Judge dismisses weapons charge at Rittenhouse murder trial

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 176859ef57

The judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. The charge is only a misdemeanor, but it had appeared to be among the likeliest to net a conviction for prosecutors. But the defense argued that Wisconsin’s statute had an exception that could be read to clear Rittenhouse. That exception involves whether or not a rifle or shotgun is short-barreled.

The Prosecution would like to convict Rittenhouse of jaywalking if they could.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

This judge is a walking example of CRT.

We have sent thousands to jail for buying pot, and he tosses an underage weapons charge.

No mention of the felon protestors that crossed state lines with guns...

seb146 wrote:

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

Maybe if you included all the facts instead of the out of context "he shot and killed three people" we could discuss this but. Actually the bigger problem for the left is getting a handle on Antifa and their violence or this will just continue to happen.

That this coward chose to break the law and obtain a gun is travesty. That he further uses his aggression in obtaining the gun to justify his self defense in shooting people afraid of what he could do with the gun is a travesty. There will be no more safe streets if he gets away with this.

I admit I should pay more attention to this case but this should be deemed a mistrial and a new judge be appointed. This judge does not seem in anyways impartial to this case and its too high profile to have a judge who isn't essentially a stone wall with all of the politics that a case like this brings up.

seb146 wrote:

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

The poetic justice here is that he will now think he is god and do something else dumb that will get him in trouble. IIRC George Zimmerman was in legal trouble very shortly after being acquitted in the Trayvon Martin case.

The standard is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There is reasonable doubt to suggest that he absolutely didn't commit murder one here (I would vote to acquit on murder one charges). or even murder two (intent to kill but no premeditation which is tough also to prove here). The appropriate charge was some degree of manslaughter charge and I don't really like prosecutors/ DA's overcharging on cases, especially when no deal is going to made. I know that you can be charged for multiple crimes such as murder and involuntary manslaughter but if you spend the entire trial trying to prove a charge that is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you fail to prove the lesser charges to the jury.

This is my opinion and I am no lawyer.

Sometimes a homicide isn't necessarily a murder and its hard to prove that Rittenhouse didn't necessarily feel threatened and that made him shoot who he did. There is no smoking gun (pun not intended) to suggest that this was any degree of murder other than 3rd degree (manslaughter).

Emotions want a bigger charge but in reality is the bigger charge appropriate.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

Maybe if you included all the facts instead of the out of context "he shot and killed three people" we could discuss this but. Actually the bigger problem for the left is getting a handle on Antifa and their violence or this will just continue to happen.

casinterest wrote:

That this coward chose to break the law and obtain a gun is travesty. That he further uses his aggression in obtaining the gun to justify his self defense in shooting people afraid of what he could do with the gun is a travesty. There will be no more safe streets if he gets away with this.

Take emotion out of it. I personally would like to see the punk in jail for life but is there evidence to prove that he deserves this sentence. However if I was on the OJ jury I would have voted to acquit because of how the case was presented. Most sensible people know he did it (perhaps with his son helping).

Is there evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse went to this protest with intent to kill anyone specific or did so in any capacity that would fall under the classification of murder or manslaughter. I don't think the self defense argument holds up but does it create enough reasonable doubt that his actions were warranted. Especially with a prosecution team that wants murder one for this which should case someone in the Wisconsin DA office to be fired.

It does seem that the jury can look at lesser charges when deliberating the verdict which means he might not walk.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

seb146 wrote:

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

Don't facts mean anything to you? He shot 3 people but only killed 2. It wasn't her gun. A friend bought it for him. She didn't drive him to Kenosha; he drove himself. Other than "contributing to the delinquency", a misdemeanor, what should the Proud Boys be charged with. You really need to read what you write and not get carried away with emotion.

StarAC17 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

That this coward chose to break the law and obtain a gun is travesty. That he further uses his aggression in obtaining the gun to justify his self defense in shooting people afraid of what he could do with the gun is a travesty. There will be no more safe streets if he gets away with this.

