Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look you retard the law has been posted in this forum several times, Kyle was NOT in violation of the LAW. You can disagree all you want Coyote but that is a BALD FACED LIE and you keep repeating it. You are a LYING ASSHOLE.HE was NOT breaking ANY LAW YOU LYING TWO FACE RETARD. Quit with the lying.there are a lot of questions there to unpackIn Kenosha, what specifically did the mayor do to hinder the police?
Why were people out there after curfew and the police seemingly doing nothing to disperse them?
Why did the police allow a 17 yr in with a gun?
Lots of problems her that led to this.
I cant tell you what private instructions the mayor gave to the chief of police in kenosha
but across America democrat mayors have police forces that are ineffective at protecting the public from “peaceful protestors” on a violent Why were people out there after curfew and the police seemingly doing nothing to disperse them?
“Why were people out there after curfew and the police seemingly doing nothing to disperse them?”
obviously the hands of the police are tied
“Why did the police allow a 17 yr in with a gun?”
thats simple
when the democrat party authorities lose control of the cities they are responsible for anything is possible
You are answering the questions with non answers, come on! If the Kenosha mayor gave instructions, there should be evidence. If there is not, it is pure speculation.
Same with curfew. I think that as well as allowing an illegally armed 17 yr old in are reasonable questions to ask and all you have is a partisan political response? Come on, there was a huge failure here from the mayor (the buck stops here) to the police (collaborating with unaccountable privately armed citizens, allowing a minor with a gun into a tense volatile situation), the parent who drove him there and the person who gave him that gun (a felony). At the very least tbe mayor, sheriff and police chief should resign.
NO it is not there is an exception for 17 year olds armed with LONG firearms. Been posted and you are just to fucking stupid to read it.HE was NOT breaking ANY LAW YOU LYING TWO FACE RETARD. Quit with the lying.there are a lot of questions there to unpackIn Kenosha, what specifically did the mayor do to hinder the police?
Why were people out there after curfew and the police seemingly doing nothing to disperse them?
Why did the police allow a 17 yr in with a gun?
Lots of problems her that led to this.
I cant tell you what private instructions the mayor gave to the chief of police in kenosha
but across America democrat mayors have police forces that are ineffective at protecting the public from “peaceful protestors” on a violent Why were people out there after curfew and the police seemingly doing nothing to disperse them?
“Why were people out there after curfew and the police seemingly doing nothing to disperse them?”
obviously the hands of the police are tied
“Why did the police allow a 17 yr in with a gun?”
thats simple
when the democrat party authorities lose control of the cities they are responsible for anything is possible
You are answering the questions with non answers, come on! If the Kenosha mayor gave instructions, there should be evidence. If there is not, it is pure speculation.
Same with curfew. I think that as well as allowing an illegally armed 17 yr old in are reasonable questions to ask and all you have is a partisan political response? Come on, there was a huge failure here from the mayor (the buck stops here) to the police (collaborating with unaccountable privately armed citizens, allowing a minor with a gun into a tense volatile situation), the parent who drove him there and the person who gave him that gun (a felony). At the very least tbe mayor, sheriff and police chief should resign.
That is an outright lie.
While some of the claims are arguable by both sides, one is not.
It is against the law for a 17 yr old to be armed in Wisconsin.
Had that not happened none of the rest would have.
That is an outright lie.
While some of the claims are arguable by both sides, one is not.
It is against the law for a 17 yr old to be armed in Wisconsin.
Had that not happened none of the rest would have
Mayor. Can’t skirt the responsibility. One neckMayor.
Sheriff.
Police Chief.
Parent.
The minor was 16 years of age or older and possessed or carried either a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches or longer, or a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer.
Where ya at you lying loon Coyote?The minor was 16 years of age or older and possessed or carried either a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches or longer, or a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer.
Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia
Section firearms and minors.
Ya two criminals that were actively in the process of committing MORE crimes were just concerned citizens. Go peddle your stupidity to someone that is retarded enough to buy it.I think you have your own rampant bias and intellectual dishonesty here.Agree. All that has come out and been substantiated over time. The guy was a piece of crap, no wonder his sister said she did not want a go fund me done for him. But even pieces of crap have rights under the law. None of this was known at the time of the incident. It isn’t up to mobs to execute people and it isn’t up to vigilantes to pass sentence on someone outside the law.Most people realize that a dde who molested five boys, none older than age 11, is, in fect, a pedophile.Most people don’t confuse Molotov cocktails with plastic bags and statutory rape with pedophilia.Ah yes...the fictional Molotov. He is no hero, he is just another killer.He is when he is a Rightwinger.Since when is a murderer a "patriot"?
