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.
not according to the wisconsin supreme court as I posted,,,you are obviously not capable of understanding the legal text. funny that you cannot even understand the boiled down explanation in your own source.I understand simple english,,,you obviously dont,,,no. you posted a link you did not understand.I posted the law,,now read it and shut up,,,it defines the castle. now please show the class where rittenhouse's castle was.What did it say?i already did that. it's your turn as you obviously do not understand what a castle is and why it does not apply here. your co-moron is ahead of you and tried to define his body as a castle. fail.How gosh darn hard is it to investigate something then provide feedback?An example for you Red Doper Diaper Baby played out in the Cheese State.his body dumbass,,,,what was rittenhouse's castle, perfessor?That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
"The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so."
Better to be judged by 12 than to be carried by 6. I would vote to acquit him with no qualms at all. Leftards are just pissed that their "rule by mob" took a hit. It was bound to happen. I wouldn't have an issue at all at emptying my clip against a mob intent on physically harming myself or others.Why don’t you read the open carry law in Wisconsin and the federal statute on illegal transportation of firearms.That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
instead of reposting the same stuff, you should read it. get someone to explain it to you. you clearly need help.not according to the wisconsin supreme court as I posted,,,you are obviously not capable of understanding the legal text. funny that you cannot even understand the boiled down explanation in your own source.I understand simple english,,,you obviously dont,,,no. you posted a link you did not understand.I posted the law,,now read it and shut up,,,it defines the castle. now please show the class where rittenhouse's castle was.What did it say?i already did that. it's your turn as you obviously do not understand what a castle is and why it does not apply here. your co-moron is ahead of you and tried to define his body as a castle. fail.How gosh darn hard is it to investigate something then provide feedback?An example for you Red Doper Diaper Baby played out in the Cheese State.his body dumbass,,,,what was rittenhouse's castle, perfessor?That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
"The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so."
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
it clearly says "ANY PERSON" AND DOESNT MENTION HOUSE OR BUSINESS,,,instead of reposting the same stuff, you should read it. get someone to explain it to you. you clearly need help.not according to the wisconsin supreme court as I posted,,,you are obviously not capable of understanding the legal text. funny that you cannot even understand the boiled down explanation in your own source.I understand simple english,,,you obviously dont,,,no. you posted a link you did not understand.I posted the law,,now read it and shut up,,,it defines the castle. now please show the class where rittenhouse's castle was.What did it say?i already did that. it's your turn as you obviously do not understand what a castle is and why it does not apply here. your co-moron is ahead of you and tried to define his body as a castle. fail.How gosh darn hard is it to investigate something then provide feedback?An example for you Red Doper Diaper Baby played out in the Cheese State.his body dumbass,,,,what was rittenhouse's castle, perfessor?That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
"The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so."
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
Well, if he completed hunter safety...the legal age is 15.He'll likely be acquitted of unlawful killing...but convicted of carrying a firearm while under the legal age to do so. In fact I suspect he'll be allowed to plead to that and it will be settled.No, he will not be acquitted and will be in your old cell in prison.I think he should have is gun ownership rights taken away....because it's clear he didn't handle himself well.If it turns out that what he did was illegal, would you support appropriate jail time?So what he did was legal?Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.
The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.
So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.
Absolutely. He should also be awarded the Medal of Freedom.
If it was me...I wouldn't be there in the first place.
But if I had to be there, I guarantee that there would be alot more bodies to clean up.
He handled himself fine.
The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.
I realize you are from Germany, Eder, and you folks have...... how shall we say....... a certain history of killing people who do not share your views, but your heroes, here, do not actually have the righr to bash in the kid's head until he is dead. They just don't, and your thinking they do just because you see him as having views that justify such doesn't make it so.i posted the link to the actual law, moron.not when you read the law dumbass,,,Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48(1m)
docs.legis.wisconsin.gov
the castle is one of three options.
the actor's dwelling, his motor vehicle, or his place of business. his place of business is a business he owns or operates.
rittenhouse is shit out of luck wrt castle doctrine.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
here, again. i even bold the castle doctrine for you.
If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
Well, if he completed hunter safety...the legal age is 15.He'll likely be acquitted of unlawful killing...but convicted of carrying a firearm while under the legal age to do so. In fact I suspect he'll be allowed to plead to that and it will be settled.