Take emotion out of it. I personally would like to see the punk in jail for life but is there evidence to prove that he deserves this sentence. However if I was on the OJ jury I would have voted to acquit because of how the case was presented. Most sensible people know he did it (perhaps with his son helping).

Is there evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse went to this protest with intent to kill anyone specific or did so in any capacity that would fall under the classification of murder or manslaughter. I don't think the self defense argument holds up but does it create enough reasonable doubt that his actions were warranted. Especially with a prosecution team that wants murder one for this which should case someone in the Wisconsin DA office to be fired.

It does seem that the jury can look at lesser charges when deliberating the verdict which means he might not walk.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

[\quote]

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

casinterest wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

That this coward chose to break the law and obtain a gun is travesty. That he further uses his aggression in obtaining the gun to justify his self defense in shooting people afraid of what he could do with the gun is a travesty. There will be no more safe streets if he gets away with this.

Take emotion out of it. I personally would like to see the punk in jail for life but is there evidence to prove that he deserves this sentence. However if I was on the OJ jury I would have voted to acquit because of how the case was presented. Most sensible people know he did it (perhaps with his son helping).

Is there evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse went to this protest with intent to kill anyone specific or did so in any capacity that would fall under the classification of murder or manslaughter. I don't think the self defense argument holds up but does it create enough reasonable doubt that his actions were warranted. Especially with a prosecution team that wants murder one for this which should case someone in the Wisconsin DA office to be fired.

It does seem that the jury can look at lesser charges when deliberating the verdict which means he might not walk.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

[\quote]

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

Yes the case gets people emotional but to look at the legal system objectively you need to do what you can to take emotion out of it if you are a juror or the judge (this Judge doesn't look good). If you want to take sides on the emotion I would say the conservatives are winning this unfortunately.

I would think that the appropriate charge is gross negligence causing death/involuntary manslaughter or 3rd degree murder/manslaughter. Murder two seems a little excessive as it was a chaotic situation.

Also the fact that the judge threw out the underage possession of a firearm is nonsensical. That should be a slam dunk conviction especially because he took the gun across state lines.

StarAC17 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Take emotion out of it. I personally would like to see the punk in jail for life but is there evidence to prove that he deserves this sentence. However if I was on the OJ jury I would have voted to acquit because of how the case was presented. Most sensible people know he did it (perhaps with his son helping).

Is there evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse went to this protest with intent to kill anyone specific or did so in any capacity that would fall under the classification of murder or manslaughter. I don't think the self defense argument holds up but does it create enough reasonable doubt that his actions were warranted. Especially with a prosecution team that wants murder one for this which should case someone in the Wisconsin DA office to be fired.

It does seem that the jury can look at lesser charges when deliberating the verdict which means he might not walk.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

[\quote]

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

Yes the case gets people emotional but to look at the legal system objectively you need to do what you can to take emotion out of it if you are a juror or the judge (this Judge doesn't look good). If you want to take sides on the emotion I would say the conservatives are winning this unfortunately.

I would think that the appropriate charge is gross negligence causing death/involuntary manslaughter or 3rd degree murder/manslaughter. Murder two seems a little excessive as it was a chaotic situation.

Also the fact that the judge threw out the underage possession of a firearm is nonsensical. That should be a slam dunk conviction especially because he took the gun across state lines.

While I agree with most of your post, minors are in possession of firearms all the time, usually while hunting. I've read that the charge was predicated on barrel length. It appears the DA never actually measured the barrel until the trial was well underway. It was of legal length, so the charge had to be dropped. This is what happens when all the holes in the Swiss cheese line up and 4 idiots are thrown together. Rittenhouse should be convicted of felony stupidity, if nothing else. He must've had a poster of George Zimmerman on his bedroom wall. It appears that the 3 victims were there more as rioters than protesters. They weren't exactly altar boys, although Rosenbaum, if he wasn't Jewish, would've made a fine priest (sarcasm).

casinterest wrote:

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

No he didn't. He went there because the left wing "protest" included destroying businesses. He was protecting. Why is it Antifa and these far left anarchists always get a past then use political protest to attack people and property? No one would be dead if people protesting the arrest of someone was peaceful.

