Kyle Rittenhouse Update

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Yep, the danger lies solely in the mind of the defendant.

Kyle dindu nuffin.

a reply to: FunshineCD

Long guns were not illegal for him to carry, from what I read.

He went there to protect himself, not to shoot people. And he was also trying to prevent even more damage in a place he worked.

So.. protecting his place of employment, protecting himself, being attacked by hordes of morons who actually tried to disable him.

What do you really think?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

He was legal to carry a long rifle.

He broke no law.

a reply to: jerich0

Oh really? Who told you that. Where did you read that. I really didn't know the ins and outs of what laws were or were not being broken so what else could I do, I went to the internet and the first thing I found was this

Is that true? State laws suggest not.

The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old.

www.politifact.com...

This article goes on to point out that

John Monroe, an attorney who specializes in gun rights, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that there’s an exception for rifles and shotguns, which is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt, that could apply. But Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.

So, the next question that comes to mind is , was he there to hunt? His own comments say he was not.

"People are getting injured and our job is to protect this business," Rittenhouse told the Daily Caller in a video interview before the shooting. "And my job also is to protect people. If someone is hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle; I’ve gotta protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit."

So I have offered evidence here in this trial on the issue of the legality of his brandishing that rifle. The evidence I have put forth may be true or it may not be true. What evidence to you want to put forth that would say otherwise?

But as I suspect, neither of us is a lawyer and neither of us will be on the jury hearing all the evidence offered in this case so I guess we will have to wait until the lawyers and jury have their finding to know whether or not you are right in your claim that he was carrying legally.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

all hearsay. you dont got a leg to stand on. Neither of you are lawyers,so automatically you are both wrong as you lack STANDING.

During the finale', the fact Kyle was on his back when he pulled the trigger, it tells you everything you need to know about self-defense.

As oppression in America increases against normal citizens, take note and keep your eyes on developments here.

www.wqad.com...

Rittenhouse shooting of extremists justified.

originally posted by: carewemust
As oppression in America increases against normal citizens, take note and keep your eyes on developments here.

www.wqad.com...

Rittenhouse shooting of extremists justified.

It's sad that self defense is even in question. It's obvious that the thugs that were destroying property that night did not want anyone armed to be around to deter them. That is what made them so mad.....And it's interesting to see a couple people in here distort and jump through all sorts of hoops to justify the criminals who were destroying property and beating on Kyle. I'm disgusted with those who want to distort reality to defend a pack of thugs.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Everything that you mention concerns HANDGUNS. You are posting either out of ignorance or an attempt to deceive.

He doesn't need a reason to be there. Once he was attacked, he made attempts to retreat and then fired when he couldn't retreat and felt threatened. That is the LEGAL definition of self-defense. How he came to be in that position bears no relevance.

Technically his possession of a weapon legally or illegally has no bearing on this. That is a separate issue. It was self-defense plain and simple. This trial is purely political theater.

a reply to: standingwave

Calling Rittenhouse a vigilante out on a hunt, looking for people to shoot with his brand new toy after crossing state borders is not defending the ''thugs'' he encountered. No, he was a mercenary. Not a paid mercenary, but a volunteer mercenary, picking and choosing his own personal battles as he saw fit.

He put himself in that battle, it did not come to him. He was not defending his own home nor his own neighborhood. Nor his own city or even battling the ''thugs'' in his own state. He went out of his way to be where he was as well as going out of his way to procure the weapon he so happily discharged. That to many sounds just like one of the ''thugs'' folks are complaining about.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

He certainly was defending his life.

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Weren't the two that attacked Kyle a rapist and a molester? Good riddance. Let the kid go. Let God sort out the pervs. He will put them where they belong.

If you can point out any aNtifa members who ARENT rapists and molesters, you’re doing well

a reply to: JIMC5499

He doesn't need a reason to be there.

Simplistic. Should this mean that murder does not need a motive? He didn't go across state borders to poor coffee for the police or to help barricade some of the businesses he thought would need defense. He procured a weapon to go into battle. A battle he CHOSE to engage in. A street battle. Just like any of those street battles with multiple weapons being fired on the streets of Chicago or in that bar in St. Paul yesterday.

Painting him out to be some kind of innocent and patriotic ''hero'' is just that , nothing more than a red white and blue paint job. He was a young thug who wanted to be in on the street action and went there to do just that.

With him and his weapon he carried with him his grand excuse. ''Oh it was self defense, I was only exercising my patriotic duty''.

a reply to: JinMI

Yes he was. A life he chose to put on the line in the first place. He chose to go into battle. He chose to go across the state border to go into battle. He chose to be there.

Walking into a lions den and killing a lion who is about to attack you is not self defense, it's premeditated slaughter with an excuse. ''Oh, I had to save myself. If he was truly interested in self defense he would not have been there in the first place.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So you admit he was defending himself?

Everything else is arbitrary.

He didn't make those people attack him.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: standingwave

Calling Rittenhouse a vigilante out on a hunt, looking for people to shoot with his brand new toy after crossing state borders is not defending the ''thugs'' he encountered. No, he was a mercenary. Not a paid mercenary, but a volunteer mercenary, picking and choosing his own personal battles as he saw fit.

He put himself in that battle, it did not come to him. He was not defending his own home nor his own neighborhood. Nor his own city or even battling the ''thugs'' in his own state. He went out of his way to be where he was as well as going out of his way to procure the weapon he so happily discharged. That to many sounds just like one of the ''thugs'' folks are complaining about.

Actually it was quite the opposite. It seems the rioters, looters and arsonists were the ones looking for confrontation. They were the ones confronting Kyle, they were the ones taunting him, they were the ones chasing and beating him. Only thing Kyle had done was put out a fire started by the arsonists, try to clean up grafitti, and defend himself against attacks.

No, if anyone was "looking for it" that night, it was that group of terrorists. And a few of them pushed the envelope just a little bit too hard , and they got popped.

a reply to: JinMI

Again, simplistic. Was he being attacked? Maybe, I don't know. Did he threaten them first? Maybe, I don't know. Do you?
He was in the streets with a weapon. He went to that street from another state and not just to try the famous tacos from a vendor on that corner. He hoped there was going to be a battle there, a street battle and he went there to get in on the fun. Part of that fun for him was to be able to shoot people with an excuse. Premeditation, not defense.

He was out there looking for conflict. The book will be thrown at him and he is going away for a long time.