Exactly how did lefties with no control in the govt transform the nation. Are the repugnants so typically inept they couldn’t do anything ?Did you honestly expect good real Americans to stay sitting on their hands forever while you Lefties “fundamentally transformed” their nation?
@Mac1958
i quoted the legal text. and bolded the relevant parts. dwelling, motor vehicle, place of business. That’s when the expanded self-defense protection applies. that does not mean that there is no right to self-defense. ok, it is longer than a tweet, but if you can read, then the law defines it clearly.it clearly says "ANY PERSON" AND DOESNT MENTION HOUSE OR BUSINESS,,,instead of reposting the same stuff, you should read it. get someone to explain it to you. you clearly need help.not according to the wisconsin supreme court as I posted,,,you are obviously not capable of understanding the legal text. funny that you cannot even understand the boiled down explanation in your own source.I understand simple english,,,you obviously dont,,,no. you posted a link you did not understand.I posted the law,,now read it and shut up,,,it defines the castle. now please show the class where rittenhouse's castle was.What did it say?i already did that. it's your turn as you obviously do not understand what a castle is and why it does not apply here. your co-moron is ahead of you and tried to define his body as a castle. fail.How gosh darn hard is it to investigate something then provide feedback?An example for you Red Doper Diaper Baby played out in the Cheese State.his body dumbass,,,,what was rittenhouse's castle, perfessor?That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
"The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so."
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
YOU LOSE,,,dismissed,,,
Well, if he completed hunter safety...the legal age is 15.He'll likely be acquitted of unlawful killing...but convicted of carrying a firearm while under the legal age to do so. In fact I suspect he'll be allowed to plead to that and it will be settled.No, he will not be acquitted and will be in your old cell in prison.I think he should have is gun ownership rights taken away....because it's clear he didn't handle himself well.If it turns out that what he did was illegal, would you support appropriate jail time?So what he did was legal?Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.
The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.
So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.
Absolutely. He should also be awarded the Medal of Freedom.
If it was me...I wouldn't be there in the first place.
But if I had to be there, I guarantee that there would be alot more bodies to clean up.
He handled himself fine.
The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.
Something tells me he didn't pass.
Well, if he completed hunter safety...the legal age is 15.He'll likely be acquitted of unlawful killing...but convicted of carrying a firearm while under the legal age to do so. In fact I suspect he'll be allowed to plead to that and it will be settled.No, he will not be acquitted and will be in your old cell in prison.I think he should have is gun ownership rights taken away....because it's clear he didn't handle himself well.If it turns out that what he did was illegal, would you support appropriate jail time?So what he did was legal?Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.
The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.
So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.
Absolutely. He should also be awarded the Medal of Freedom.
If it was me...I wouldn't be there in the first place.
But if I had to be there, I guarantee that there would be alot more bodies to clean up.
He handled himself fine.
The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.
Something tells me he didn't pass.
He shot a man's right arm off who was holding a pistol...while he was on the ground.
He's instinctual (natural) marksmen!
and I posted the clarification from their supreme court,,i quoted the legal text. and bolded the relevant parts. dwelling, motor vehicle, place of business. That’s when the expanded self-defense protection applies. that does not mean that there is no right to self-defense. ok, it is longer than a tweet, but if you can read, then the law defines it clearly.it clearly says "ANY PERSON" AND DOESNT MENTION HOUSE OR BUSINESS,,,instead of reposting the same stuff, you should read it. get someone to explain it to you. you clearly need help.not according to the wisconsin supreme court as I posted,,,you are obviously not capable of understanding the legal text. funny that you cannot even understand the boiled down explanation in your own source.I understand simple english,,,you obviously dont,,,no. you posted a link you did not understand.I posted the law,,now read it and shut up,,,it defines the castle. now please show the class where rittenhouse's castle was.What did it say?i already did that. it's your turn as you obviously do not understand what a castle is and why it does not apply here. your co-moron is ahead of you and tried to define his body as a castle. fail.How gosh darn hard is it to investigate something then provide feedback?An example for you Red Doper Diaper Baby played out in the Cheese State.his body dumbass,,,,what was rittenhouse's castle, perfessor?That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
"The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so."
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
YOU LOSE,,,dismissed,,,
yes you are,,,you should get help soonest,,,Well, if he completed hunter safety...the legal age is 15.He'll likely be acquitted of unlawful killing...but convicted of carrying a firearm while under the legal age to do so. In fact I suspect he'll be allowed to plead to that and it will be settled.No, he will not be acquitted and will be in your old cell in prison.I think he should have is gun ownership rights taken away....because it's clear he didn't handle himself well.If it turns out that what he did was illegal, would you support appropriate jail time?So what he did was legal?Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.