Self-defense is not murder, as you will soon learn.
When the police did not show up to defend the community against the Molotov bombers, this 17 year old did. A hero, he probably saved lives, and children from the pedophile.
You wanted vigilante justice now you got it, real justice as well. Be happy with it.
The Molotov that was thrown at him is now fictional?
What in the fuck?
You can always guarantee these 3rd worldists who are incapable of living productive life in modern society to back the pedophiles and criminals and root against the Americans and American heroes.
Pre-sentence report...
The arguments in this case keep evolving.
First, insufficient evidence as to what happened.
Then, claims of Molotov cocktail and self defense.
Then criminal record comes out.
Then killing justified because Rosenbaum is a piece of crap.
The ONLY justification for a civilian killing another is self defense or defense of another. Not to pass judgement of a person and decide he or she is worthy of death.
That is not lawlesshe’s.
And frankly, makes me wonder if we are going to enter into an era of an eye for an eye of extrajudicial killings.
Rittenhouse killed two, he and his lawyer is getting death threats.
Reinoehl Killed one, his estranged sister and her family are getting death threats.
Two increasingly radicalized ideologies clashing in our cities. No one in leadership toning down the rhetoric.
He wasn't executed. He was killed while trying to murder a 17 year old. His actions placed him in front of that muzzle.
Here you are, finally acknowledging that the guy was a fucking pervert, after defending him for days even after it was WELL documented he was a fucking violent felon, and now, here you are attacking a 17 year old for defending himself and accusing that 17 year old of executing a poor defenceless protester.
It was NOT well documented to begin with. Linking to a state sex offender registry that doesn’t show hI’m in it is not well documented.
I don’t know about you, but I really try to make sure of the facts before accusing dead people of serious crimes because the first thing you guys do is immediately try shred the character of the victims. Dead people can not defend themselves. First thing you guys do, every time as if that justifies the killing.
And you still are trying to claim all three were violent felons, when one was only convicted of a misdeamenor (as far as I can find) along the same lines as Kyle, and the other was trying to stop an active shooter (from the perspective he saw at the situation from).
I did not say he executed them. I said killed.
So get this through your skull, the 17 year old has NO prior record, and the THREE people he shot, were ALL convicted felons.
Prior record changes nothing. It has no bearing in and of itself on whether or not you have the right to kill someone. A record does not give the right to kill. ONLY self defense does.
And Kyle CAN make a reasonable for self defense. Likewise a reasonable argument can be made that Huber was trying to take down an active shooter(an action you guys would call heroic if he was on of yours). But Huber is dead. Can’t speak for himself.
On the felon bit. You claim all three are “convicted felons” but all I can find on Grosskreutz is having a gun while intoxicated. You have something else?
And you insist on attacking the ONE person in this drama who isn't a CONVICTED FELON.
Are you seriously making an argument that it is ok for a “non-felon” can go and shoot someone, and get away with it solely because the victim was a felon?
Kyle will likely walk on the most serious charges. Self defense is reasonable with Rosenbaum and Huber. But less so with the guy he wounded, who had his hands in the air and was not pointing the gun at Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him. And he won’t walk on the charge of illegal possession of a fire arm.
Wake. The. Fuck. Up.
I do not support lawlessness or vigilanteism.
I can't buy the self-defense argument in these circumstances, particularly since Huber and Grosskreutz were trying to take down an active shooter. Poor Mr. Huber tried to do it unarmed. But right-wingers yell "self defense!" every damned time someone other than a right-winger gets shot. This is really getting boring. It totally lacks credibility.
The argument that Rittenhouse was a hero for shooting Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum had a record is totally absurd, since Rittenhouse could not have known of it at the time. To the best of my knowledge, the two did not know each other. One cannot seriously attribute a motive to a shooter who had no knowledge of his victim. The people contending this are complete assholes. There is nothing to suggest that he knew any of the three people he shot.
The Kenosha cops could have prevented this whole thing if they had just done their jobs and cleared the streets. The cops in the armed vehicles had the last clear chance. Talk about cops refusing to protect their city.
