Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

He was carrying a gun illegally after all.

I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.

So you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?

I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail time

He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLM It wouldn't be a bad thing to see those Communist scum shot down in the streets

good to know you are in favor of breaking federal and state laws.

I wonder if you will still support criminal activity when you get shot by a person who illegally uses a gun

All federal and state gun laws are unconstitutional, so yeah....I am in favor of breaking them all and I will NEVER rest until it is legal for a child to carry a fucking belt-fed machine gun to fucking school!!!

Machine guns or Valhalla!!!

 

[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.

But this kid was not law abiding was he?

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

So if NYC descends into chaos I can't defend myself with a long arm or a handgun because outside carry in NYC is illegal?

When the police refuse to enforce the law, procedural laws become moot.

Why do you need to take to the streets to defend yourself?

You have no authority to cross state lines and illegally carry a firearm in the name of "self defense".

This kid had absolutely no reason to be illegally carrying a firearm in a state where he was not a resident

It's a fucking misdemeanor, there is no federal charge he wasn't doing it to sell it

Stop talking about whether his possession of the rifle was legal or not

Totally irrelevant to whether or not what he did was self defense

It's also a fucking federal crime.

You people say you are for "law and order" but you think it's OK for people to break federal and state laws.

And you are a cum-sucking gun grabbing asshole, fixated on breaking chickenshit procedural laws over rioting and destruction.

You fucking pathetic loser.

 

[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

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

But, murder?

I can see a charge for illegally carrying a rifle in public (which should be shot down by the SCOTUS immediately) but MURDER???

He crossed state lines with an illegal weapon and killed two people with it. It you kill someone in the commission of another crime, you are guilty of murder.

The weapon was legal. If they attacked him first and he defended himself the overlaying procedural crime is worthless.

Considering the local cops ain't enforcing shit on anyone is double value.

Even if tried, they won't convict. Jury Nullifcation time.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

He is guilty of nothing more than violating gun control ordinances, that are nothing more than procedural in nature.

The rioters are guilty of universally recognized crimes, and they were assaulting him.

Your tired attempt at equivocation is just that, tired and also pathetic.

Illegally carrying a firearm is a federal crime. or didn't you know that.

A criminal is a criminal why do you want to encourage the breaking of federal and state laws?

Having a gun you don't have a license to own isn't a federal crime lol

It's a misdemeanor in most states

I thought licensing guns was unconstitutional.

 

[Turtlesoup]

And illegally

Why was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?

He was responding to the violence on the left

and illegally carrying a firearm.

You don't respond to crime by committing crime

You don't commit MURDER in self defense.

It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime...

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.​

(1m) (a) In this subsection:​

2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.​

​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

He had no legal authority to threaten lethal force to protect someone else's property and he was "engaged in a criminal activity" when he fired his weapon. A self defense case will fail him if the law is upheld in court.

"It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime..."


No idiot---the law goes its not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a FELONY-----

a 17 year old carrying a gun especially after being separated by the adults is not a felony but a procedural misdeamor.

Want to try again?

 

[bripat9643]

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

But, murder?

I can see a charge for illegally carrying a rifle in public (which should be shot down by the SCOTUS immediately) but MURDER???

He crossed state lines with an illegal weapon and killed two people with it. It you kill someone in the commission of another crime, you are guilty of murder.

The weapon was legal. If they attacked him first and he defended himself the overlaying procedural crime is worthless.

Considering the local cops ain't enforcing shit on anyone is double value.

Even if tried, they won't convict. Jury Nullifcation time.

WI has open carry, so how could it be illegal?

 

[Mac-7]

You don't respond to crime by committing crime

Thats what the lib protesters are doing

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. Left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.

NOW look who is spreading lies and propaganda...

If the shooter was looking for someone to shoot he didn't have to go all the way to the car dealership - there were plenty of places and plenty of people in between his house and the car dealership.

A reporter has declare publicly that he interviewed the young man earlier before the shooting, that he had stated he was there to help protect property and keep the peace. The guy was there before the shooting and had ample opportunity to kill protestors already there but did not do so. So much for your BS about him just being there with the intent of killing someone.

The police have said they talked to the guy and that he was there to help deter violence...again, so much for yoru BS propaganda.

If he was there simply to kill people, why did he wait until he was attacked and beaten? Why not just shoot the terrorists who approached him, who threatened him? Why did he wait to shoot until after HE became their VICTIM? AGAIN, so much for your lies and BS propaganda.

Fail. You're done, and is so is your pro-terrorist conspiracy theory.

.

He left his mom's house with a rifle looking for someone to shoot. You don't deter violence by shooting people. It's premeditated murder. He will be tried as an adult and get 20+ years. His life is over. Think before you imitate him.

You could use that argument on anyone who ever bought a gun and used it to defend himself. It's obvious horseshit.

Nope. The protestors didn't come looking for him, he went looking for them with a rifle. Premeditated murder.

