Rittenhouse

The question is at hand is if it was self defense or murder. NOT where he should have been at a certain hour. Sure I obviously think it would have been better for him to be at home but he didn't. It seems to me based on the 8 hours I've watched on this trial that he wasn't going after people nor was he going there to use his AR....he gave his bullet proof vest to one of his friends...His main focus was to aid people that were injured not even protect the car lots....Shoulda Woulda Coulda can't help the situation now...it's done and over.
 
That child molester that was killed was into young boys. It could be that was the original motive for him pursuing Rittenhouse, and then things escalated. We will never know but that’s a possibility.
 
Homer said:
....and protect yourself from convicted child molestors.....
Click to expand...
Hey, I like a happy ending as much as the next guy. So thanks Kyle, hope it was worth it.

I’m not a big “ends justify the means” guy. That’s part of what‘s wrong with our institutions.
 
elkassassin said:
But Remember!

The JOKER Pulled a Hand Gun Out He Didn't Have a Permit for!

But That's OK!

Like You've All Heard Me Say Many Times:

You Pull a Gun Out!

You'd BEST Be Damn Well Ready To Use it!
Click to expand...
What? A criminal with an illegal weapon? Amen Manny.
 
Captain_coues said:
That child molester that was killed was into young boys. It could be that was the original motive for him pursuing Rittenhouse, and then things escalated. We will never know but that’s a possibility.
Click to expand...
Kyle was a little old for him.....he liked them hairless....
 
DW said:
Cmon Blue. You're one of the smart guys here. The kid was attacked and he defended himself. End of story, case closed.
Click to expand...
And it was dumb for him to put himself there. That’s the only point I believe I’ve made. All this other triangulation is people trying to dress him up like Jesus.

If he was a grownup instead of a stupid punk, you would say he’s a dumbazz.
 
Blue.... I appreciate your civility and big picture perspectives. Both are somewhat rare in these parts.

I think my fears and concerns come from two primary sources.

1. Family and friends. Two very close friends who’s ancestors came to Jamaica from Europe in the 1600s, escaped under the Papa Doc era in the 1960s, my niece’s husband who came here from Venezuela, sometime in early 2000’s his parents and sister are still there, a neighbor from South Africa, and two neighbor widows who escaped out of Germany in the late 1930’s, both have passed away now.

Each of them, over a period of 40 years have shared many, similar experience, that took place in their previous home countries. Very similar.

2. I’ve read way, way too many history books.

Through media, of various kinds, I’m seeing far too many events here in the US that mirror many of these reports/stories/books. That concerns me a great deal.

My grandparents were all Americans, my parents and I were born and raised in Alberta, Canada. I became extremely disappointed to the Pierre Trudeau government in Canada and the socialist movement that started in 1960s. Married to an American woman I had the opportunity to immigrate to the US in 1975 and did.

It scares the hell out of me, for my children and grandchildren, to see what I absolutely believe is an active and worriesomely successful socialist/communist movement in the US. I’m not worried about myself, at 74, I doubt I’ll be here to see where this stuff takes us, but I am concerned for the future of all our children, for sure my own, if not anyone else’s.

This is a very real concern for me.

Voting used to be the solution but I’m concerned there are now enough socialists/communists in the US today to out vote the rest of us. Votes are what brought Hitler, Papa Doc, Mandela, and Chávez to power. They then took their citizens vote away. That’s how it works, the corruption of the freedom to vote. Using freedom to take freedom. It’s a well practiced playbook.

Crazy? ..... half the country believe I am.
 
2lumpy said:
Blue.... I appreciate your civility and big picture perspectives. Both are somewhat rare in these parts.

I think my fears and concerns come from two primary sources.

1. Family and friends. Two very close friends who’s ancestors came to Jamaica from Europe in the 1600s, escaped under the Papa Doc era in the 1960s, my niece’s husband who came here from Venezuela, sometime in early 2000’s his parents and sister are still there, a neighbor from South Africa, and two neighbor widows who escaped out of Germany in the late 1930’s, both have passed away now.

Each of them, over a period of 40 years have shared many, similar experience, that took place in their previous home countries. Very similar.

