Kyle Rittenhouse

[ThatOwlWoman]

Owl, the Rlifle Kid is a stupid little punk, but that did not happen.

And you know because you were there.

[Geeko Sportivo]

I never understood the Donald Trump Cultists now going full Kyle Rittenhouse tarded!

You Trumptards need to be more careful about choosing your heroes!

When you have an even more evil Trumptarded idiot among you, and he commits murder on TV for all to see, at least call them out for heaven's sake!

Examples like this is why you are losing more Trumptards everyday!

[anonymoose]

And you know because you were there.

And you were?
Going by what I saw on the vids.

[Doc Dutch]

I just looked it up. His friend who was over 18 bought it for him because Ruittenghouse was underage. It was a friend who supplied it., It was not some stranger handing it to him.

IIRC, a couple others were arrested due to the circumstances of the case. Facilitating the commission of a felony and all that legal bullshit.

[Doc Dutch]

And you were?
Going by what I saw on the vids.

The point being that it's cowardice for any pro-Trumper to have not supported, at risk to themselves, the insurrection.

BTW, I'd vote for Liz Cheney for President in a heartbeat.

[Taichiliberal]

In both fatal shootings he was RETREATING.

manslaughter rulings are not solely or wholly dependent upon aggression. Two drunk guys get into a fist fight in a bar and the one who started inadvertently dies, the survivor is charged. The trial determines the details and sentence. Little Kyle's ass shouldn't have been there in the first place, let alone armed. This speaks to intent..an intent based on little Kyle's personal discretion, NOT of police training or authorization. And since there is no video of what transpired PRIOR to the fatal shooting, it's up to testimony, cross examination, etc.

Little Kyle is going to do local time for something.....BUT, if he walks with a slap on the wrist, that will be the fuse for some serious repercussions by some folks just itching to get violent.

[T. A. Gardner]

manslaughter rulings are not solely or wholly dependent upon aggression. Two drunk guys get into a fist fight in a bar and the one who started inadvertently dies, the survivor is charged. The trial determines the details and sentence. Little Kyle's ass shouldn't have been there in the first place, let alone armed. This speaks to intent..an intent based on little Kyle's personal discretion, NOT of police training or authorization. And since there is no video of what transpired PRIOR to the fatal shooting, it's up to testimony, cross examination, etc.

Little Kyle is going to do local time for something.....BUT, if he walks with a slap on the wrist, that will be the fuse for some serious repercussions by some folks just itching to get violent.

Not a very good analogy. There were obviously lots of armed people present. In fact, one of the guys Rittenhouse shot was armed. I think that pretty much demolishes your position.

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
manslaughter rulings are not solely or wholly dependent upon aggression. Two drunk guys get into a fist fight in a bar and the one who started inadvertently dies, the survivor is charged. The trial determines the details and sentence. Little Kyle's ass shouldn't have been there in the first place, let alone armed. This speaks to intent..an intent based on little Kyle's personal discretion, NOT of police training or authorization. And since there is no video of what transpired PRIOR to the fatal shooting, it's up to testimony, cross examination, etc.

Little Kyle is going to do local time for something.....BUT, if he walks with a slap on the wrist, that will be the fuse for some serious repercussions by some folks just itching to get violent.

Not a very good analogy. There were obviously lots of armed people present. In fact, one of the guys Rittenhouse shot was armed. I think that pretty much demolishes your position.

No, it's a perfect real life example that disproves your statement that because junior was being chased that absolves him of manslaughter in lieu of self defense. See, junior specifically and knowingly traveled from out of town, obtained a weapon he had no legal right to, much less walk around with it loaded, and went into an area of civil disturbance with the express purpose of seeking confrontation. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

He was NOT part of any organized group, the police force, or was asked by any local business owners to show up as he did. Whether armed or not, he got into a confrontation that resulted in a death. Add this to the aforementioned facts, and junior's word along with supporters supposition and conjecture is pretty shaky in court, given no video record prior to the shooting.

[RB 60]

No, it's a perfect real life example that disproves your statement that because junior was being chased that absolves him of manslaughter in lieu of self defense. See, junior specifically and knowingly traveled from out of town, obtained a weapon he had no legal right to, much less walk around with it loaded, and went into an area of civil disturbance with the express purpose of seeking confrontation. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

He was NOT part of any organized group, the police force, or was asked by any local business owners to show up as he did. Whether armed or not, he got into a confrontation that resulted in a death. Add this to the aforementioned facts, and junior's word along with supporters supposition and conjecture is pretty shaky in court, given no video record prior to the shooting.

What made it illegal for him to obtain a weapon? Was he a felon?

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No, it's a perfect real life example that disproves your statement that because junior was being chased that absolves him of manslaughter in lieu of self defense. See, junior specifically and knowingly traveled from out of town, obtained a weapon he had no legal right to, much less walk around with it loaded, and went into an area of civil disturbance with the express purpose of seeking confrontation. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

He was NOT part of any organized group, the police force, or was asked by any local business owners to show up as he did. Whether armed or not, he got into a confrontation that resulted in a death. Add this to the aforementioned facts, and junior's word along with supporters supposition and conjecture is pretty shaky in court, given no video record prior to the shooting.

What made it illegal for him to obtain a weapon? Was he a felon?

Per Wisconsin state legislature:

941.2905  Straw purchasing of firearms.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...s/941/iii/2905


Child gun laws in Wisconsin

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2015/08/c...-in-wisconsin/

[RB 60]

Per Wisconsin state legislature:

941.2905  Straw purchasing of firearms.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...s/941/iii/2905


Child gun laws in Wisconsin

https://wisconsinwatch.org/2015/08/c...-in-wisconsin/

He didn't purchase it, did he? How could it be a straw purchase?

What child gun law did he break?

[Hoosier Daddy]

Not a very good analogy. There were obviously lots of armed people present. In fact, one of the guys Rittenhouse shot was armed. I think that pretty much demolishes your position.

fuck you. your defense of this underaged chickenshit bitch- one of the 3 guys he shot, the one not killed, was armed but did not have the gun in his hand when shot.

[Hoosier Daddy]

He didn't purchase it, did he? How could it be a straw purchase?

What child gun law did he break?

Could the suspect carry the rifle legally?
Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

would a jury be stupid enough to believe this bitch was "hunting" at night in a downtown area?

[RB 60]

Could the suspect carry the rifle legally?
Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

would a jury be stupid enough to believe this bitch was "hunting" at night in a downtown area?

Why would you need to lie and say you were hunting anyway? You were just carrying it from one place to another.

[Hoosier Daddy]

Why would you need to lie and say you were hunting anyway? You were just carrying it from one place to another.

because of his statements and the videos....you know, evidence.