I can buy the self defense argument when you try to look at from Rittenhouse’s perspective.
Shooting #1...don’t know for sure, let the courts decide that one.
Shooting #2...Huber was trying to disarm him. He had no way of knowing Huber’s intentions.
Shooting #3...the guy had a gun, but had his hands in the air, gun pointing up, backing away. The claim is Kyle thought he made a threatening move and shot him.
It is all about perspective, and those who proclaim Kyle a hero Or a villain, are only willing to see ONE perspective. And keep in mind this is a 17 yr old NOT a seasoned adult.
Here is another perspective.
Huber and Grosskreutz (thoroughly demonized and deemed worthy of killing by thr right) .... what was THEIR perspective?
Gunshots.
Someone yelling “hey, that guy shot someone” and seeing a guy jogging down the street with a gun.
Huber and Grosskreutz trying time take down an active shooter.
If Huber and Grosskreutz were rightwing militants and Kyle a protester...who would would the rabid right label a hero? The villain? They would all over that video of Kyle punching the girl.
It is pretty fucked up frankly. The only real villains are the people who allowed an illegally armed 17 yr old to be in that situation In the first place.
And all the while you ignore the simple fact that the 17 year old was RUNNING AWAY!.
How can you be so blind?
Yes. An active shooter running away. Don‘t brave people try to STOP active shooters from escaping?
Or does that depend on the ideologies involved?
An active shooter attacks random people. The 17 year old only shot people ATTACKING HIM.
Your rampant bias and intellectual dishonesty are quite shocking.
As far as anyone could know while this was happening, he was an active shooter. No one knew why he shot anyone, only that he did. From the perception of the people there (many of whom were fleeing and screaming) there was an active shooter. I doubt the dead man who tried to take him down had time to first run around to where the shooting occurred, interview the witness, and review all the videos first.
No one with a brain could come to the conclusion he was an active shooter because HE WASN'T SHOOTING! He only fired the rifle when he was forced to.
For fucks sake there are loads of video that show this to be true.
Isn’t hindsight just fantastic? Maybe you could lend some to the people pursuing the killer and remind them that they should reviewed all those videos before trying to apprehend a killer.
You keep saying that. Show us the crimes those three were actively committing. A video showing them would be helpful.
And please don’t pretend the plastic bag was a Molotov cocktail.
What the lib democrat mayor told the chief of police in kenosha is your question not mineYou are answering the questions with non answers, come on! If the Kenosha mayor gave instructions, there should be evidence. If there is not, it is pure speculation.
Depends; he was running towards the cops and they were attacking him in an apparent attempt to beat him to death before he could reach them.People seem to think that if has a criminal record (either real or fake)....it is ok to kill them. They have no rights.
Extrajudicial killings equal “hero”.
No, they're simply noting that the three thugs that attacked Kyle were slimeballs.
So it's not okay to attack a man who just shot somebody? Sorry that won't fly in court, but once Little Kyle is imprisoned for life, perhaps the two of you can become pen pals.
The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayorsSame with curfew. I think that as well as allowing an illegally armed 17 yr old in are reasonable questions to ask and all you have is a partisan political response?
The All Father is NOT the god of war and death.Is it wrong for me to hope that there are 10,000 more dead commies at the hands of patriots like Rittenhouse?
Is it wrong to pray to Woden and Thor for the opportunity to kill commies and die in battle to go to Valhalla?
I need some opinions.
My avatar portrait is Odin.
Figures that you would choose the God of War and Death.
The All Father is NOT the god of war and death.Is it wrong for me to hope that there are 10,000 more dead commies at the hands of patriots like Rittenhouse?
Is it wrong to pray to Woden and Thor for the opportunity to kill commies and die in battle to go to Valhalla?
I need some opinions.
My avatar portrait is Odin.
Figures that you would choose the God of War and Death.
I am a Heathen and I was not taught that.The All Father is NOT the god of war and death.Is it wrong for me to hope that there are 10,000 more dead commies at the hands of patriots like Rittenhouse?
Is it wrong to pray to Woden and Thor for the opportunity to kill commies and die in battle to go to Valhalla?
I need some opinions.
My avatar portrait is Odin.
Figures that you would choose the God of War and Death.
