Witnesses come out to say Kyle Rittenhouse pointed his gun at them

a reply to: jidnum

Those "Observers" are hiding under the title MEDIC and PRESS all WHILE looting and rioting, hence why there was a temporary lift on their protections.

Wrong
greenandblackcross.org...

Legal observers are trained volunteers who support the legal rights of activists. They provide basic legal guidance and are independent witnesses of police behaviour at protests.

Legal observers are independent from the protest and do not participate as activists. They support protestors by:

Distributing bust cards and briefing activists about their rights.
Keeping notes about the actions of the police on protests, which may be later used to challenge the police on their behaviour.
Monitoring arrests, including collecting witnesses and helping to connect the arrestee with support in the police station.
Legal observers can be identified on actions by their orange hi-viz vests that say “Legal Observer”.

a reply to: vonclod

We know the name of the dude he called, haven’t seen anything about him being a cop. Not saying he is or isn’t, just curious that it’s not being made more of a deal of even by his supporters, if true.

originally posted by: jidnum

originally posted by: wantsome
First of all he wasn't legally old enough to own the weapon. 2nd He crossed the state line to put himself in a situation he shouldn't have been involved in. It's not up to citizens to deal with rioters unless they are protecting their own property. The kid went looking for trouble and he found it. It's not the job of vigilantly militias to deal with rioters.

Just so you know, everything you stated is completely false. He was LEGALLY old enough to have a weapon.

Also he was PROTECTING property from the vigilantes.

twitter.com...

Maybe this will help shed some light on your false information because you are waaaaaay off.

Not in Wisconsin!

It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

Who was the instigator who attacked first.

You.have a single.kid earlier in the day volunteering to clean graffiti.

Then you have a violent mob who murder. assault, and burn anyone or anything in their way.

Didint one attacker have hand gun?

Kid is a hero

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: vonclod

We know the name of the dude he called, haven’t seen anything about him being a cop. Not saying he is or isn’t, just curious that it’s not being made more of a deal of even by his supporters, if true.

He said he was army ranger in interview but doesnt say he was an officer. as to the people claiming people changed their story on vidoe a guy complains about him threatening people with a gun. he let this go to his head feeling like a big man. even claimed he was a certified emt when at 17 he couldnt be. heres the extended interview he gave and the reporter followed him right before this all starts. He should not have been there and just all around made bad decisions.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Show me on a video.
otherwise i call BS

a reply to: dragonridr

And that’s the guy Kyle called? For certain?

That video is cut off before it shows Mr. Yellow Shorts “demonstrating” how Kyle was carrying his rifle when he told them to stop vandalizing cars. He shows Kyle carrying at low ready, which is not pointing it at people.

The rioters shouldn’t have been there. I’m entirely willing to bet if they hadn’t been, Kyle wouldn’t have been. Mr. I like barely teenaged (edit) boys made all around poor decisions. And that’s why trying to argue from the point of “well he shouldn’t have even been there!” is pointless.

a reply to: Shamrock6

The prosecution is going to make him out to be a gun nut who wanted to feel powerful and this kid gave him all the ammo they will need. He had to brag and lie to makehimsrelf seem important a psychiatrist will have a field day with his interviews. then the polic are getting hundreds of reports even about an earlier incident at a church. another problem is apparently his group was not happy and made comments when they found out according to people around. So odds are pretty good one of them are going to say he shouldnt have been there. I also think he age caused a problem people see a 17 year old kid pointing a gun at them its going to piss them off.He was not able to handle himself if there was a confrontation without the use of deadly force and should not have been put in that situation. And his friend needs to go to jail with him for putting him in that situation.

a reply to: dragonridr

The defense is going to make him out to be somebody there to try and help, and him running around helping to put out fires and asking people if anybody needed medical help gave them all the ammo his attorney will need. I also think nobody had any idea he was 17, except perhaps his friend, which is why not one person is heard mentioning it. Not in the moment, anyway.

I’d say he handled two deadly force encounters pretty well. Probably needs to work on his cardio though.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Lets get real he had a med kit people keep in their cars he wasnt helping anyone with that. Being a former medic he would not have had any of the equipment he needed in that thing to even be useful. Do you really think he had a medic kit????????