Sadly in the protests after questionable and deadly conflicts of Black men with certain police officers, it led to the police backing off the streets, then idiots taking advantage of the lack of police to commit crimes including of violence and looting. That violence and looting is dead wrong and literally triggers a bad reaction in many White men a few who turn vigilantes to end/prevent more looting after seeing it going unchecked on TV. Rittenhouse saw the looting and violence going on in Kenosha and thought he could be someone who could try to control or end it by taking the law into his own hands. He ended up becoming mixed up in a terrible situation where he and others were shooting each other in 'self defense'. Wisconsin has a strong 'self defense' law and policy. This case if further mixed up with the racial conflicts in part stirred up by the looting and violence as well as ugly policies of certain political leaders that encouraged such conflicts.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

No he didn't. He went there because the left wing "protest" included destroying businesses. He was protecting. Why is it Antifa and these far left anarchists always get a past then use political protest to attack people and property? No one would be dead if people protesting the arrest of someone was peaceful.

Seriously? Antifa still? Every protest since humans invented protesting involves a small minority of jerks just causing chaos because they are not eloquent enough to use their words. I mean, nobody wants a bunch of idiots smashing glass and looting. To say this is only Antifa though, is being wilfully ignorant. And to say he went there to protect businesses...c'mon, that's just insulting. Korean business owners in the '92 LA riots camped out on their roofs to disperse looters, I can believe they were protecting their businesses. Some dipshit from another state rolls into town with a rifle? Sorry, its not the wild west anymore. At the very least, this kid was trying to look cool, not protect anything.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

No he didn't. He went there because the left wing "protest" included destroying businesses. He was protecting. Why is it Antifa and these far left anarchists always get a past then use political protest to attack people and property? No one would be dead if people protesting the arrest of someone was peaceful.

Would the same apply to Officer Brian Sicknick?

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

No he didn't. He went there because the left wing "protest" included destroying businesses. He was protecting. Why is it Antifa and these far left anarchists always get a past then use political protest to attack people and property? No one would be dead if people protesting the arrest of someone was peaceful.

‘Far left anarchists’ makes no sense. If you have ever run into these black brigade folks at a protest like I have, you’d know they have zero politics. They just enjoy destruction. The literal definition of anarchy is rejection of authority systems, parties, platforms, and governments.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

No he didn't. He went there because the left wing "protest" included destroying businesses. He was protecting. Why is it Antifa and these far left anarchists always get a past then use political protest to attack people and property? No one would be dead if people protesting the arrest of someone was peaceful.

The protest was against brutality, but people like Rittenhouse go there to make it worse. They go with weapons to escalate instead of listen. Rittenhouse was no cop, and he had no reason to be there other than to be part of the problem. The only people that were killed in this protest were the ones that Rittenhouse specifically killed. So explain to me how this is the left's problem?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Judge dismisses weapons charge at Rittenhouse murder trial

https://apnews.com/article/kyle-rittenh ... 176859ef57

The judge at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial has dismissed a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. The charge is only a misdemeanor, but it had appeared to be among the likeliest to net a conviction for prosecutors. But the defense argued that Wisconsin’s statute had an exception that could be read to clear Rittenhouse. That exception involves whether or not a rifle or shotgun is short-barreled.

The Prosecution would like to convict Rittenhouse of jaywalking if they could.

Taking the gun rights arguments and much more serious charges out if the picture I will say this: *NO* 17 year old in this country should be charged as an adult for a misdemeanor. Wisconsin needs to fix their laws regarding this age. It's not 1995 anymore.

StarAC17 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

StarAC17 wrote:

Take emotion out of it. I personally would like to see the punk in jail for life but is there evidence to prove that he deserves this sentence. However if I was on the OJ jury I would have voted to acquit because of how the case was presented. Most sensible people know he did it (perhaps with his son helping).

Is there evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse went to this protest with intent to kill anyone specific or did so in any capacity that would fall under the classification of murder or manslaughter. I don't think the self defense argument holds up but does it create enough reasonable doubt that his actions were warranted. Especially with a prosecution team that wants murder one for this which should case someone in the Wisconsin DA office to be fired.