Nope. He went to the car lot. Having a rifle doesn't automatically make you guilty of murder. If that were the case, then everyone who ever bought a rifle and defended himself with it would be guilty of murder.

You idiots think you have the whole situation figured out huh? Like a knee jerk reaction? It’s all black and white to you is it? The kid with the rifle is a hero and the people be shot were scum? You dont even know what the fuck happened. These pictures don’t offer proof of anything. You’ll cling to anything as evidence.

I personally think it’s too soon to make a judgment on who is right and who is wrong. We are missing critical context. But hey, since when has that stopped you? You’re a republican after all.

The kid with the rifle was a criminal who was illegally carrying a firearm in violation of both state and federal gun laws

Nope. It's legal to carry a firearm in WI. It has open-carry. There are no federal laws banning open-carry

You're an imbecile.

 

[bripat9643]

The fact is it was this kid's flagrant violation of the law that put him in jeopardy.

Actually, the decision made by looters and domestic terrorists to show up and attempt to destroy someone's business forced the owner and others to have to defend their property. The looters / terrorists created the situation, not the one defending public / private property from them.

Attempting to blame those defending their property from domestic terrorists is like blaming a cop for having to shoot some SOB who was coming at him with a machete.

It doesn't matter.

This kid was breaking the law the second he carried a gun in public. And the property was not his.

What he was doing was illegally playing soldier

He was not defending his family's property so the castle doctrine does not apply.

Oh good grief, I don't know what is worse that you don't understand what SELF DEFENSE is or that you don't understand that GOOD GUYS do have the right to be good guys to defend others.

YOu actually do have the right to stop criminals from attacking others....geebus----where is your sense of morals?

But what they don't have is the right to carry a firearm illegally.

How was it illegal?

 

[bripat9643]

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

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

He was carrying a gun illegally after all.

I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.

So you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?

I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail time

He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLM It wouldn't be a bad thing to see those Communist scum shot down in the streets

So you are in favor of people breaking state and federal laws?

No one is in favor of that sans Leftists like Jerry Nadler.

Then you must agree with me that this kid should be found guilty of both state and federal gun crimes and should serve time like any other criminal who does the same.

What gun laws are those?

 

[Mac-7]

And illegally

Why was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?

He was responding to the violence on the left

and illegally carrying a firearm.

You don't respond to crime by committing crime

You don't commit MURDER in self defense.

It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime...

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.​

(1m) (a) In this subsection:​

2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.​

​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

He had no legal authority to threaten lethal force to protect someone else's property and he was "engaged in a criminal activity" when he fired his weapon. A self defense case will fail him if the law is upheld in court.

Perry Mason strikes again

I think many more protesters/misfits are going to get shot if the riots continue

 

[bripat9643]

The fact is it was this kid's flagrant violation of the law that put him in jeopardy.

Actually, the decision made by looters and domestic terrorists to show up and attempt to destroy someone's business forced the owner and others to have to defend their property. The looters / terrorists created the situation, not the one defending public / private property from them.

Attempting to blame those defending their property from domestic terrorists is like blaming a cop for having to shoot some SOB who was coming at him with a machete.

It doesn't matter.

This kid was breaking the law the second he carried a gun in public. And the property was not his.

What he was doing was illegally playing soldier

He was not defending his family's property so the castle doctrine does not apply.

Oh good grief, I don't know what is worse that you don't understand what SELF DEFENSE is or that you don't understand that GOOD GUYS do have the right to be good guys to defend others.

YOu actually do have the right to stop criminals from attacking others....geebus----where is your sense of morals?

But what they don't have is the right to carry a firearm illegally.

He didn't, moron.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

He was carrying a gun illegally after all.

I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.

So you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?

I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail time

He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLM It wouldn't be a bad thing to see those Communist scum shot down in the streets

So you are in favor of people breaking state and federal laws?

No one is in favor of that sans Leftists like Jerry Nadler.

Then you must agree with me that this kid should be found guilty of both state and federal gun crimes and should serve time like any other criminal who does the same.

How can I agree when I don't know anything about the case yet? Are we not innocent until proven guilty in America? You must agree with me that all those rioters that were arrested should have to go to court.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal construct. This is an internet forum, not a courtroom. He's guilty as sin.

Nope---------innocent as hell.................

And the dipchit trump-haters are so stupid that they don't realize that going after this kid will only back fire on their arses as the suburban mothers and grandmothers such as myself will only feel a need to protect him as we are also at the same time developing a strong hate of the dem brown shirts rioting and attacking people.

Sweet kid volunteering to help hurt people and clean up graffitti verses violent drug up violent communists and BLM criminals attacking him and burning down cities? You really want to put this image into mothers heads about what the dems are really about?

Play stupid games---because you idiot trump haters are going to be win stupid prizes like ust not the loss of the presidency again, but likely congress as well.

 

[bripat9643]

A 17 year old is dead because we have all gone bat shit crazy, hate rules, common sense has left the building.

No he's dread becvause he made a series of bad

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

Of course your sympathies are with the murderer and not the victims. That's what you 1000 post a month posters do. Side with hate and division, every single time. You even sided with Dylan Rooff when he shot up the black church.

Rittenhouse is not a victim.

He was committing state and federal gun crimes and he crossed state lines in order to do so.

Nope.

 

[Mac-7]

WI has open carry, so how could it be illegal?

He was under 18

but that is only a misdemeanor

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And illegally

Why was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?

He was responding to the violence on the left

and illegally carrying a firearm.

You don't respond to crime by committing crime

You don't commit MURDER in self defense.

It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime...

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.​

(1m) (a) In this subsection:​

2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.​

​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

He had no legal authority to threaten lethal force to protect someone else's property and he was "engaged in a criminal activity" when he fired his weapon. A self defense case will fail him if the law is upheld in court.

Hey Faun. You have misinterpreted a statutory presumption.

(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:

Now ready what you quoted again.

THE PRESUMPTION does not apply...

Which means he must prove that he had no opportunity to flee. The video pretty much shoots that shit down and proves it for him. He was on the ground against multiple attackers who were also carrying weapons.

 

[Rigby5]

And illegally

Why was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?

He was responding to the violence on the left

and illegally carrying a firearm.

You don't respond to crime by committing crime

You don't commit MURDER in self defense.

It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime...

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.​

(1m) (a) In this subsection:​

2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.​

​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

He had no legal authority to threaten lethal force to protect someone else's property and he was "engaged in a criminal activity" when he fired his weapon. A self defense case will fail him if the law is upheld in court.

"It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime..."


No idiot---the law goes its not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a FELONY-----

a 17 year old carrying a gun especially after being separated by the adults is not a felony but a procedural misdeamor.

Want to try again?

No, it does not have to be a felony.
If you are stealing apples from a neighbor's tree and they threaten you, you can not shoot them and claim defense because YOU caused the situation to happen.
It as NOTHING to do with whether a felony or misdemeanor.
You can never claim self defense if you caused it from any sort of improper behavior, including inflammatory speech.

And openly carrying a rifle into a demonstration is VERY inflammatory.
People had a right to demonstrate, and then had a right to attack someone threatening with a rifle.

 

[Crepitus]

Wrong. He left his mom's basement with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.

You liberals should be happy. If more vigilantes step in like this to stop the BLM crazies, then Trump won't need to send in federal law enforcement.

If more RWNJs start showing up armed you're gonna see protestors with arms as well.

Good.

Let's get the shooting part of this war started so it can be over. I am ready to rid the world of communist fucktards.

Then head for China or Cuba you moron. There aren't any communists here.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Racist TV Host Trevor Noah
“How come Jacob Blake was seen as a deadly threat for a theoretical gun — that he might have and might try to commit a crime with — but this gunman, who was armed and had already shot people, who had shown that he is a threat, was arrested the next day, given full due process of the law and generally treated like a human being whose life matters?” Noah said.
“I’m asking these as questions, but I feel like we know the answer. The answer is that the gun doesn’t matter as much as who’s holding the gun. Because to some people, black skin is the most threatening weapon of all.”

comment

Most Left Wing Extremist have very limited reasoning power.
They also make everything about race because they are Racist.
When Blake reached into his car for his knife it was a direct leathal threat to the Policeman.
The Policeman has a 100% right to defend himself.
The real question should be why do people refuse to comply with police commands?
The Rittenhouse situation is entirely different.
The Police were not there at the time of the incident.
It is clear from the video that one of the Violent Far Left Extremist used his skateboard as a club and the other assailant pulled a gun on him.
It is a clear case of self defense.

If Noah wants to make this issue about race then he should show just a little equaility about it.
The Police shoot more than twice as many White suspects annually than Black suspects, but the Left Wingers never make it a racial issue or have riots and protests.
The question is why?
Why is the Left only concerned about police brutality when the suspect is Black?
The answer is obvious.
The Left shamelessly exploit minorities for greedy political purposes.

Trevor Noah asks why police shot Jacob Blake but not Kyle Rittenhouse

'I feel like we know the answer,' says 'The Daily Show' host after white teen Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with killing protesters in Kenosha, Wis.

www.latimes.com

 

[Crepitus]

And illegally

Why was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?

He was responding to the violence on the left

and illegally carrying a firearm.

You don't respond to crime by committing crime

You don't commit MURDER in self defense.

It's not self defense when the actor is in the commission of a crime...

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.​

(1m) (a) In this subsection:​

2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.​

​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

He had no legal authority to threaten lethal force to protect someone else's property and he was "engaged in a criminal activity" when he fired his weapon. A self defense case will fail him if the law is upheld in court.

Hey Faun. You have misinterpreted a statutory presumption.

(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:

Now ready what you quoted again.

THE PRESUMPTION does not apply...

Which means he must prove that he had no opportunity to flee. The video pretty much shoots that shit down and proves it for him. He was on the ground against multiple attackers who were also carrying weapons.

All of that is meaningless in this case. The kid left his home with a rifle to find someone to shoot.