2. I’ve read way, way too many history books.

Through media, of various kinds, I’m seeing far too many events here in the US that mirror many of these reports/stories/books. That concerns me a great deal.

My grandparents were all Americans, my parents and I were born and raised in Alberta, Canada. I became extremely disappointed to the Pierre Trudeau government in Canada and the socialist movement that started in 1960s. Married to an American woman I had the opportunity to immigrate to the US in 1975 and did.

It scares the hell out of me, for my children and grandchildren, to see what I absolutely believe is an active and worriesomely successful socialist/communist movement in the US. I’m not worried about myself, at 74, I doubt I’ll be here to see where this stuff takes us, but I am concerned for the future of all our children, for sure my own, if not anyone else’s.

This is a very real concern for me.

Voting used to be the solution but I’m concerned there are now enough socialists/communists in the US today to out vote the rest of us. Votes is what brought Hitler, Papa Doc, Mandela, and Chávez to power. They then took their citizens vote away. That’s how it works, the corruption of the freedom to vote. Using freedom to take freedom. It’s a well practiced playbook.

Crazy? ..... half the country believe I am.
Click to expand...
This is why our redistricting committee will do more to defend our democracy than ol Kyle and is AR.

For some reason people lose sight of the fact they can only make a difference IF THEY AREN’T DEAD.
 
OutdoorAddict10 said:
Vest was given to him by a local police department a long time before the incident if I remember correctly
Click to expand...
Rut roh. Interesting. Did they give the BLM dudes vests also? I can say confidently that my local SO would NOT issue me a bulletproof vest for any reason I can think of.

This gets weirder all the time.
 
Bluehair said:
Rut roh. Interesting. Did they give the BLM dudes vests also? I can say confidently that my local SO would NOT issue me a bulletproof vest for any reason I can think of.

This gets weirder all the time.
Click to expand...
You should watch the trial then. It explains it all.

"When his attorney asked how a 17-year-old had a bulletproof vest in his possession, Rittenhouse said it was “issued to me by the Grayslake Police Department,” where he participated in the youth explorers cadet program."

"Rittenhouse testified that he then put his own bulletproof vest on Smith and said, “Here, Nick, I don’t need my bulletproof vest. I will help people with first aid."
 
The illegal gun charge has yet to be determined and it's still not clear that he possessed it illegally? It didn't cross state lines as many in the media want you to believe. Some in the media are still saying he shot black men
 
OutdoorAddict10 said:
You should watch the trial then. It explains it all.

"When his attorney asked how a 17-year-old had a bulletproof vest in his possession, Rittenhouse said it was “issued to me by the Grayslake Police Department,” where he participated in the youth explorers cadet program."

"Rittenhouse testified that he then put his own bulletproof vest on Smith and said, “Here, Nick, I don’t need my bulletproof vest. I will help people with first aid."
Click to expand...
Ya....... proves he was stupid........ cause he knew he was gunna kill somebody....... it was premeditated!!! Ya right.

They’re still going to convict him for something........... jury don’t want a target on their cranium. That’s the trend........ lots of folks do well betting on trends
 
Regarding the three rioters having criminal records being coincidental...... I got curious about Joshua Kiminski and decided to see if there was any mention of him having had any problems with the law. This came up:

“Court records show he has a lengthy criminal history in Wisconsin for carrying a concealed weapon and other offenses. He had an open domestic abuse criminal case at the time of the Rittenhouse shooting. Joshua Ziminski also went by the online pseudonym of Alex Blaine.”

I have no idea if it’s true but if it is, It once again makes me wonder if there isn’t something mentally wrong with these violent rioters. Four for four doesn’t seem very coincidental to me.

Just saying........
 
Homer said:
you get weirder all the time.....
Click to expand...
Whew….I thought it was everyone else. The patriotic call to be a rooftop sniper defending Korean laundry’s threw me.:ROFLMAO:

I suppose I should thank old Kyle for drawing so much attention to the importance of the 2a. Now everyone can see the necessity of the right to use deadly force. Just don’t forget to borrow an AR or bring your Cub Scout bulletproof vest when you head out to put yourself in harms way.

