5 YEAR sentence in an Arizona prison. So a 12 and a half year prison sentence. But you defending CHILD RAPISTS is FULLY NOTED.

Well, first, we don't know if it is the same guy... it probably isn't. The guy who was killed on Tuesday is 36 and has a 2 year old daughter.

The guy in that record is clearly a LOT older than 18 in 2002, which is what the person would have been.

So you guys essentially scoured the records for someone with a similar name, and this is what you came up with.

Anyone with eyes can clearly see it's the SAME person:

View attachment 380613

The record says he's 5'3" 130 pounds! I've never met an adult man who's 5'3"! Just amazed he's so tiny.

 

[martybegan]

This whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.

You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.

Circular reasoning.

This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.

That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.

By equivocating you are defending them, you slimy gutless SJW poseur twat.

I am not equivocating.

I do not support anyone who breaks the law. Period.

By defending the illegal actions of this Rittenhouse kid you are supporting a person who breaks the law

The law wasn't being enforced against actual criminals. When that happens law abiding people aren't beholden to procedural gun laws.

And you are equivocating you gutless sissy mary.

 

[hadit]

This whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.

You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.

Circular reasoning.

This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.

That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.

You're missing the point, which is that the violence of the protests has been escalating and has reached the point where other citizens no longer are going to allow themselves to be helpless victims. When the power structure prevents those who are charged with keeping the peace from doing that, the citizens will do it themselves. It only gets bloodier from here until either the protests become less violent (and the protesters actively discourage the violence) or the police are allowed to break them up before they become riots. People are going to die is the ultimate point.

 

[pknopp]

That's what you wish. That is not the law.

then post the law.

The Fourth Amendment.

post the part that backs your claim. quote the piece.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

where does that say that a cop's stop order can be ignored? BTW, there was probable cause, the man admitted to having a knife in his vehicle. one was found. so again, even with your made up attempt to undermine the debate, there is that. And the cop was called out there, and there's that.

There is nothing illegal about having a knife in your car.

 

[Blues Man]

So was pretty much everyone else there. The rioters made the mistake of attacking an armed man.

No jury is going to convict him.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people. The Soros DA will pack an all black, all BLM jury. He should never be charged, armed men chased him brandishing firearms.


Kyle Rittenhouse - TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOT

View attachment 380602

He was a criminal in violation of WI gun laws.

If you think otherwise you are a hypocrite

Procedural bullshit.

People have a right to defend property from lawlessness. Chickenshit gun grabber laws don't stop that.

It's amazing how you ignore the rioters and focus on this guy because he had the audacity to defend himself and someone's property.

Maybe the rioters should visit your property.

It was not his property.

He was acting illegally as armed security.

At the point of the attack he was defending himself.

What the hell is even illegal armed security?

Can you point out that law?

I already linked to WI gun laws.

Anyone under 18 cannot legally carry a firearm in public.

If a person under 18 is acting as protection of a public business while carrying a firearm in WI he is doing so illegally.

If the owner of the business hired a 17 tear old to carry a gun on his property he would be breaking the law by illegally hiring a minor to act as armed security. If the minor proclaimed that it was his job to protect a business that someone else owned while carrying a firearm he was acting as illegal armed security.

This is not high level reasoning

Procedural bullshit.


Keep defending rioters you SJW pansy.

I have no interest in social justice.

I will never support people who loot, riot, or commit arson.

Just like I will never support anyone who illegally carries a firearm.

You are a fucking hypocrite.