It does seem that the jury can look at lesser charges when deliberating the verdict which means he might not walk.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/bre ... story.html

[\quote]

Emotion has everything to do with this case. No one would be dead if Rittenhouse hadn't shown up with the Gun. He came armed with a weapon designed to kill and used it to do so. 2 people are dead, and 1 injured. Rittenhouse bears at the least manslaughter, and at the worst 2nd degree murder. Self defense goes out the window when he went armed to an out of town location with a gun with the inclination that he thought he needed it for a protest.

Yes the case gets people emotional but to look at the legal system objectively you need to do what you can to take emotion out of it if you are a juror or the judge (this Judge doesn't look good). If you want to take sides on the emotion I would say the conservatives are winning this unfortunately.

I would think that the appropriate charge is gross negligence causing death/involuntary manslaughter or 3rd degree murder/manslaughter. Murder two seems a little excessive as it was a chaotic situation.

Also the fact that the judge threw out the underage possession of a firearm is nonsensical. That should be a slam dunk conviction especially because he took the gun across state lines.

As I've indicated in my previous post, "minor" is contradictory at best in Wisconsin when it comes to 17 year old person. They dropped their adult age to 17 in 1996, so this "underage firearm" law seems to be constitutionally vague at best for a 17 year old.

SEAorPWM wrote:

As I've indicated in my previous post, "minor" is contradictory at best in Wisconsin when it comes to 17 year old person. They dropped their adult age to 17 in 1996, so this "underage firearm" law seems to be constitutionally vague at best for a 17 year old.

Each state gets to determine what the definition of what "adult" and "minor" is. There is no absolute definition.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

As I've indicated in my previous post, "minor" is contradictory at best in Wisconsin when it comes to 17 year old person. They dropped their adult age to 17 in 1996, so this "underage firearm" law seems to be constitutionally vague at best for a 17 year old.

Each state gets to determine what the definition of what "adult" and "minor" is. There is no absolute definition.

But what if they cross state lines like the "minor" Kyle here did?

Also, the age of consent in Wisconsin is 18. You are comfortable if they share a jail cell with a much older sex offender? States' rights above all right?

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

If they were innocent is very much up for debate. If the jury finds that it was self defense they weren’t actually innocent in their view. Also the person that got shot and survived admitted to pointing his gun at Kyle.

Jetty wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

If they were innocent is very much up for debate. If the jury finds that it was self defense they weren’t actually innocent in their view. Also the person that got shot and survived admitted to pointing his gun at Kyle.

If only there was a way for a legal process to determine whether they were guilty or not, What a lucky little piece of sh1t Kyle is.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jetty wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

If they were innocent is very much up for debate. If the jury finds that it was self defense they weren’t actually innocent in their view. Also the person that got shot and survived admitted to pointing his gun at Kyle.

Understandable survivor guy felt the need considering some dumbass kid was out in the street with a rifle looking for trouble. I'd want to charge survivor guy too for bringing a deadly weapon to a protest, but this is America and we don't do that...

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

The people he shot were far from innocent.

Jetty wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

If they were innocent is very much up for debate. If the jury finds that it was self defense they weren’t actually innocent in their view. Also the person that got shot and survived admitted to pointing his gun at Kyle.

If you look at every thing in this case and weed out the media hatred and misinformation he was wrong to go there but he was legally carrying a firearm and his shooting was in self defense.

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

The people he shot were far from innocent.

They were innocent in so far as, at least the last time I checked, destruction of property was not carrying a death penalty in any US state and neither on the federal level.

A 17 year old taking justice into his own because he has been told online that those protesting there are less worthy than him as humans and he thought he needed to "protect" a random stranger's gas station convenience store in a different state needs to be locked up for life without parole but I can already say with certainty it won't happen.
The judge has showed his partiality since the beginning (the whole mess about calling the victims "victims" or "rioters"), so Kyle's skin color really works in his favor once again.

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

The people he shot were far from innocent.