And props to his handlers. That graffiti thing was made for tv stuff. This is just the republic saving drama we need. Never mind that it’s every Saturday night in Abq or Phx.

Maybe if you tell me 1000 more times this really is the best way to defend freedom, I’ll finally get it. But don’t count on it. It doesn’t work with my toxic positivity.:)

And Homer, when I put out the call to come help me and da boys defend Colorado, I’ll still call you. We need someone to tell us we’re doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:
2lumpy said:
Regarding the three rioters having criminal records being coincidental...... I got curious about Joshua Kiminski and decided to see if there was any mention of him having had any problems with the law. This came up:

“Court records show he has a lengthy criminal history in Wisconsin for carrying a concealed weapon and other offenses. He had an open domestic abuse criminal case at the time of the Rittenhouse shooting. Joshua Ziminski also went by the online pseudonym of Alex Blaine.”

I have no idea if it’s true but if it is, It once again makes me wonder if there isn’t something mentally wrong with these violent rioters. Four for four doesn’t seem very coincidental to me.

Just saying........
Click to expand...
Kyle is just a domestic away.?

I would love to see the quals of the counter protestors. If Jan 6 is any indication, they’re probably eagle scouts too.

I believe you were right when you said it’s both sides. Maybe more people should just stay home.
 
Bluehair said:
Kyle is just a domestic away.?

I would love to see the quals of the counter protestors. If Jan 6 is any indication, they’re probably eagle scouts too.

I believe you were right when you said it’s both sides. Maybe more people should just stay home.
Click to expand...
Yep. Just stay home or.......... protest without violence. Peaceful gatherings to express frustration or injustice are a healthy part of America freedom. Protests outside the rule of law are anti-American, for all sides.
 
Too many guys here keep saying he had no business being there with a gun. Is he a citizen of the U.S...? Then he can carry a weapon wherever he wants. Far too many of you aren't even arguing the point. Were his actions done in defense of his life.? Yes.

He had a right to be there. He had a right to have a gun. He defended his life (according to all accounts, including one of the victims). There should never have been charges. He is a political prisoner by the woke mob. Which some of you appear to be a part of. We'll have to agree to disagree.
 
Punk went to a volatile situation with a gun. He killed people. He didn't defend any freedom I have. And I don't feel the need to defend my freedom by killing another Anerican. Kid needs prison. mtmuley
 
GEEZUS MT!

You Can't Even Spell American!:D

mtmuley said:
Punk went to a volatile situation with a gun. He killed people. He didn't defend any freedom I have. And I don't feel the need to defend my freedom by killing another Anerican. Kid needs prison. mtmuley
Click to expand...
 
mtmuley said:
..,,, I don't feel the need to defend my freedom by killing another Anerican.......
Click to expand...
I hope to hell you never have to mt.

I hope no one ever does, I just don’t share your confidence these “incidents” won’t continue and can be resolved without violence. Having said that, if they do, these will not be the last unfortunate deaths.

Again, I have no way to know the truth from this quote but for what it’s worth, this Kenosha mess isn’t an isolated incident in our country.

“At least 11 Americans have been killed while participating in political demonstrations this year and another 14 have died in other incidents linked to political unrest, according to new data from a non-profit monitoring political unrest in the United States.”

Apparently from a 2020 report.
 
Last edited:
eelgrass said:
The judge has received death threats. What does that tell you?
Click to expand...
It tells me, some people believe they can over throw the current system, with violence and threats of violence. Right now, it appears,THEY want to turn it up a notch. Hope I’m wrong. Really hope I’m wrong.
 
2lumpy said:
I hope to hell you never have to mt.

I hope no one ever does, I just don’t share your confidence these “incidents” won’t continue and can be resolved without violence. Having said that, it they do, these will not be the last unfortunate deaths.

Again, I have no way to know the truth from this quote but for what it’s worth, this Kenosha mess isn’t an isolated incident in our country.

“At least 11 Americans have been killed while participating in political demonstrations this year and another 14 have died in other incidents linked to political unrest, according to new data from a non-profit monitoring political unrest in the United States.”