WRONG
Odin has many names and is the god of both war and death. Half of the warriors who die in battle are taken to his hall of Valhalla. He is the one-eyed All-Father, who sacrificed his eye in order to see everything that happens in the world.
[
Look you retard the law has been posted in this forum several times, Kyle was NOT in violation of the LAW. You can disagree all you want Coyote but that is a BALD FACED LIE and you keep repeating it. You are a LYING ASSHOLE.
True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayorsSame with curfew. I think that as well as allowing an illegally armed 17 yr old in are reasonable questions to ask and all you have is a partisan political response?
Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity
What felony was he convicted of?Ya two criminals that were actively in the process of committing MORE crimes were just concerned citizens. Go peddle your stupidity to someone that is retarded enough to buy it.I think you have your own rampant bias and intellectual dishonesty here.Agree. All that has come out and been substantiated over time. The guy was a piece of crap, no wonder his sister said she did not want a go fund me done for him. But even pieces of crap have rights under the law. None of this was known at the time of the incident. It isn’t up to mobs to execute people and it isn’t up to vigilantes to pass sentence on someone outside the law.Most people realize that a dde who molested five boys, none older than age 11, is, in fect, a pedophile.Most people don’t confuse Molotov cocktails with plastic bags and statutory rape with pedophilia.Ah yes...the fictional Molotov. He is no hero, he is just another killer.He is when he is a Rightwinger.Since when is a murderer a "patriot"?
Self-defense is not murder, as you will soon learn.
When the police did not show up to defend the community against the Molotov bombers, this 17 year old did. A hero, he probably saved lives, and children from the pedophile.
You wanted vigilante justice now you got it, real justice as well. Be happy with it.
The Molotov that was thrown at him is now fictional?
What in the fuck?
You can always guarantee these 3rd worldists who are incapable of living productive life in modern society to back the pedophiles and criminals and root against the Americans and American heroes.
Pre-sentence report...
The arguments in this case keep evolving.
First, insufficient evidence as to what happened.
Then, claims of Molotov cocktail and self defense.
Then criminal record comes out.
Then killing justified because Rosenbaum is a piece of crap.
The ONLY justification for a civilian killing another is self defense or defense of another. Not to pass judgement of a person and decide he or she is worthy of death.
That is not lawlesshe’s.
And frankly, makes me wonder if we are going to enter into an era of an eye for an eye of extrajudicial killings.
Rittenhouse killed two, he and his lawyer is getting death threats.
Reinoehl Killed one, his estranged sister and her family are getting death threats.
Two increasingly radicalized ideologies clashing in our cities. No one in leadership toning down the rhetoric.
He wasn't executed. He was killed while trying to murder a 17 year old. His actions placed him in front of that muzzle.
Here you are, finally acknowledging that the guy was a fucking pervert, after defending him for days even after it was WELL documented he was a fucking violent felon, and now, here you are attacking a 17 year old for defending himself and accusing that 17 year old of executing a poor defenceless protester.
It was NOT well documented to begin with. Linking to a state sex offender registry that doesn’t show hI’m in it is not well documented.
I don’t know about you, but I really try to make sure of the facts before accusing dead people of serious crimes because the first thing you guys do is immediately try shred the character of the victims. Dead people can not defend themselves. First thing you guys do, every time as if that justifies the killing.
And you still are trying to claim all three were violent felons, when one was only convicted of a misdeamenor (as far as I can find) along the same lines as Kyle, and the other was trying to stop an active shooter (from the perspective he saw at the situation from).
I did not say he executed them. I said killed.
So get this through your skull, the 17 year old has NO prior record, and the THREE people he shot, were ALL convicted felons.
Prior record changes nothing. It has no bearing in and of itself on whether or not you have the right to kill someone. A record does not give the right to kill. ONLY self defense does.
And Kyle CAN make a reasonable for self defense. Likewise a reasonable argument can be made that Huber was trying to take down an active shooter(an action you guys would call heroic if he was on of yours). But Huber is dead. Can’t speak for himself.
On the felon bit. You claim all three are “convicted felons” but all I can find on Grosskreutz is having a gun while intoxicated. You have something else?
And you insist on attacking the ONE person in this drama who isn't a CONVICTED FELON.
Are you seriously making an argument that it is ok for a “non-felon” can go and shoot someone, and get away with it solely because the victim was a felon?
Kyle will likely walk on the most serious charges. Self defense is reasonable with Rosenbaum and Huber. But less so with the guy he wounded, who had his hands in the air and was not pointing the gun at Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse shot him. And he won’t walk on the charge of illegal possession of a fire arm.
Wake. The. Fuck. Up.
I do not support lawlessness or vigilanteism.
I can't buy the self-defense argument in these circumstances, particularly since Huber and Grosskreutz were trying to take down an active shooter. Poor Mr. Huber tried to do it unarmed. But right-wingers yell "self defense!" every damned time someone other than a right-winger gets shot. This is really getting boring. It totally lacks credibility.
The argument that Rittenhouse was a hero for shooting Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum had a record is totally absurd, since Rittenhouse could not have known of it at the time. To the best of my knowledge, the two did not know each other. One cannot seriously attribute a motive to a shooter who had no knowledge of his victim. The people contending this are complete assholes. There is nothing to suggest that he knew any of the three people he shot.
The Kenosha cops could have prevented this whole thing if they had just done their jobs and cleared the streets. The cops in the armed vehicles had the last clear chance. Talk about cops refusing to protect their city.
I can buy the self defense argument when you try to look at from Rittenhouse’s perspective.
Shooting #1...don’t know for sure, let the courts decide that one.
Shooting #2...Huber was trying to disarm him. He had no way of knowing Huber’s intentions.
Shooting #3...the guy had a gun, but had his hands in the air, gun pointing up, backing away. The claim is Kyle thought he made a threatening move and shot him.
It is all about perspective, and those who proclaim Kyle a hero Or a villain, are only willing to see ONE perspective. And keep in mind this is a 17 yr old NOT a seasoned adult.
Here is another perspective.
Huber and Grosskreutz (thoroughly demonized and deemed worthy of killing by thr right) .... what was THEIR perspective?
Gunshots.
Someone yelling “hey, that guy shot someone” and seeing a guy jogging down the street with a gun.
Huber and Grosskreutz trying time take down an active shooter.
If Huber and Grosskreutz were rightwing militants and Kyle a protester...who would would the rabid right label a hero? The villain? They would all over that video of Kyle punching the girl.
It is pretty fucked up frankly. The only real villains are the people who allowed an illegally armed 17 yr old to be in that situation In the first place.
And all the while you ignore the simple fact that the 17 year old was RUNNING AWAY!.
How can you be so blind?
Yes. An active shooter running away. Don‘t brave people try to STOP active shooters from escaping?
Or does that depend on the ideologies involved?
An active shooter attacks random people. The 17 year old only shot people ATTACKING HIM.
Your rampant bias and intellectual dishonesty are quite shocking.
As far as anyone could know while this was happening, he was an active shooter. No one knew why he shot anyone, only that he did. From the perception of the people there (many of whom were fleeing and screaming) there was an active shooter. I doubt the dead man who tried to take him down had time to first run around to where the shooting occurred, interview the witness, and review all the videos first.
No one with a brain could come to the conclusion he was an active shooter because HE WASN'T SHOOTING! He only fired the rifle when he was forced to.
For fucks sake there are loads of video that show this to be true.
Isn’t hindsight just fantastic? Maybe you could lend some to the people pursuing the killer and remind them that they should reviewed all those videos before trying to apprehend a killer.
You keep saying that. Show us the crimes those three were actively committing. A video showing them would be helpful.
And please don’t pretend the plastic bag was a Molotov cocktail.
Hitting the 17 year old in the head with a skateboard is Assault With a Deadly Weapon at the least. The guy who lived was carrying a pistol, he was a convicted felon so guess what, THAT is a felony right there.
[
Look you retard the law has been posted in this forum several times, Kyle was NOT in violation of the LAW. You can disagree all you want Coyote but that is a BALD FACED LIE and you keep repeating it. You are a LYING ASSHOLE.
Again:
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.
(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.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998(1998).True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayorsSame with curfew. I think that as well as allowing an illegally armed 17 yr old in are reasonable questions to ask and all you have is a partisan political response?
Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity
I linked to the Wisconsin laws directly, not wikipedia.several times in this thread. A 17yr old can not possess a firearm except under specific conditions none of which apply in this case.The minor was 16 years of age or older and possessed or carried either a rifle with a barrel length of 16 inches or longer, or a shotgun with a barrel length of 18 inches or longer.
Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia
Section firearms and minors.