Jetty wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

If they were innocent is very much up for debate. If the jury finds that it was self defense they weren’t actually innocent in their view. Also the person that got shot and survived admitted to pointing his gun at Kyle.

If you look at every thing in this case and weed out the media hatred and misinformation he was wrong to go there but he was legally carrying a firearm and his shooting was in self defense.

It does not matter one jot what there previous criminal records were, just like George Floyd he was a lousy human being, but just because these guys like Floyd were sacks of crap it still doesn't make what Kyle did right.

The only reason that weapon is legal is because the legislation had an error in it.

Kiwirob wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

It's a shame there wasn't a god fearing 2nd amendment good guy with a gun on hand to protect the innocent and shoot Kyle dead.

The people he shot were far from innocent.

Jetty wrote:

If they were innocent is very much up for debate. If the jury finds that it was self defense they weren’t actually innocent in their view. Also the person that got shot and survived admitted to pointing his gun at Kyle.

If you look at every thing in this case and weed out the media hatred and misinformation he was wrong to go there but he was legally carrying a firearm and his shooting was in self defense.

It does not matter one jot what there previous criminal records were, just like George Floyd he was a lousy human being, but just because these guys like Floyd were sacks of crap it still doesn't make what Kyle did right.

The only reason that weapon is legal is because the legislation had an error in it.

Precisely - people are acting like a dumbass kid was equivalent to ordained law enforcement or hired security and he was neither.

lugie wrote:

They were innocent in so far as, at least the last time I checked, destruction of property was not carrying a death penalty in any US state and neither on the federal level.

He didn't shoot them because they were destroying property, he shot them because they were attacked him by trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and the other pointed a gun at him. Do you know anything about this story?

NIKV69 wrote:

lugie wrote:

They were innocent in so far as, at least the last time I checked, destruction of property was not carrying a death penalty in any US state and neither on the federal level.

He didn't shoot them because they were destroying property, he shot them because they were attacked him by trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and the other pointed a gun at him. Do you know anything about this story?

And guess what? Nothing in the above sequence would have gone down if his parents had done their job and kept their minor at home where he belonged instead of cavorting with weapons in protest areas out of state on his own. Madness. I have a pretty diverse circle of friends and can't think of any who would send their teen off to such nonsense.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

lugie wrote:

They were innocent in so far as, at least the last time I checked, destruction of property was not carrying a death penalty in any US state and neither on the federal level.

He didn't shoot them because they were destroying property, he shot them because they were attacked him by trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and the other pointed a gun at him. Do you know anything about this story?

And guess what? Nothing in the above sequence would have gone down if his parents had done their job and kept their minor at home where he belonged instead of cavorting with weapons in protest areas out of state on his own. Madness. I have a pretty diverse circle of friends and can't think of any who would send their teen off to such nonsense.

So I'm curious, if the guy Rittenhouse shot that survived (the guy he shot in the bicep who had a gun) would have shot and killed Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse pointed a gun at him, would you say he needs to be charged with murder also?

Regardless of why Rittenhouse was there, he has a right to defend himself, and I believe the evidence (and even the prosecutions own witness!) proves that he acted in self defense.

I mean he was on the ground being beaten with a skateboard, chased by a guy with a gun, and trying to have his gun ripped from him - are you saying that someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves in that instance?

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

He didn't shoot them because they were destroying property, he shot them because they were attacked him by trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and the other pointed a gun at him. Do you know anything about this story?

And guess what? Nothing in the above sequence would have gone down if his parents had done their job and kept their minor at home where he belonged instead of cavorting with weapons in protest areas out of state on his own. Madness. I have a pretty diverse circle of friends and can't think of any who would send their teen off to such nonsense.

So I'm curious, if the guy Rittenhouse shot that survived (the guy he shot in the bicep who had a gun) would have shot and killed Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse pointed a gun at him, would you say he needs to be charged with murder also?

Regardless of why Rittenhouse was there, he has a right to defend himself, and I believe the evidence (and even the prosecutions own witness!) proves that he acted in self defense.

I mean he was on the ground being beaten with a skateboard, chased by a guy with a gun, and trying to have his gun ripped from him - are you saying that someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves in that instance?

See reply 26. I already stated I thought survivor guy should be charged but in America it's impossible...

SoCalPilot wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

He didn't shoot them because they were destroying property, he shot them because they were attacked him by trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and the other pointed a gun at him. Do you know anything about this story?

And guess what? Nothing in the above sequence would have gone down if his parents had done their job and kept their minor at home where he belonged instead of cavorting with weapons in protest areas out of state on his own. Madness. I have a pretty diverse circle of friends and can't think of any who would send their teen off to such nonsense.

So I'm curious, if the guy Rittenhouse shot that survived (the guy he shot in the bicep who had a gun) would have shot and killed Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse pointed a gun at him, would you say he needs to be charged with murder also?

Regardless of why Rittenhouse was there, he has a right to defend himself, and I believe the evidence (and even the prosecutions own witness!) proves that he acted in self defense.

I mean he was on the ground being beaten with a skateboard, chased by a guy with a gun, and trying to have his gun ripped from him - are you saying that someone doesn't have the right to defend themselves in that instance?

And none of it would have happened if the disgraceful little kid hadn't shown up with a killing weapon openly displayed in the first place. He went with a weapon of death, and caused the only deaths that occurred. There is no honor for his self defense. He is the definition of a disgraceful fool . He created the environment that caused the deaths. He is no different than a drunk that gets behind the wheel and causes a death.

Aaron747 wrote:

And guess what? Nothing in the above sequence would have gone down if his parents had done their job and kept their minor at home where he belonged instead of cavorting with weapons in protest areas out of state on his own. Madness. I have a pretty diverse circle of friends and can't think of any who would send their teen off to such nonsense.

He went there because one his parents lived there. Again get all the facts of what happened and stop listening to the media's alternate reality.

casinterest wrote:

And none of it would have happened if the disgraceful little kid hadn't shown up with a killing weapon openly displayed in the first place. He went with a weapon of death, and caused the only deaths that occurred. There is no honor for his self defense. He is the definition of a disgraceful fool . He created the environment that caused the deaths. He is no different than a drunk that gets behind the wheel and causes a death.

The person he defended himself against also showed up a gun. I guess that is alright though? You all are missing this because of Identity politics. Hatred and loathing of people that are going to stand up against Antifa will just make things worse. I am thankful the court system doesn't use this propaganda. It also shows how sinister the media has become which after Duke Lacrosse, Nick Sandmann and Jussie Smollett they should take a step back and stop trying to invent the facts as they go and let the facts speak for themselves.

SEAorPWM wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

As I've indicated in my previous post, "minor" is contradictory at best in Wisconsin when it comes to 17 year old person. They dropped their adult age to 17 in 1996, so this "underage firearm" law seems to be constitutionally vague at best for a 17 year old.

Each state gets to determine what the definition of what "adult" and "minor" is. There is no absolute definition.

But what if they cross state lines like the "minor" Kyle here did?

Also, the age of consent in Wisconsin is 18. You are comfortable if they share a jail cell with a much older sex offender? States' rights above all right?

Thanks to Kyle, I guess, there's one less child molester in play.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

Don't facts mean anything to you? He shot 3 people but only killed 2. It wasn't her gun. A friend bought it for him. She didn't drive him to Kenosha; he drove himself. Other than "contributing to the delinquency", a misdemeanor, what should the Proud Boys be charged with. You really need to read what you write and not get carried away with emotion.

So because my post does not add up, he should walk free? He was a minor. He drove across state lines. He had no business having a gun. He killed people. Don't facts mean anything to you? He killed people. Whether it was two or three. And he will walk free and the right will celebrate. George Floyd killed no one. Trayvon Martin killed no one. Brionna Taylor killed no one. Tamir Rice killed no one. They all died.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

And guess what? Nothing in the above sequence would have gone down if his parents had done their job and kept their minor at home where he belonged instead of cavorting with weapons in protest areas out of state on his own. Madness. I have a pretty diverse circle of friends and can't think of any who would send their teen off to such nonsense.