Apparently from a 2020 report.
Click to expand...
I’m evolving on this. I’m thinking all the idiots should go to the protests and shoot each other.
 
If we could keep them corralled and if they would promised to use them, I might be persuaded to keep them supplied in all the ammunition they need.

I’ve argued, for the last 25 years, the rest of the world needs to build a impenetrable wall around the Middle East. Anyone that wants in, have at it, but once you’re in, no one can leave. Dump every imaginable weapon, other than chemical or nuclear into the encloser, keep pouring in weapons and munitions until it’s been quiet for 50 years, then give it 50 more. After 100 years, send in an inspection committee, to determine if those folks have learned to get along and can live together without hate and violence. If it’s determined they can’t, lock it back up for another 100 and dump some more ammunition in. Check every 100 years...... until they’re all dead or figured out a way to get along. The rest of the world should not have to put up with their bullshi!.

Pipe dreams...... but it’s therapeutic to think what would fix these messes.
 
Illegal possession???

Not so fast....

Under Section 948.60(2)(a) ("Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18"), "[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

subsection (c), states that "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

There is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28

Therefore, in order for the section 948.60 to stick, he must be found guilty of both .304 AND .593.

.304 deals with those 16 and under.

Rittenhouse was 17.

I think he will walk on the weapons charges.
 
2lumpy said:
If we could keep them corralled and if they would promised to use them, I might be persuaded to keep them supplied in all the ammunition they need.

I’ve argued, for the last 25 years, the rest of the world needs to build a impenetrable wall around the Middle East. Anyone that wants in, have at it, but once you’re in, no one can leave. Dump every imaginable weapon, other than chemical or nuclear into the encloser, keep pouring in weapons and munitions until it’s been quiet for 50 years, then give it 50 more. After 100 years, send in an inspection committee, to determine if those folks have learned to get along and can live together without hate and violence. If it’s determined they can’t, lock it back up for another 100 and dump some more ammunition in. Check every 100 years...... until they’re all dead or figured out a way to get along. The rest of the world should not have to put up with their bullshi!.

Pipe dreams...... but it’s therapeutic to think what would fix these messes.
Click to expand...
We're running out of coal and oil so I suggest we at least have a pipeline to the Middle East. Maybe even be best friends, like before and after Trump.
 
I was in Kenosha back in the early 2003-2005 and I couldn’t believe the population was well over 100k when Coop our host ask me why I said I can’t believe, that many people lived here and it was so peaceful, clean, just like some of our 2k population farms towns around where I live
 
The way that gun law is written, even the judge has admitted that he can not decide if Rittenhouse committed a violation of that law.
It is ambiguous at best and may get tossed by the judge or he may instruct the jury why it is ambiguous and leave it to them to decide if it applies to Rittenhouse.
RELH
 
BrowningRage said:
Too many guys here keep saying he had no business being there with a gun. Is he a citizen of the U.S...? Then he can carry a weapon wherever he wants. Far too many of you aren't even arguing the point. Were his actions done in defense of his life.? Yes.

He had a right to be there. He had a right to have a gun. He defended his life (according to all accounts, including one of the victims). There should never have been charges. He is a political prisoner by the woke mob. Which some of you appear to be a part of. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...


Rights aren't free from responsibility or consequences.
 
Once the riots starts after the acquittal, I hear the kid is gonna take his AR and be right back there again. Which MM members will join him this time?
 
mtmuley said:
Punk went to a volatile situation with a gun. He killed people. He didn't defend any freedom I have. And I don't feel the need to defend my freedom by killing another Anerican. Kid needs prison. mtmuley
Click to expand...
If he'd been shooting Hammers he would only be looking at 3 count's of attempted murder. :LOL:
 
Last edited:
eelgrass said:
Very true. Ask the 3 guys who were shot. They could have stayed home and not tried to kill a 17 year old kid.
Click to expand...


Gotta decide.

And I agree, if you don't try to burn down a city, you don't get shot.

But if one has the "right" to be there, the others did as well.