And if he had with chest seal and quick clot and a compress or even trauma seal he could have started CPR a medic would have saved him. Did you realize they were practically in the parking lot of a hospital? Unfortunately the real medics were not there!!!!!!!! Judging by his reaction after shooting the man no doubt in my mind he had zero medic training. And he shouldn't have claimed to be one having band-aids and gauze doesnt make you a medic.

a reply to: JAGStorm

I trust what I see. Not what anyone says. What we can see is more powerful than what someone says.

People can lie. But Evidence do not.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: vonclod

We know the name of the dude he called, haven’t seen anything about him being a cop. Not saying he is or isn’t, just curious that it’s not being made more of a deal of even by his supporters, if true.

You're right, I may of misspoke on that one.

a reply to: dragonridr

He should not have been there and just all around made bad decisions.

Sure, same with the rioters, people trying to burn down the gas station, the same who attacked an armed individual..ya, lots of people shouldn't of been there!

a reply to: dragonridr

Yea I’m not really on board with excoriating him for not stopping to help the chomo in the middle of a bunch of people who weren’t on his “side.” You’re right, they were across the street from a clinic and home fry still died. Maybe Grosskreutz should have been more worried about being a medic than chasing somebody down the road? I dunno, seems equally if not more reasonable than expecting a guy to try and help a member of an angry mob he just shot.

As for the rest of what you said, I don’t particularly care what’s in your mind. He didn’t react the way you say he should have, cool. Put together a training program for people to do what you think they should.

a reply to: JAGStorm

According to WI 939.48 (2)(a) the only way to be disqualified from self-defense protection is if you engage in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack you. Even then, the person engaging in unlawful conduct is allowed to us self defense if they reasonably believe that they are in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

What that means is, it doesn't matter if Kyle had the gun legally or not. Open carrying is not an unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack. Even if it was, attempting to take said gun from him would give him reason to use self defense because he would be in imminent danger.

He may get lesser charges for having a gun under age (which is unconstitutional) but he is still protected by self defense laws. Also, Kyle is said to be a part of a militia. The US Constitution protects the right of unorganized militias, and all men age 17 and above qualify.

If Kyle was randomly pointing his gun at others, which you've yet to show proof of, you'd then have to prove it wasn't also in self defense. When you are carrying a gun, any form of physical attack or threat can instantly become a matter of life and death. That is because you have the threat of the attacker taking the weapon and using it against you. If Kyle was required to point his gun to warn off an attacker then it would be self defense.

In the video showing Joseph Rosenbaum chasing Kyle, for a brief moment Kyle stops running and turns around 180 degrees and points the gun at Joseph. However this threat of lethal force was not enough to stop Joseph, and he continued to chase him. That shows Kyle did what he could to non-lethally stop the threat, but that didn't work and later Kyle was forced to use lethal force.

I've seen every video, every angle, and as much context as possible. Kyle was acting in self defense.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I did not think the 2nd amendment had a age limit....

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Kyle is said to be a part of a militia. The US Constitution protects the right of unorganized militias, and all men age 17 and above qualify.

From what I've read this won't fly, that was tried before and failed in court.

lawandcrime.com...

Cevallos noted that late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia expressly stated in 2008 that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms was “not unlimited.” That was in the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal gun rights case District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia also noted the constitutionality of “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Cevallos, a criminal defense lawyer, called the defense “a reach” that is “not likely to succeed,” a sentiment that was widely shared but more scathingly expressed by other attorneys.

a reply to: JAGStorm
If they prove or sway the court with the militia argument..it end's there, from what I can interpret.

If that fails, they will fight the charges, and win on pretty much all of it, he could face a possetion of weapon charge.

I'm a bit sceptical of some of these attorneys. One is making a judgement based on false info..right off the bat

Criminal defense attorney Janet Johnson agued that, under the circumstances, such a defense “is not available” to Rittenhouse.

“To start with, he illegally possessed the gun and traveled to Wisconsin with it. This defense is not available to him. Period,” she wrote.

He did not cross state lines with any weapon. I wouldn't hire that attorney.

a reply to: vonclod

He did not cross state lines with any weapon. I wouldn't hire that attorney.

Do you know that as a fact?

originally posted by: JAGStorm
a reply to: vonclod

He did not cross state lines with any weapon. I wouldn't hire that attorney.

Do you know that as a fact?

I think it's an accepted fact, they know who the owner is, waiting to see if he catches any charges, they won't release the name till then.

I'm trying to confirm, he has not been charged with bringing a weapon over state lines, so, I'm sure they would charge him with that, if true.