He went there because one his parents lived there. Again get all the facts of what happened and stop listening to the media's alternate reality.

casinterest wrote:

And none of it would have happened if the disgraceful little kid hadn't shown up with a killing weapon openly displayed in the first place. He went with a weapon of death, and caused the only deaths that occurred. There is no honor for his self defense. He is the definition of a disgraceful fool . He created the environment that caused the deaths. He is no different than a drunk that gets behind the wheel and causes a death.

The person he defended himself against also showed up a gun. I guess that is alright though? You all are missing this because of Identity politics. Hatred and loathing of people that are going to stand up against Antifa will just make things worse. I am thankful the court system doesn't use this propaganda. It also shows how sinister the media has become which after Duke Lacrosse, Nick Sandmann and Jussie Smollett they should take a step back and stop trying to invent the facts as they go and let the facts speak for themselves.

The person? 3 victims of this idiot. He caused two deaths by showing up with a gun. This is not an honorable person. It is a coward and an idiot causing deaths.
You sitting there and using your misinformed identity politics about ANTIFA is part of the problem. He killed two people regardless of affiliation and injured another. All because he brought a gun to a protest.

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

Don't facts mean anything to you? He shot 3 people but only killed 2. It wasn't her gun. A friend bought it for him. She didn't drive him to Kenosha; he drove himself. Other than "contributing to the delinquency", a misdemeanor, what should the Proud Boys be charged with. You really need to read what you write and not get carried away with emotion.

So because my post does not add up, he should walk free? He was a minor. He drove across state lines. He had no business having a gun. He killed people. Don't facts mean anything to you? He killed people. Whether it was two or three. And he will walk free and the right will celebrate. George Floyd killed no one. Trayvon Martin killed no one. Brionna Taylor killed no one. Tamir Rice killed no one. They all died.

You have a lot of nerve asking me if facts mean anything to me. Almost none of your post was factual. I'm not sure if he will be convicted, but I hope he is convicted of one of the lesser offenses. That said, I admit that I haven't been watching much of the proceedings.

casinterest wrote:

All because he brought a gun to a protest.

I agree with much of your post but Kenosha wasn't a "protest". Once arson and looting start, it becomes a riot. Most of the people there were there for a just cause. It was the idiots who show up to start sh*t who were the problem. Detroit had protests but they didn't make the news. Why? Because as soon as it got dark and the troublemakers thought they were unseen, the police firmly sut things down so they didn't get out of hand. Police departments and their political leaders who are tell them to back off and let things happen are part of the problem. It's just like a bratty child. The more you let them act up, the more they will, and then you've created a monster.

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. For killing three people. His mother drove him across state lines with her guns and she faces zero charges. The "Proud Boys" bought him drinks after he murdered three people to celebrate. They are not being charged with anything.

He shot and killed three people. He will walk free. And the right will celebrate. The right will play victim and hold him up as a martyr. For killing three people.

Don't facts mean anything to you? He shot 3 people but only killed 2. It wasn't her gun. A friend bought it for him. She didn't drive him to Kenosha; he drove himself. Other than "contributing to the delinquency", a misdemeanor, what should the Proud Boys be charged with. You really need to read what you write and not get carried away with emotion.

So because my post does not add up, he should walk free? He was a minor. He drove across state lines. He had no business having a gun. He killed people. Don't facts mean anything to you? He killed people. Whether it was two or three. And he will walk free and the right will celebrate. George Floyd killed no one. Trayvon Martin killed no one. Brionna Taylor killed no one. Tamir Rice killed no one. They all died.

As I've said earlier, 17 is not a minor in Wisconsin. It's one of the many things that makes this case "interesting" to day the least.

Aaron747 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

lugie wrote:

They were innocent in so far as, at least the last time I checked, destruction of property was not carrying a death penalty in any US state and neither on the federal level.

He didn't shoot them because they were destroying property, he shot them because they were attacked him by trying to bash his head in with a skateboard and the other pointed a gun at him. Do you know anything about this story?