And dude with the pistol has the same right to self defense as Rittenhouse. Especially after seeing him shoot 2 previous.

But I agree. Had they all not gone to find trouble, 2of them probably wouldn't have.

1st dude should have been cut down years ago
 
Bluehair said:
And it was dumb for him to put himself there. That’s the only point I believe I’ve made. All this other triangulation is people trying to dress him up like Jesus.

If he was a grownup instead of a stupid punk, you would say he’s a dumbazz.
Click to expand...
And you would have said Jesus was stupid for ever riding into Jerusalem.
 
PSA


When the Brandon supporters descend upon Wisconsin after the verdict to get their Xmas shopping done(looting), unless you live there, probably best to sit it out
 
DW said:
Aww c'mon! Where are all you "it's illegal for a 17yr old to open carry a rifle in Wisconsin" guys?
Click to expand...
I don’t really care about what happens to him, but I’m curious whether you think this is a W or a L for gun owners?

I’m speaking about the court of public opinion. I’m leaning to L.
 
DW said:
Aww c'mon! Where are all you "it's illegal for a 17yr old to open carry a rifle in Wisconsin" guys?
Click to expand...


It's illegal for a 17yr old to carry a rifle in Wisconsin. Notice how he got off, a barrel length.


There is no dispute that Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha and used it.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin law has an exception related to the length of a weapon's barrel. Prosecutors argued that the defense was misreading the statute. Judge Bruce Schroeder had twice sided with prosecutors earlier in declining to dismiss the charge, but he also said the law was confusingly written.

After prosecutors conceded Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, the judge threw out the charge
 
Bluehair said:
I don’t really care about what happens to him, but I’m curious whether you think this is a W or a L for gun owners?

I’m speaking about the court of public opinion. I’m leaning to L.
Click to expand...
It depends on which “court of public opinion” your referring to. Half the public will say W the other half will say L.
 
2lumpy said:
It depends on which “court of public opinion” your referring to. Half the public will say W the other half will say L.
Click to expand...
I would agree….but :) ….most restrictive gun laws are local and WI is a progressive paradise. So….I’m not sure the 51/49 thing works. And, don’t forget which side owns the press.

Maybe everyone will go out and buy one so they can defend themselves there in the wild west. Kyle could cause an ammo shortage for all I know.
 
hossblur said:
It's illegal for a 17yr old to carry a rifle in Wisconsin. Notice how he got off, a barrel length.


There is no dispute that Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha and used it.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin law has an exception related to the length of a weapon's barrel. Prosecutors argued that the defense was misreading the statute. Judge Bruce Schroeder had twice sided with prosecutors earlier in declining to dismiss the charge, but he also said the law was confusingly written.

After prosecutors conceded Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, the judge threw out the charge
Click to expand...

Because it's illegal for a 17yr old to open carry a short barreled rifle in Wisconsin. Meaning it's legal for a 17yr old to open carry a standard length rifle, in the judges interpretation of the statute.
 
dgwoody said:
Grade A, first ballot hall of fame clown for sure. Its funny to me how often liars use the phrase "trust me."
Click to expand...
There used to be this other famous dude who loved the phrase "Let me be clear". Immediately after saying it he would lie straight to your face.
 
DW said:
Because it's illegal for a 17yr old to open carry a short barreled rifle in Wisconsin. Meaning it's legal for a 17yr old to open carry a standard length rifle, in the judges interpretation of the statute.
Click to expand...


I actually quoted Wisconsin law earlier. The exception as I read it were for kids and hunting rifles, Shotguns. Somehow I doubt it was written for hanging out on main street shooting dudes.

But good for him. Doesn't change his stupidity, just means he's lucky, as I doubt barrel length was thought of
 
Bluehair said:
And it was dumb for him to put himself there. That’s the only point I believe I’ve made. All this other triangulation is people trying to dress him up like Jesus.

If he was a grownup instead of a stupid punk, you would say he’s a dumbazz.
Click to expand...
The trials not about how he got there. Or at least in the legal sense it shouldn’t be. The trials about self defense or murder and it’s pretty obviously self defense. I dont care how old he is
 
Hey Hossy!