The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.
So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.
Absolutely. He should also be awarded the Medal of Freedom.
If it was me...I wouldn't be there in the first place.
But if I had to be there, I guarantee that there would be alot more bodies to clean up.
He handled himself fine.
The Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha and Guardian of Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, will be acquitted by a Jury of his Peers, the townsfolk of Kenosha who have suffered immense harm by the hands of Rioters, Rapists, Arsonists, Looters and Thugs.
Something tells me he didn't pass.
He shot a man's right arm off who was holding a pistol...while he was on the ground.
He's instinctual (natural) marksmen!
Sick motherfucker.
ok, manuel. completely irrelevant drivel again. can you define the castle? do you understand the concept of the castle doctrine?I realize you are from Germany, Eder, and you folks have...... how shall we say....... a certain history of killing people who do not share your views, but your heroes, here, do not actually have the righr to bash in the kid's head until he is dead. They just don't, and your thinking they do just because you see him as having views that justify such doesn't make it so.i posted the link to the actual law, moron.not when you read the law dumbass,,,Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48(1m)
the castle is one of three options.
the actor's dwelling, his motor vehicle, or his place of business. his place of business is a business he owns or operates.
rittenhouse is shit out of luck wrt castle doctrine.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
here, again. i even bold the castle doctrine for you.
If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
People do not actually have the right to infringe on others by looting their belongings even if you think they do. People do not have the right to infringe on others by burning down peoples buildings, even if you think they do. People do not have the right to infringe on people's lives by ganging up and attacking them in ways so violent they fear for their lives - again, even though you think they should.
This is America. In America we DO have the right to life, we DO have property rights and we DO have the right to keep the stuff we own.
Got it?
It's what you and your ilk have always wanted. Another civil war.
Did you honestly expect good real Americans to stay sitting on their hands forever while you Lefties “fundamentally transformed” their nation?
I didn't honestly expect that. I expected them to give assault rifles to impressionable kids and encourage them to kill people and ruin their lives. Who knew I'd be right?
Evil motherfuckers, every one of you. Die soon. Please.
But, but, but...
my opinion is irrelevant,, what matters is their laws and what their courts say,,,ok, manuel. completely irrelevant drivel again. can you define the castle? do you understand the concept of the castle doctrine?I realize you are from Germany, Eder, and you folks have...... how shall we say....... a certain history of killing people who do not share your views, but your heroes, here, do not actually have the righr to bash in the kid's head until he is dead. They just don't, and your thinking they do just because you see him as having views that justify such doesn't make it so.i posted the link to the actual law, moron.not when you read the law dumbass,,,Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48(1m)
the castle is one of three options.
the actor's dwelling, his motor vehicle, or his place of business. his place of business is a business he owns or operates.
rittenhouse is shit out of luck wrt castle doctrine.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
here, again. i even bold the castle doctrine for you.
If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
People do not actually have the right to infringe on others by looting their belongings even if you think they do. People do not have the right to infringe on others by burning down peoples buildings, even if you think they do. People do not have the right to infringe on people's lives by ganging up and attacking them in ways so violent they fear for their lives - again, even though you think they should.
This is America. In America we DO have the right to life, we DO have property rights and we DO have the right to keep the stuff we own.
Got it?
the wi supreme court clarified that even the castle doctrine does not give carte blanche to shoot at people once they are outside of the castle. have some self-respect and try to understand your own source.and I posted the clarification from their supreme court,,i quoted the legal text. and bolded the relevant parts. dwelling, motor vehicle, place of business. That’s when the expanded self-defense protection applies. that does not mean that there is no right to self-defense. ok, it is longer than a tweet, but if you can read, then the law defines it clearly.it clearly says "ANY PERSON" AND DOESNT MENTION HOUSE OR BUSINESS,,,instead of reposting the same stuff, you should read it. get someone to explain it to you. you clearly need help.not according to the wisconsin supreme court as I posted,,,you are obviously not capable of understanding the legal text. funny that you cannot even understand the boiled down explanation in your own source.I understand simple english,,,you obviously dont,,,no. you posted a link you did not understand.I posted the law,,now read it and shut up,,,it defines the castle. now please show the class where rittenhouse's castle was.What did it say?i already did that. it's your turn as you obviously do not understand what a castle is and why it does not apply here. your co-moron is ahead of you and tried to define his body as a castle. fail.How gosh darn hard is it to investigate something then provide feedback?An example for you Red Doper Diaper Baby played out in the Cheese State.his body dumbass,,,,what was rittenhouse's castle, perfessor?That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
"The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so."
