Twitter Attacks Lawyer Representing American Patriot, Kyle Rittenhouse

[Coyote]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

 

[Coyote]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

I am waiting for you guys to show me exactly what laws the 3 who were shot broke.

Noone has shown them actually engaging in rioting or arson. No witness statements I can find either. Si that is unsubstantiated.

What is substantiated is all were breaking curfew and Kyle was illegly armed.

 

[Norman]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

Toddlers can use firearms for self defense. And if they could not, that's the type of utter leftist insanity that we don't need again. Shoot the pedophile home-invaders that you defend.

I already presented the clip of two lawyers discussing this. They don't agree.

But a better question is, why are you spending so much time going after this hero, when there are dozens and dozens of murders by the rioters still lacking even prosecution. Why are you on the camp of Satan?

 

[Coyote]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

Toddlers can use firearms for self defense. And if they could not, that's the type of utter leftist insanity that we don't need again. Shoot the pedophile home-invaders that you defend.

I already presented the clip of two lawyers discussing this. They don't agree.

But a better question is, why are you spending so much time going after this hero, when there are dozens and dozens of murders by the rioters still lacking even prosecution. Why are you on the camp of Satan?

He is not a hero. Killing people does not make one a hero. he was in a situation he should not have been in and illegally armed. Had he not been there none of this would have happened. He was saving no lives. He only made the situation a lot worse.

The question you shouldbe asking is why are so many armed people (left and right) appearing at protests?

I think gunrights extremists as nuts as any other extremists and we need some sanity.

 

[otto105]

Lawyers explain the case.

Can somebody post who gave kyle from Antioch the authority as a militia member to enforce anything in Kenosha.

He has a RIGHT under that State's law to protect property if the Owner asks him too. Been covered several times retard.

Again, he was not asked by the owner. Nor was he employed by owner or acting in a lawful capacity of any sort.

He is a murderer.

 

[otto105]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

Toddlers can use firearms for self defense. And if they could not, that's the type of utter leftist insanity that we don't need again. Shoot the pedophile home-invaders that you defend.

I already presented the clip of two lawyers discussing this. They don't agree.

But a better question is, why are you spending so much time going after this hero, when there are dozens and dozens of murders by the rioters still lacking even prosecution. Why are you on the camp of Satan?

Norm

Your clip has no factual lawful bases.

 

[Norman]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

Toddlers can use firearms for self defense. And if they could not, that's the type of utter leftist insanity that we don't need again. Shoot the pedophile home-invaders that you defend.

I already presented the clip of two lawyers discussing this. They don't agree.

But a better question is, why are you spending so much time going after this hero, when there are dozens and dozens of murders by the rioters still lacking even prosecution. Why are you on the camp of Satan?

He is not a hero. Killing people does not make one a hero. he was in a situation he should not have been in and illegally armed. Had he not been there none of this would have happened. He was saving no lives. He only made the situation a lot worse.

The question you shouldbe asking is why are so many armed people (left and right) appearing at protests?

I think gunrights extremists as nuts as any other extremists and we need some sanity.

The rioters should have not been in that situation. They had an illegal gun, but oh, no comment about that for some reason. You are only interested in defaming the hero.

Given the rioters were there and were the agitators, Kyle did nothing wrong. Further, it's not your business to tell where people should or should not be anyway.

 

[Norman]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

Toddlers can use firearms for self defense. And if they could not, that's the type of utter leftist insanity that we don't need again. Shoot the pedophile home-invaders that you defend.

I already presented the clip of two lawyers discussing this. They don't agree.

But a better question is, why are you spending so much time going after this hero, when there are dozens and dozens of murders by the rioters still lacking even prosecution. Why are you on the camp of Satan?

Norm

Your clip has no factual lawful bases.

Two lawyers who have dealt with these types of cases before reading the law is not factual?

You are batshit.

 

[Norman]

The lawyers will be discussing the events again in four hours.

 

[otto105]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

Toddlers can use firearms for self defense. And if they could not, that's the type of utter leftist insanity that we don't need again. Shoot the pedophile home-invaders that you defend.

I already presented the clip of two lawyers discussing this. They don't agree.

But a better question is, why are you spending so much time going after this hero, when there are dozens and dozens of murders by the rioters still lacking even prosecution. Why are you on the camp of Satan?