LaVoy's Long Gun Must Of Really Scared You?

You're Smarter Than That Hossy!

Not Sayin LaVoy Was Right!

He Wasn't!

But To Be SKEERED Of LaVoy's Long Gun Would Be A F'N Joke!
 
hossblur said:
It's illegal for a 17yr old to carry a rifle in Wisconsin. Notice how he got off, a barrel length.


There is no dispute that Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha and used it.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin law has an exception related to the length of a weapon's barrel. Prosecutors argued that the defense was misreading the statute. Judge Bruce Schroeder had twice sided with prosecutors earlier in declining to dismiss the charge, but he also said the law was confusingly written.

After prosecutors conceded Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, the judge threw out the charge
Click to expand...
so you really aren't aware of an SBR???....all new to you??
 
JPickett said:
The trials not about how he got there. Or at least in the legal sense it shouldn’t be. The trials about self defense or murder and it’s pretty obviously self defense. I dont care how old he is
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I opined on the gun charges. My point all along is he’s a juvenile - who acted like one on the stand - who obviously lacked the maturity to make good decisions. As has been pointed out repeatedly the only reason he’s around to bawl like a little girl on tv is dumb luck.

Punk made a bad decision and I stand by that. Report back when those civil suits are done. And don’t forget to put your money where your mouth is and donate to his cause. Our republic depends on it.:ROFLMAO:
 
Bluehair said:
I don’t believe I opined on the gun charges. My point all along is he’s a juvenile - who acted like one on the stand - who obviously lacked the maturity to make good decisions. As has been pointed out repeatedly the only reason he’s around to bawl like a little girl on tv is dumb luck.

Punk made a bad decision and I stand by that. Report back when those civil suits are done. And don’t forget to put your money where your mouth is and donate to his cause. Our republic depends on it.:ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
don't try to use your discover card though.....
 
It seems the case had a lot invested in the legality of Rittenhouse carrying a AR at the age of 17. THEY’RE entire case was built on the false premise that it was illegal for him to be there with the others, armed with that weaponi. By virtue of that, THEY painted him guilty before the first shooting ever took place.... so how could anyone trust anything he did, said he did, didn’t do, or said he didn’t do...... he was committing a crime before the riot/protest ever got starte. It was a critical component, in positioning his credibility and his real intent.

All of that bad/stupid/evil/power hungry, character assignation claim, was calculated to support that he was not defending himself, but the illegal punk kid came looking to do harm. After THEY manufactured that motive,THEY then spent the rest of the trial, poorly but certainly, using that “foundation lie” to justify why, this punk illegal behaving young kid, went on killing spree. Thereby confirming the bias THEY established at the beginning and asking the jury to accept their lies about how he provoke violence, to justify murders. And, THEY went to great length to manufacture confirming evidence, for each individual shooting.

It actually pisses me off this underage charge was ever allow by the court in the beginning. This truth absolutely should have been established two fricking weeks ago, before it was allowed to be used to falsely bias the jury. The harm was done a long time before the trail was even started, by the media claim it was illegal for Rittenhouse to be carry this weapon.

If we look back on this thread, how many of us started out calling out Rittenhouse for being 17 with an AR......... before we added any other comments about the shooting. Almost all of us started with that premise. It was, for God’s sake, the primary focus, of even those who believed he shot 3 people in self defense.

This entire case should be thrown out, without prejudice, for that fact alone. How can a State allow a State’s D.A. to prejudice a case before it even starts and not throw it out on that basis alone? It’s utter insanity. And it’s equally insane that they let the DA bias the jury for 2 weeks and then throw out the very platform the rest of the case was built upon.

I can’t find anywhere the Judge told the jury they could convict him on new, lesser charges, as the media claimed he said he might do. That certainly seems wrong to do at the end of a trial too. It seems to say, we couldn’t convict him on the original charges, would you consider convicting him on something else? How is that fair or even legal, after the fact.

Still, I don’t trust what comes out these kinds of trials anymore. Hell, most attorneys freely admit, you never know what a jury will do.

