Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Lesh]

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?

He was defending a car dealership.
There is a video of the owner thanking him for volunteering to defend the car dealership from rioters.
His mistake was going alone, he should have had backup.
He was a defender, not a rioter.

How about these rioters


The far right in Idaho—which seemingly now includes its state Legislature—has a rule: Free speech for me, none for thee. Protesters from the right are welcome with open arms, but protesters from the left get thrown in jail.

That became manifest Monday in Boise when a horde of anti-COVID-19 restriction activists led by antigovernment figure Ammon Bundy broke into the chambers of the Statehouse, shoving their way past state troopers, pounding on doors, shouting and breaking doors and windows along the way, and then invading committee hearing rooms. But not only was no one arrested, state officials decided to accommodate them. It starkly contrasted with the scene a few years ago, when peaceful protesters seeking equal rights for LGBTQ people were arrested en masse for standing silently in the halls of the building.

 

[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

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.

irrelevant

The minor who illegally carried a gun was still breaking the law just as much as the people rioting, looting and setting fires

 

[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.

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.

I'm not missing the point.

Rittenhouse was ILEGALLY carrying a firearm in public.

That is a fact and not up for debate.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

There is nothing illegal about having a knife in your car

Fixed blade knives may not be carried concealed, unless they are a hunting knife and are being carried for such a purpose. ... As well, it is illegal to carry these, concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle unless under the same exceptions.Oct 25, 2017

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

irrelevant

The minor who illegally carried a gun was still breaking the law just as much as the people rioting, looting and setting fires

Why were the looters trying illegally murder the kid "illegally" carrying a rifle?

 

[Arresmillao]

The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.

and by peers, you mean satan?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I'm not missing the point.

Rittenhouse was ILEGALLY carrying a firearm in public.

That is a fact and not up for debate.

Dead looters were ILLEGALLY trying to murder Rittenhouse.

FACT

 

[pknopp]

There is nothing illegal about having a knife in your car

Fixed blade knives may not be carried concealed, unless they are a hunting knife and are being carried for such a purpose. ... As well, it is illegal to carry these, concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle unless under the same exceptions.Oct 25, 2017

No idea where you got that.

 

[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

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.

irrelevant

The minor who illegally carried a gun was still breaking the law just as much as the people rioting, looting and setting fires

Why were the looters trying illegally murder the kid "illegally" carrying a rifle?

Don't know.

And I'll say it again, I am not excusing the people who were rioting, looting or setting fires. They were breaking the law.

But so was Rittenhouse.

So this is criminal on criminal crime

 

[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.

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.

You are an equivocator. When the law stops enforcing the law, law abiding people can stand up to take its place.

Anything else is tyranny and anarchy.

 

[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.

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

there is if one disobeys the order to stop by the cop called out to investigate a possible criminal act and enters the car where said knife was. you ain't too bright there kid.

 

[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.

irrelevant

The minor who illegally carried a gun was still breaking the law just as much as the people rioting, looting and setting fires

Not even fucking close. One is a procedural "crime", the other is actual crime.

Get it through your thick fucking head, SJW twat.

 

[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.

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

BTW, why were the cops called out there? who put the cops there?

 

[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.

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.

I'm not missing the point.

Rittenhouse was ILEGALLY carrying a firearm in public.

That is a fact and not up for debate.

Dead looters were ILLEGALLY trying to murder Rittenhouse.

FACT

So that makes carrying a firearm illegally OK?

Tell me would he have been attacked if he wasn't illegally carrying a firearm ?

 

[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.

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.

I'm not missing the point.

Rittenhouse was ILEGALLY carrying a firearm in public.

That is a fact and not up for debate.

Dead looters were ILLEGALLY trying to murder Rittenhouse.

FACT

So that makes carrying a firearm illegally OK?

Tell me would he have been attacked if he wasn't illegally carrying a firearm ?

Nothing better than blaming the victim, you gutless coward.

FOAD.

 

[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.

You are an equivocator. When the law stops enforcing the law, law abiding people can stand up to take its place.

Anything else is tyranny and anarchy.

But this kid was not law abiding was he?

No he wasn't because he was illegally carrying a firearm.

 

[jc456]

There is nothing illegal about having a knife in your car

Fixed blade knives may not be carried concealed, unless they are a hunting knife and are being carried for such a purpose. ... As well, it is illegal to carry these, concealed or otherwise, in a vehicle unless under the same exceptions.Oct 25, 2017

No idea where you got that.

look it up.

Dude you are one fking lazy asshole

Are Switchblades Legal? Knife Laws By State | Survival Life

Find out if switchblades are legal in your state. We've listed knife laws by state for switchblades, butterfly knives & other knives for all 50 states.

blog.gunassociation.org

.

 

[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.

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.

I'm not missing the point.

Rittenhouse was ILEGALLY carrying a firearm in public.

That is a fact and not up for debate.

Dead looters were ILLEGALLY trying to murder Rittenhouse.

FACT

So that makes carrying a firearm illegally OK?

Tell me would he have been attacked if he wasn't illegally carrying a firearm ?

Nothing better than blaming the victim, you gutless coward.

FOAD.

He is a criminal.

Do you moan over other criminals who get assaulted while committing a crime?

 

[BigDave]

The Jury will find him innocent of this ridiculous charge and he'll be treated like the hero that he is by most of the people Antifa BLM

 

[Cellblock2429]

Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At
Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One
Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon




CONTENDER FOR 'DARWIN AWARDS'

Attacker with a skateboard versus someone carrying an AR-15?
- Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight!

'It may be the last thing the skateboard carrier ever did. It appears this man was shot right after attacking the young Rittenhouse with a skateboard. After that he fell to the ground and didn’t move.'

No sympathy here for the violent attackers / terrorists who chose the wrong victim to attack, one carrying an AR-15.

Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft

On Tuesday night two people were killed in the continued violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It appears they were killed by the same shooter, a 17-year-old by the name of Kyle Rittenhouse. Another individual shot by Rittenhouse appears to have been carrying a handgun.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

I guess it doesn't matter to you that a 17 year old who is carrying a long gun in public is in violation of WI gun laws

The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.

/—-/ And for decades, libtards denied they want to make it illegal to defend yourself.