He is not a hero. Killing people does not make one a hero. he was in a situation he should not have been in and illegally armed. Had he not been there none of this would have happened. He was saving no lives. He only made the situation a lot worse.

The question you shouldbe asking is why are so many armed people (left and right) appearing at protests?

I think gunrights extremists as nuts as any other extremists and we need some sanity.

The rioters should have not been in that situation. They had an illegal gun, but oh, no comment about that for some reason. You are only interested in defaming the hero.

Given the rioters were there and were the agitators, Kyle did nothing wrong. Further, it's not your business to tell where people should or should not be anyway.

Norm

When will you be posting factual statements regarding Kyle from Antoich?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But he is tbe [sic] one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

He did not kill nor wound any people. He killed two and wounded one, subhuman criminal pieces of shit.

 

[otto105]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

You xan argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess abd use fire arms right?

Toddlers can use firearms for self defense. And if they could not, that's the type of utter leftist insanity that we don't need again. Shoot the pedophile home-invaders that you defend.

I already presented the clip of two lawyers discussing this. They don't agree.

But a better question is, why are you spending so much time going after this hero, when there are dozens and dozens of murders by the rioters still lacking even prosecution. Why are you on the camp of Satan?

Norm

Your clip has no factual lawful bases.

Two lawyers who have dealt with these types of cases before reading the law is not factual?

You are batshit.

Can you post the cases?

Can you source the case law?

 

[freyasman]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

I am waiting for you guys to show me exactly what laws the 3 who were shot broke.

Noone has shown them actually engaging in rioting or arson. No witness statements I can find either. Si that is unsubstantiated.

What is substantiated is all were breaking curfew and Kyle was illegly armed.

Felony assault...... stupid.

 

[otto105]

But he is tbe [sic] one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

He did not kill nor wound any people. He killed two and wounded one, subhuman criminal pieces of shit.

Kyle from Antoich is a murderer.

Why do you support criminala?

 

[progressive hunter]

[
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).

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?

The streets were filled with anarchy and mayhem thanks to bedwetting liberal democrat mayors

Rittenhouse was only one small part of the insanity

True. But he is tbe one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

I think you are very confused. The law says "Shall not be infringed".

He was using the 2A EXACTLY for the purpose it was intended. If you think that's not going to come up in the trial, you are wrong.

By the way, have you not found any laws the rioters have broken? Is it only the guy who shot a pedophile that is in the wrong?

I am waiting for you guys to show me exactly what laws the 3 who were shot broke.

Noone has shown them actually engaging in rioting or arson. No witness statements I can find either. Si that is unsubstantiated.

What is substantiated is all were breaking curfew and Kyle was illegly armed.

we have shown them many times,,you just want to twist the facts to make your narrative,,

 

[progressive hunter]

But he is tbe [sic] one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

He did not kill nor wound any people. He killed two and wounded one, subhuman criminal pieces of shit.

Kyle from Antoich is a murderer.

Why do you support criminala?

show us where he was convicted of murder,,,

 

[otto105]

But he is tbe [sic] one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

He did not kill nor wound any people. He killed two and wounded one, subhuman criminal pieces of shit.

Kyle from Antoich is a murderer.

Why do you support criminala?

show us where he was convicted of murder,,,

give it time

 

[progressive hunter]

But he is tbe [sic] one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

He did not kill nor wound any people. He killed two and wounded one, subhuman criminal pieces of shit.

Kyle from Antoich is a murderer.

Why do you support criminala?

show us where he was convicted of murder,,,

give it time

you said he was a murderer,,,so show us where he was convicted of murder or shut up,,,

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You xan [sic] argue 2A, but it is irrelevant. Wisconsin law says otherwise and age restrictions have long been upheld.

The Constitution is the highest law in this nation.

No lesser law or ruling can validly override it.

You realize your argument would allow toddlers to posess [sic] abd [sic] use fire arms right?

 

[otto105]

But he is tbe [sic] one that killed two people and wounded another. That rather elevates it.

He did not kill nor wound any people. He killed two and wounded one, subhuman criminal pieces of shit.

Kyle from Antoich is a murderer.

Why do you support criminala?

show us where he was convicted of murder,,,

give it time

you said he was a murderer,,,so show us where he was convicted of murder or shut up,,,

kyle from Antoich will be convicted of murder (twice) once for attempted murder, illegal possession of a deadly weapon and by public opinion of being a white racist Asshole.