I believe he’s going to get convicted of something and do some time.........BECAUSE that’s what the system wants to happen, at this place in time.

Hope I’m total wrong, because I should be.
 
Yes he made a dumb mistake. The city made a bigger dumb mistake in not trying to stop the riots and looting. Now they will end up paying.
The D.A. made a even bigger mistake by overcharging Rittenhouse trying to appease the BLM and ANTIFA mob. Because of that violation of Rittenhouse's rights, the city will be paying for his total defense fund and giving him enough pocket change to live on for quiet some time.
The city could come out ahead on arresting that last suspect that Rittenhouse wounded and is now suing the city for 10 million. Arrest him for ADW as he should have been arrested and make a deal with him to drop his frivolous lawsuit.
Yes Rittenhouse was a idiot for going there, but the biggest idiots were the liberal leaders of that city that allowed mob rule and stood by with their thumbs in their bunghole while the city burned.
RELH
 
elkassassin said:
Hey Hossy!

LaVoy's Long Gun Must Of Really Scared You?

You're Smarter Than That Hossy!

Not Sayin LaVoy Was Right!

He Wasn't!

But To Be SKEERED Of LaVoy's Long Gun Would Be A F'N Joke!
Click to expand...


I got a friend who is a Sheriff. He gets to go home to his family, guys like Lavoy had a choice, he chose to leave his, the cops don't.
 
RELH said:
Yes he made a dumb mistake. The city made a bigger dumb mistake in not trying to stop the riots and looting. Now they will end up paying.
The D.A. made a even bigger mistake by overcharging Rittenhouse trying to appease the BLM and ANTIFA mob. Because of that violation of Rittenhouse's rights, the city will be paying for his total defense fund and giving him enough pocket change to live on for quiet some time.
The city could come out ahead on arresting that last suspect that Rittenhouse wounded and is now suing the city for 10 million. Arrest him for ADW as he should have been arrested and make a deal with him to drop his frivolous lawsuit.
Yes Rittenhouse was a idiot for going there, but the biggest idiots were the liberal leaders of that city that allowed mob rule and stood by with their thumbs in their bunghole while the city burned.
RELH
Click to expand...
Exactly.

But further, I want Rittenhouse to walk so he can start suing the Scarborough's, Lemons, Maddows, etc, for slander
 
elkassassin said:
Cops Ain't Always Right There Hossy!
Click to expand...


Dipshits that take over bird refuges to "protest" ranchers for being thrown in jail for poaching, then starting fires in burning the evidence, are always wrong.

So are ranchers that mooch off the taxpayer while claiming they are Mericans.
 
hossblur said:
It's illegal for a 17yr old to carry a rifle in Wisconsin. Notice how he got off, a barrel length.


There is no dispute that Rittenhouse was 17 when he carried an AR-style semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha and used it.

But the defense argued that Wisconsin law has an exception related to the length of a weapon's barrel. Prosecutors argued that the defense was misreading the statute. Judge Bruce Schroeder had twice sided with prosecutors earlier in declining to dismiss the charge, but he also said the law was confusingly written.

After prosecutors conceded Monday that Rittenhouse’s rifle was not short-barreled, the judge threw out the charge
Click to expand...
For a guy that is the hardest working man in Utah you sure watch alot of this trial. ?
 
"If we look back on this thread, how many of us started out calling out Rittenhouse for being 17 with an AR......... before we added any other comments about the shooting. Almost all of us started with that premise. It was, for God’s sake, the primary focus, of even those who believed he shot 3 people in self defense."


hossblur said:
No. He'd still would have been a 17yr old in possession of a firearm.

Wisconsin law is pretty clear about that.
Click to expand...


Well this one for sure lump. But I never did.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.
But further, I want Rittenhouse to walk so he can start suing the Scarborough's, Lemons, Maddows, etc, for slander
_______________________________________________________________________

He needs to add Joe Biden's name to that long list of bent wrist liberals to sue for slander and libel.
RELH
 
DW said:
"If we look back on this thread, how many of us started out calling out Rittenhouse for being 17 with an AR......... before we added any other comments about the shooting. