Twitter Attacks Lawyer Representing American Patriot, Kyle Rittenhouse

[jc456]

Yeah, attacked with a plastic bag is life threatening

Was it thrown at him? That’s assault stupid fk

 

[jc456]

HE LIVES IN ILLINOIS

So where did the gun come from if not his home?

And he was breaking WI gun laws

Uninformed stupid yet a fifth time for you. Are you really that lazy not to do research ahead of declaring your ignorance? Thanks for showing us what ignorance looks like

 

[jc456]

he was running away because people saw him kill a man and those people were chasing him to stop him from killing anyone else

The irony there that you’re ok with them being vigilanties but not for Kyle? Hmm you are officially demofk!

wrong again

I'm not Ok with violence or vigilantism


You seem to be though since you think it's OK to violate gun laws.

I merely stated a fact and did not indicate whatsoever that I supported the people who chased Rittenhouse.

The fact is the primary cause of this incident was Rittenhouse breaking WI gun laws.

He added to the problem.

Better get used to them both.

The Future of American Policing

Written by: Greg Ellifritz I had two different friends send me messages last weekend requesting my thoughts on what policing is going to look like in the future. I thought about it quite

www.activeresponsetraining.net

From the link;

"Fewer and fewer people will want to be cops. That will further lower hiring and training standards. Tax revenue losses and “defunding efforts” will drive salaries down and make working conditions more difficult. The only folks who will become cops in the future are those people who have no other career options.


As more and more low quality candidates are hired, public trust for the police will further erode. The police will become continually more corrupt and inept until they are almost useless.


The really good cops (and a lot of former soldiers) will move on to better paying private security positions. The rich will hire those security people as bodyguards and neighborhood patrols.


The middle class and poor well have to contend with the corrupt police system or take care of things themselves (either by vigilante or gang action.)


This is essentially how it works in many third world countries. I have lots of experience traveling in Peru, so I’ll use the capital city of Lima as an example.


In the most affluent neighborhoods you don’t see many cops. But there are professional armed security guards at all banks, many public businesses and on roving patrol in marked vehicles in the neighborhood at night.


In the poorer neighborhoods, you don’t see many cops either. They’ll respond to something serious, but don’t expect them to investigate some kind of minor property crime without a significant bribe.


View attachment 385575

Most of the lower class residents ignore any petty criminal stuff. They band up with family or friends to handle any serious business. Sometimes the residents will pay the local criminal gangs to take care of such problems instead if they have some extra cash. The bad guy gets beaten or taken out. The cops don’t work hard to find the perpetrators of these crimes because they know exactly what is happening."

irrelevant.

And rittenhouse was not protecting his family or his property he was playing soldier while breaking the law.

There is no comparison with law abiding gun owners defending their homes to what Rittenhouse did.

You said you're not okay with vigilantism or violence; if this shit keeps up, you will get a lot more of both.

Defending your own home is not vigilantism

Taking a gun out of state carrying that gun illegally and shooting people is vigilantism


see the difference?

who did that??

try and stay on topic,,

Rittenhouse

pay attention

he didnt take a gun across state lines and he worked in that city 20 miles away,,yet to be determined he was carrying illegal,,,
and he didnt just shoot someone,,he defended himself from attackers,,,

lying about the facts doesnt help your narrative,,

He lives in Illinois

He took a rifle across state lines and carried it illegally in WI

Why don't you learn the facts instead of making shit up?

And he was breaking the law. IF he was a law abiding gun owner he would not have put himself in the position where he had to kill anyone.

You can't claim self defense in the commission of a crime.

he didnt take it across state lines,,or do you have proof that goes against the current facts,,,

if I'm running a stop sign I have a right to defend myself if someone is attacking me,,,


youre just a deranged moron that know if he doesnt lie he loses,,,

HE LIVES IN ILLINOIS

So where did the gun come from if not his home?

And he was breaking WI gun laws.

his friend in Wisconsin you stupid fuck,,educate yourself before talking again,,,

He said it was his rifle not his friend's rifle.

And regardless he was still carrying that weapon ILLEGALLY.

not according to the 2nd A,,,

thats why you criminals hate it so much,,,

Really?

I happen to be a law abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit.

Because I am a law abiding gun owner I do not condone the breaking of state gun laws.

The open carry gun laws of WI have not been found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. So in reality it is you who is wiping his ass with the Constitution when you support the breaking of laws.

What law are you referring to?

 

[jc456]

Irrelevant.

He willingly broke the law just like any other criminal

If he had obeyed the law he would not have put himself in the position where he had to shoot anyone.

Rittenhouse's illegal actions were the primary cause of the entire incident

How’s that irrelevant exactly?

 

[jc456]

SCOTUS rules on the Constitutionality of laws.

No they don’t! Son, you’re very lost today! Congress make laws, SCOTUS interprets the use of the law by assholes who don’t like them

 

[boedicca]

In the early Aughts, I was on several message boards that had the overwrought prog modding. The more I see of Twatter, Fascistbook et all, the more I am convinced that they are just the same thing with Bankster valuations.

 

[Coyote]

There were legitim a te protestors thete as well.

just as there were legit protesters supporting Confederate monuments in Charlotte when one lib protester died and liberals attacked everyone on the other side of the street as nazis

So you have liberals attacking all rightist protesters as nazis and conservatives attacking all leftist protestors as commies....Where do we go from there?

 

[Mac-7]

So you have liberals attacking all rightist protesters as nazis and conservatives attacking all leftist protestors as commies....Where do we go from there?

Thats up to the leftists who are pushing the street protests

 

[Coyote]

so show me specifically what the Kenosha mayor that prevented the police from doing their job?

You keep asking that same dumb question that on one can answer

the liberal democrat mayor in kenosha has failed to protect his city from the BLM and ANTIFA vermin by establishing law and order in his city

just as the liberal democrat elected officials in portland and other cities have failed to do

When you make claim, like the mayor PREVENTED the police from doing their job, you need to support it because otherwise your only argument is”he is a Dem”.

Who is at fault?
The Mayor - because LIKE ANY MAYOR the buck stops here.
The Sheriff and Police Chief - they did not enforce curfew, they allowed an illegally minor to participate.
The Parent.

 

[Coyote]

So you have liberals attacking all rightist protesters as nazis and conservatives attacking all leftist protestors as commies....Where do we go from there?

Thats up to the leftists who are pushing the street protests

Not really.

There is considerably evidence of rightwing extremists involved as well, trying to provoke or starting violent confrontations.

Protesting is legal. For the left as well as tbe right.

Rioting is not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't support law breaking of any kind and I have said that repeatedly.
You do.

If that person was carrying illegally he is just as much a criminal as Rittenhouse is.

The Second Amendment is the law.

Apparently, you're perfectly fine with lawbreaking in the form of the enactment and enforcement of unconstitutional “law” that violates the Constitution which is the highest law in this nation.

You cannot credibly support any act of government which violates the people's right to keep and bear arms, and still honestly claim to oppose lawbreaking or to uphold the rule of law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Only if the Supreme Court says they do.

That's how the system works in the US

Their illegal usurpation notwithstanding, the Supreme Court does not have, has never had, and never will have the legitimate authority to override or overrule the Constitution.

Neither does any other part of any of the three branches of our federal government nor any state government.

The Constitution itself defines the only legitimate way in which it can be overridden, which is through the process of ratifying a new Amendment to it.

 

[DrLove]

[
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?

Oh heck, they're all for Toddlers with Guns. Always remember the immortal words of Steve Stockman!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is considerably evidence of rightwing extremists involved as well, trying to provoke or starting violent confrontations.

No sane person is buying this blatant bullshit, of left wrong-wing pieces of shit trying to blame fictitious right-wing provocateurs for the crimes that everyone can see it is the LIbtARds committing.

Not that you ever had any credibility to begin with, but if you did, you'd be destroying it every time you repeat this blatant lie. which you know damn well is a lie..

Protesting is legal. For the left as well as tbe [/sic] right.

Rioting is not.

And yet yours is the side that insists on calling what any sane person can see is rioting, “peaceful protest”.

Do you wonder why no sane person sees you and your kind as anything better than a lying piece of shit?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Oh heck, they're all for Toddlers with Guns. Always remember the immortal words of Steve Stockman!



View attachment 385672

My father taught me to shoot when I was about five or six years old.

My wife has a shotgun that her parents gave her as a Christmas present when she was eight years old.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” — Richard Henry Lee​

 

[DrLove]

Since when is a murderer a "patriot"?

What murder?

The two people dead in Kenosha. Plus the guy who got his arm shot off. Don't be an idiot.

I'm tired of useless people using the word "patriot" to hide the fact that they are not patriotic at all.

Indeed, the "patriot" shit gets real old, REAL fast when discussing people shooting peaceful protesters and defending murderous Boogaloo Bois, White Nationalists and militia malcontents.

But Turtlesoup is what I'd like to make out of Mitch McConnell on November 3rd!

 

[DrLove]

Oh heck, they're all for Toddlers with Guns. Always remember the immortal words of Steve Stockman!



View attachment 385672

My father taught me to shoot when I was about five or six years old.

My wife has a shotgun that her parents gave her as a Christmas present when she was eight years old.

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” — Richard Henry Lee​

Hey, my Dad taught me how to shoot at tin cans when I was around 12. That's about the right age for safer guns such as the bolt action 22 I learned to shoot with IMHO.
I'm a gun owner (one - a Glock 9mm) which I practice with regularly and maintain for home defense purposes.
Give a 9 year old an Uzi and THIS is what tends to happen.

Uzi Instructor Charles Vacca's Family: Death Was 'Tragic Accident'

The grieving family of Charles Vacca, the shooting instructor accidentally killed by a 9-year-old, said they feel “sorry” for the girl and her family.

www.nbcnews.com

But thanks for the quote from the mid 1700s. It is so VERY relevant today!

 

[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?

Oh heck, they're all for Toddlers with Guns. Always remember the immortal words of Steve Stockman!



View attachment 385672

This what I mean. We have a crazy sick gun culture in this country. It was nothing like this in my Grandfather’s time, and the weaponry was far less lethal. Guns were just a tool. Not a fetish you parade into 7-11 when you are getting a slurpy.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This what I mean. We have a crazy sick gun culture in this country. It was nothing like this in my Grandfather’s time, and the weaponry was far less lethal. Guns were just a tool. Not a fetish you parade into 7-11 when you are getting a slurpy.

It's noticeable that you only hear of “crazy sick gun culture in this country”, or hear the right to keep and bear arms serialized as a “fetish” from those who openly side with criminal and tyrants, and who oppose the right of law-abiding citizens to be equipped to defend themselves and their freedom.

Freud did not say what is often attributed to him, about a fear of weapons being a sign of retarded sexual maturity, and I do not know who did say it, but there is certainly no shortage of examples to prove that this saying is true.

 

[Coyote]

There is considerably evidence of rightwing extremists involved as well, trying to provoke or starting violent confrontations.

No sane person is buying this blatant bullshit, of left wrong-wing pieces of shit trying to blame fictitious right-wing provocateurs for the crimes that everyone can see it is the LIbtARds committing.

Not that you ever had any credibility to begin with, but if you did, you'd be destroying it every time you repeat this blatant lie. which you know damn well is a lie..

Protesting is legal. For the left as well as tbe [/sic] right.

Rioting is not.

And yet yours is the side that insists on calling what any sane person can see is rioting, “peaceful protest”.

Do you wonder why no sane person sees you and your kind as anything better than a lying piece of shit?

View attachment 385674

Leaked Documents Show Police Knew Far-Right Extremists Were the Real Threat at Protests, Not “Antifa”

An analysis of leaked law enforcement documents reveals an obsession with “antifa” despite evidence of threats of violence to police and protesters.

theintercept.com

Right-wing provocateurs continue to instigate violence

Proud Boys and others who infiltrated BLM demonstrations haven’t stopped wreaking havoc

medium.com

Vehicle Attacks Rise As Extremists Target Protesters

Twenty people are facing prosecution amid reports of at least 50 vehicle-ramming incidents at protests since late May.

www.npr.org

Editorial: Right-wing extremist group 'Boogaloo boys' poses real threat during protests

Seven people were arrested in Columbia last week after police used social media posts to identify rioters and looters who staged a violent confrontation with police following a day of

www.postandcourier.com

3 men with ties to right-wing extremists plotted to terrorize Vegas protests, prosecutors say

Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terror charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas

www.latimes.com

U.S. assessment finds opportunists drive protest violence, not extremists

President Donald Trump has blamed leftwing extremist groups for instigating nights of looting and violence in cities across the United States, but an intelligence assessment offers limited evidence that organized extremists are behind the turmoil.

www.reuters.com