And guess what? Nothing in the above sequence would have gone down if his parents had done their job and kept their minor at home where he belonged instead of cavorting with weapons in protest areas out of state on his own. Madness. I have a pretty diverse circle of friends and can't think of any who would send their teen off to such nonsense.

The dead would still be alive if they hadn’t gone to cause trouble, they all should have been at home including Rittenhouse

johns624 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

All because he brought a gun to a protest.

I agree with much of your post but Kenosha wasn't a "protest". Once arson and looting start, it becomes a riot. Most of the people there were there for a just cause. It was the idiots who show up to start sh*t who were the problem. Detroit had protests but they didn't make the news. Why? Because as soon as it got dark and the troublemakers thought they were unseen, the police firmly sut things down so they didn't get out of hand. Police departments and their political leaders who are tell them to back off and let things happen are part of the problem. It's just like a bratty child. The more you let them act up, the more they will, and then you've created a monster.

I don't disagree that there were bad actors, but Kenosha and Wisconsin have police forces, and they have detectives. Most of the businesses have insurance with companies that will get to the bottom of the issue.

Here in Raleigh, most of the damage was done miles from where the protests were held. Somewhere around 1-5 in the morning, the real troublemakers would go out and break store fronts away from where the protests( which were peaceful) occurred.

Backing off is to preserve life, and to prevent the kind of confrontations that Rittenhouse engaged in . Charged up emotional conflicts with deadly weapons.

Property is important, but building can be rebuilt.

I was just watching some footage from outside the courthouse and people are flying BLM flags and saying something about Racism. I am little confused wasn't this white on white crime?

Jacek [email protected]

BREAKING NEW MOTION: Kenosha prosecutors WITHELD VIDEO EVIDENCE from Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Team

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status ... 68425?s=20

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status ... 28097?s=20

Maybe the Judge is waiting to see if the jury acquits, and if they don't then he'll consider this filed motion.

SEAorPWM wrote:

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Don't facts mean anything to you? He shot 3 people but only killed 2. It wasn't her gun. A friend bought it for him. She didn't drive him to Kenosha; he drove himself. Other than "contributing to the delinquency", a misdemeanor, what should the Proud Boys be charged with. You really need to read what you write and not get carried away with emotion.

So because my post does not add up, he should walk free? He was a minor. He drove across state lines. He had no business having a gun. He killed people. Don't facts mean anything to you? He killed people. Whether it was two or three. And he will walk free and the right will celebrate. George Floyd killed no one. Trayvon Martin killed no one. Brionna Taylor killed no one. Tamir Rice killed no one. They all died.

As I've said earlier, 17 is not a minor in Wisconsin. It's one of the many things that makes this case "interesting" to day the least.

There was no reason for him to leave his house. His property was not under attack. He was not under attack. There was no threat until he decided to grab a gun and cross state lines. He decided these things. He could have even going to counter protest without guns. But, he chose to take his guns across state lines and chose to open fire. Actions should have consequences. But, because he is a white man, he will face zero consequences.

Good Panel Discussion Here about the drone video footage being argued about today regarding resolution and where the video actually came from, how was it adjusted before it got to the Prosecution, and then some kind of copy given to the Defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qbnc9IfSe3Q

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Jacek [email protected]

BREAKING NEW MOTION: Kenosha prosecutors WITHELD VIDEO EVIDENCE from Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Team

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status ... 68425?s=20

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status ... 28097?s=20

Maybe the Judge is waiting to see if the jury acquits, and if they don't then he'll consider this filed motion.

The prosecutor could be disbarred over this.

Dieuwer wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Jacek [email protected]

BREAKING NEW MOTION: Kenosha prosecutors WITHELD VIDEO EVIDENCE from Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Team

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status ... 68425?s=20

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status ... 28097?s=20

Maybe the Judge is waiting to see if the jury acquits, and if they don't then he'll consider this filed motion.

The prosecutor could be disbarred over this.

The prosecutor's questioning the defendant's post arrest silence could have very likely caused an immediate dismissal with prejudice in a non politicized trial.

A trial attorney friend of mine heard that exchange and blurted out "that's a straight line to state bar censure here."