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
YOU LOSE,,,dismissed,,,
now go play with some dolls or something because youve already bored me
I never said it did,,,the wi supreme court clarified that even the castle doctrine does not give carte blanche to shoot at people once they are outside of the castle. have some self-respect and try to understand your own source.and I posted the clarification from their supreme court,,i quoted the legal text. and bolded the relevant parts. dwelling, motor vehicle, place of business. That’s when the expanded self-defense protection applies. that does not mean that there is no right to self-defense. ok, it is longer than a tweet, but if you can read, then the law defines it clearly.it clearly says "ANY PERSON" AND DOESNT MENTION HOUSE OR BUSINESS,,,instead of reposting the same stuff, you should read it. get someone to explain it to you. you clearly need help.not according to the wisconsin supreme court as I posted,,,you are obviously not capable of understanding the legal text. funny that you cannot even understand the boiled down explanation in your own source.I understand simple english,,,you obviously dont,,,no. you posted a link you did not understand.I posted the law,,now read it and shut up,,,it defines the castle. now please show the class where rittenhouse's castle was.What did it say?i already did that. it's your turn as you obviously do not understand what a castle is and why it does not apply here. your co-moron is ahead of you and tried to define his body as a castle. fail.How gosh darn hard is it to investigate something then provide feedback?An example for you Red Doper Diaper Baby played out in the Cheese State.his body dumbass,,,,what was rittenhouse's castle, perfessor?That’s wrong. Citizens do not have a right to do law enforcement by shooting people when their lives are not endanger you fool. Suspected theft Is not a valid reason to execute people. You’re imbecilic remarks are rediculous.So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
the second amendment gives people the right to SELF. Defense and the defense of life, not to execute people otherwise you fool......that’s why we arrest people first and give them due process.
Wisconsin has a statute called Castle Doctrine. Please inform yourself of their laws, etc., before you embarrass yourself further.
Your rationale would be eaten up in a court of law.
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
"The Castle Doctrine is a special change to that rule that applies when a person is in their home, car, or place of business, and someone either has forcefully entered their home or is in the process of doing so."
Self-Defense and the Castle Doctrine
Wisconsin law allows deadly force in self-defense in the limited circumstances where the person defending themselves “reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm” to their person.Oct 30, 2014
Wisconsin Court Clarifies New Self-Defense Rule
YOU LOSE,,,dismissed,,,
now go play with some dolls or something because youve already bored me
Just out of morbid curiosity; one of our more prominent posters here did time in prison. If he were shot dead by some guy who just wanted to kill someone, would you care?the one difference here is, you didn't start it. but if you allow looters and rioters to tear shit up - you're a fool if you expect people to sit back and let it happen night after night after night.So what he did was legal?Two nights ago, the Great Patriot, Defender of Kenosha, and Guardian of the Republic, Kyle Rittenhouse, suppressed an unlawful riot in Kenosha where countless businesses have been burnt down, looted and forced out of business.
The police were no where to be found, unable to act and carry out their function of maintaining Law and Order.
So the citizens of the area took up arms, exercising their Second Amendment right to suppress violent riot, arson and looting and to suppress a communist insurrection.
It's almost as if the far left wants to take our Second Amendment rights so they can abolish the police and then rain chaos upon our communities (problem, reaction...solution?), and then institute their new police force under the flag of communism to restore civilization.
When you start to support vigilantism like this, you are no different than the looters and rioters. This all is coming together in a really bad way and dangerous way for our country.
It's starting to look like you are following me around from thread to thread.
Can't understand how you can on the one hand condemn rioting (which I agree with that condemnation) and yet support this. It's internally inconsistent.
Vigilantism is lawlessness. No different than rioting. A 17 year old in no way should be out there in a hyper volatile protest with a high powered rifle. IF the facts so far are correct - and the situation if evolving - he shot and KILLED two people and badly injured a third. Self defense is one thing, but in the initial killing, that does NOT appear to be the case.
The picture of him coming out is also disturbing. Funny how a protestor, standing across the street holding up speakers gets shot in the face by a rubber bullet, is vilified as a jobless bum (despite no evidence of actual participation in rioting) but this guy, illegally carrying a high powered rifle (he's 17) is a "hero". MURDER IS NOT HEROIC.
Something is messed up is very messed up right now if this is a "hero". Police are heroes. Undisciplined private paramilitaries are not. They are as dangerous as mobs of rioters. And they are ANTI-LAW. Anyone who believes in taking the law into their own hands and meting out justice is NOT LAWFUL.
What do we know about this kid?
Who is Kyle Rittenhouse? Here's what we know about the 17-year-old charged in the Kenosha protest shooting.
Before he took his rifle to confront the unrest in Kenosha, Wis., on Tuesday, allegedly killing two people and injuring another, Kyle Rittenhouse seemingly idolized one thing: the police. Growing […]www.boston.com
But brief accounts from neighbors and local institutions paint the picture of a high school dropout who viewed law enforcement officers as his personal heroes.So much so that, when massive protests, looting and fires broke out in Kenosha following the police shooting of Jacob Blake on Sunday, he crossed state lines to offer his support to local policemen – at times, speaking as if their duties were his, too.
Police are heavily trained, and they know the law. These guys don't. They have no business acting like police.
There are WAY TOO MANY armed people at these protests and that includes "the left" - you once said once you bring firearms to a protest it is no longer peaceful. Still believe that?
There are WAY TOO MANY OUTSIDERS at these events - both "protestors" and "counter protestors" - they need to be thrown out of town.
Here is what one person said - is she right?
“Maybe he thought he was doing the right thing, but you don’t kill somebody,” she said. “That’s not your business to kill someone for messing with someone else’s business. That’s for the cops to deal with.”
Hmmm, one of the thugs he killed was a pedo who served 12 years, and the other raped and tortured his girlfriend. Fine upstanding citizens those two were.
The last guy was armed with a pistol and the leader of a communist group who wants to destroy the USA.
I should care about violent felons why?
First off the dead felons were trying to attack the kid. At that point I simply don't give a shit what happens to them.
They already have shown they don't care about the Rights of others, and they were trying to kill this kid, so no, good riddance to bad rubbish.
Great way to promote senseless killing on top of senseless rioting.
I'm beyond disgusted by what's happening on all sides.
Everyone seems to listen to the same echo chamber here. The so-called claims of "violent rape and assault" and "pedophilia" were deliberately made up to slander them. How low can you go West short of killing someone? Here's an idea for a start - go to the WI Sex Offender Registry and type in his name. Anything pop up? That is a start at trying untangle this complete mess of layered fakery, bogus claims, and incitements for more violence on both sides.
Second. If you claim these three men (2 dead and 1 injured) were rioters, please show it. Acts of rioting, looting and arson are illegal, we all agree on that. Show us that is what THOSE THREE PEOPLE were doing. Are you claiming EVERYONE at the protest was engaged in arson and looting? Then that must include the kid and the armed private militia people right? Or - wait - are you going to make some distinctions? hmmm....how about Right = lawful, Left = unlawful = legitimate....cause that's where you guys are going with this. That's a good starting point for killing people huh? No need to mess around trying to figure out who is engaged in unlawful activity and who is not. Now, if only there is some way to identify them before we kill them and have to make up crap to justify it.
So what happened here?
Here's one news account with no speculation:
Social media footage surfaced surrounding the late-night fatal shooting during unrest. Witness accounts and video indicate the gunman first shot someone at a car lot just before midnight, but details on what sparked that shooting weren't immediately clear. The alleged gunman then jogged away, fell in the street, and opened fire again as members of the crowd closed in on him, some appearing to kick and grab at his weapon. According to witness accounts and video footage, police apparently let the gunman walk past them and leave the scene with a rifle over his shoulder and his hands in the air as members of the crowd were yelling for him to be arrested because he had shot people.When asked why the gunman was not arrested in the moment, Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth said he couldn't say for certain, but noted the chaos surrounding officers that night.
Since it's all caught on video, it's pretty damn hard to JUSTIFY but easier to UNDERSTAND the shootings - the fact he was there and (illegally) armed to begin with and the fact he was allowed to simply walk away and return to another state and the fact that in that video there was NO criminal behavior being conducted by any of the dead or injured victims speak for themselves. The rest is speculation, differing accounts, deliberate disinformation, witness statements and armchair quarterbacks directing a brief video.
So here are the questions:
WHY WAS A 17 YEAR OLD THERE????? WITH THAT KIND OF WEAPON???? Regardless of what was going on....no one else got shot. Regardless of how I personally feel about private militias (which, as you know, is pretty negative) - THEY didn't shoot anyone either. The police refused to deputize these citizens...for good reason, but they were and imo it's fine to do so - allowed to guard private property. That is FINE. That is what this kid was supposed to be doing, but he LEFT his spot. If he had stayed there nothing would have happened! He was in over his head and he panicked, understandably, when people in the crowd tried to restrain him and get rid of his weapon. As far as anyone could see - the kid was another mass shooter...like Parkland, or any number of events. How could anyone know otherwise when they witness a man shot in the head and another man trotting away with a rifle? He wasn't law enforcement. No badge. No ID. WE FAILED HIM BY ALLOWING HIM TO BE THERE! He is not a hero. He is not a thug. He's a mixed up kid, who badly wanted to be a policeman, who idolized law enforcement, who carried a MEDIC bag in case any protestors needed help, and damn, I just end up crying for HIM, for this one ruined life, someone who really did not seem to have any malice. The dead are dead, but he will have to live with this. It's so wrong.
WHO SHOULD WE BLAME for the riots? Oh, I know the answer that will come from some - commie lefties. Democrats. Sheesh. Get a new playbook. Responsibility ultimately comes down on the mayor. He, along with the city council are responsible for ensuring the safety of his citizens, and their livelyhoods and their homes. Just like if you are the president - it doesn't really matter what you do or don't do - the buck stops here.
But there is a bit more than that because nothing is really simple unless you are a business that got burned out, or the fiancé, with a 2 yr old daughter, of a man who is now dead and slandered, or a 17 year old kid who will now be facing a life he never envisioned, or the family of a man brutally shot in the back at close range, and you just want justice.
What could have been done differently?
Let's start at the beginning. What sparked the demonstrations that then turned into rioting?
A video. A video showing police come up to a man, leaning into his car, grabbing him by the shirt, pulling him back and pumping multiple rounds into his back at close range. It was brutal and against the backdrop of so many videos showing (justifiable and unjustifiable) police violence - there should be no surprise at public reaction. I don't care who the man was, there is no way to watch that (if you are a normal person) and not be horrified. This is our new reality - videos. Of EVERYTHING. Harder to sweep things under the rug, easier to spin, misconstrue, take out of context. Easier to inflame "the masses". Easier to see wrong doing.
What preceded that? Attempts at police reform by the Wisconsin governor, stalled by the legislature. Maybe, just maybe, if people see that something is happening and something is being done, and there is transparency the potential for violence is less. The governor is attempting, AGAIN, to pass it
Yet, the mayor himself appears to be tone deaf to his constituency. If he doesn't listen to the other half, and he fails to provide law and order, he's going to deservedly lose re-election. One example - curfews. A good way to tamp down the potential for violence which always seems to escalate at night. There are demonstrations ongoing described as "mostly peaceful". There is supposed to be a curfew. It's NOT BEING ENFORCED. What the hell?
What is your solution? Blame "commies"? Get real. We have a perfect storm with bitter political divisions at EVERY LEVEL, widespread public anger and unrest, a lot of restrictions and confusion with a pandemic, widespread distrust of our leadership, huge unemployment, Congress incapable of doing their job, a hugely divisive and incompetent president, and the worst recession in ages and more internet disinformation than ever before. Take your pick - it all feeds into the unrest.
But I will say this, I was wrong on one thing, I am now agreeing with you that we need law and order more than ever - we need to stop the violence and that means addressing ALL the participants, not politicizing who to go after. But that can't be with private militias, because they become PART of the problem, fed by the same disinformation as the rest of us. Private entities can guard private property but they have no business roaming the streets or public areas and if they kill someone, they face the law on that. The police and our national guard are the ones who need to be doing this. It's their job, it's what they are trained for. Crowd control. Arresting looters and arsonists. Enforcing curfews.
This kid is not a hero. He's a victim. And we are all to blame.
Amazing how each end has 20/20 vision on the misdeeds of the other end, and are completely blind to their own.
The adults in the room had better take control pretty fucking soon. Wherever they are.
Honest to god Mac, my heart goes out to this 17 yr old, who's life is now ruined. The other's are dead. He even carried a medic kit for heaven's sakes. WE FAILED HIM.
