Teen arrested for defending him self against the mob!

[mamooth]

As usual, the Nazi thugs have come out in force to defend one of their own.

Rittenhouse was a Trump-worshipping POS who came to town with intent to kill. He had that mindset because the Nazi filth of the Trump cult told him that being a murderous psychopath was a good thing.

The Trump cultists had best hope the atheists are right, or they're in for a toasty afterlife.

 

[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.

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.

Wrong.
The shooter had no reason to even be there except to deliberately intimidate, which is illegal.
He was not protecting his own property or the property of others, and the others did not have deadly weapons like firearms or knives. A skateboard is not a deadly weapon, so you can not shoot someone attacking you with a skateboard.

 

[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.

Oh yea the globalist libertarian is gonna save us

Hahahahah

Shut the fuck up you simple monkey

No one wants what you're selling

I will say what I want, when I want, and you will sit there and LIKE it, bitch.

Lol, and you probably think Democrats are the fascists, don't you.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Oh, yes. No commies here at all.


Your BLM founders admitted they are.

Bunch of Commie Chameleons. Always trying to hide their true colors.

LET'S ALL SING WITH BOY GEORGE:


Commie Commie Commie
Commie Chameleons

 

[Juicin]

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.

Oh yea the globalist libertarian is gonna save us

Hahahahah

Shut the fuck up you simple monkey

No one wants what you're selling

I will say what I want, when I want, and you will sit there and LIKE it, bitch.

Lol, and you probably think Democrats are the fascists, don't you.

He's not a fascist he's an anarchist

He's for open borders and pinkertons instead of state funded police

I'll give him that

he just votes for fascists

 

[Faun]

View attachment 380762

Here, I fixed that for ya....

 

[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.

Wrong.
The shooter had no reason to even be there except to deliberately intimidate, which is illegal.
He was not protecting his own property or the property of others, and the others did not have deadly weapons like firearms or knives. A skateboard is not a deadly weapon, so you can not shoot someone attacking you with a skateboard.

1. A skateboard is a deadly weapon when used to bash someone on the head, especially if you are being attacked by several people.

2. The "protecting own property" is only applicable to the PRESUMPTION that he believed reasonable force was necessary to prevent his own death. It's the burden of proof. He does not get the presumption so he has the burden to prove that he reasonably believe the force was necessary. That video sold it for me. He was being attacked by multiple assailants who were using hard objects as weapons. He was on the ground and had no opportunity to escape.

Justice was done. I am glad those fuckers got smoked.

More please.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Sorry, but arming yourself before you enter a dangerous situation is just prudence. It only "inflames" SJW morons who believe they have a right to destroy other people's property.

 

[Faun]

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?

LOLOL

I fucking quoted, and linked, the law and you're still incapable of understanding?

No, yokel, it specifies "criminal activity." And a class A misdemeanor is a crime.

 

[Faun]

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.

Not if you're under 18, fucking moron...

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​

​

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.​

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.​

 

[hadit]

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.

Wrong.
The shooter had no reason to even be there except to deliberately intimidate, which is illegal.
He was not protecting his own property or the property of others, and the others did not have deadly weapons like firearms or knives. A skateboard is not a deadly weapon, so you can not shoot someone attacking you with a skateboard.

Not a deadly weapon? Do you seriously not believe a skateboard could be used to kill you very quickly? When someone is wielding an object with the intent to kill you, most objects can become deadly weapons.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

He doesn't give up the right ot self defense when he's jaywalking...

Doesn't when he's got cocaine in his pocket

Not that complex

He has the right to defend himself but what he doesn't have is the right to break state and federal gun laws Not that complex.

This kid was a criminal just like any other piece of shit that breaks the law.

So he's guilty of a class a misdemeanor

Again he broke no federal laws*

Minors can have guns under federal law

It's not a controlled substance you can bring a gun across state lines

Wrong

He transported a gun across state lines

He was a minor and not allowed to carry a gun in public

Federal Firearms Laws

www.justice.gov

C. AND, the firearm or ammunition was transported across a state line atany time. (Defendant need not have transported the firearm or known of itstransportation across state lines.)

Federal Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Handguns | USCCA

Federal laws regarding the minimum age for the purchase and possession of handguns, including temporary transfers.

www.usconcealedcarry.com

FEDERAL MINIMUM AGE TO PURCHASE AND POSSESS HANDGUNS
Minimum Age for Possession of Handguns
Subject to limited exceptions, federal law prohibits the possession (unlawful for a person to sell, deliver or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile) of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18

I thought he was carrying a rifle, not a handgun.

Federal law does not apply.

NRA-ILA | Citizen's Guide To Federal Firearms Laws - Summary

A Citizen`s Guide to Federal Firearms Laws A summary of federal restrictions on the purchase, sale, possession, and transportation of firearms and ammunition. Caution: Firearm laws are subject to frequent change and court interpretation.

www.nraila.org

Ineligible Persons

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

• Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
• Fugitives from justice.
• Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
• Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
• Illegal aliens.
• Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
• Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
• Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
• Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
• Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
• Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

For the PURCHASE not the possession of...

Federal law does not apply. AGAIN

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Not if you're under 18, fucking moron...

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​

​

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.​

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.​

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.​

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

There goes that felony murder theory.

 

[Mac-7]

People had a right to demonstrate, and then had a right to attack someone threatening with a rifle.

And he had a right to defend himself

a lot more libs are gonna get killed if they continue tis behavour

 

[Faun]

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.

I see you learned some new phrases by reading at this forum. Good for you.

 

[Faun]

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.

Not if you're under 18, fucking moron...

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​

​

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.​

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.​

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.​

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

There goes that felony murder theory.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck.... being in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. Using that firearm to kill 2 people is felonious first degree murder.

 

[Juicin]

People had a right to demonstrate, and then had a right to attack someone threatening with a rifle.

And he had a right to defend himself

a lot more libs are gonna get killed if they continue tis behavour

The guy will have a target on his back the rest of his life

if you have any sense, you will not do what he did lol

especially for some one else's property

convenient on how you old pussies wouldn't even think about what that little pale shit did. Yet here you are praising him like you'd like your own sons to.

Liar

Learn from storm front. De escalate. Just fucking up your own, you low born ****

 

[Flash]

The filthy Left says Kyle came "across state lines". LOL. His home was 20 minutes away.

How come the filthy Left isn't concerned that the Communists that he shot were all from "across state lines"?

 

[Faun]

People had a right to demonstrate, and then had a right to attack someone threatening with a rifle.

And he had a right to defend himself

a lot more libs are gonna get killed if they continue tis behavour

The guy will have a target on his back the rest of his life

if you have any sense, you will not do what he did lol

especially for some one else's property

convenient on how you old pussies wouldn't even think about what that little pale shit did. Yet here you are praising him like you'd like your own sons to.

Liar

Learn from storm front. De escalate. Just fucking up your own, you low born ****

While he's prison, his back is not where the "target" will be.

 

[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.

Not if you're under 18, fucking moron...

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​

​

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.​

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.​

Not only is he facing prison ... so is whoever gave him that gun ...

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.​

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.​

(2) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

There goes that felony murder theory.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck.... being in possession of a firearm is a Class A misdemeanor. Using that firearm to kill 2 people is felonious first degree murder.

Not if it's in self defense, moron.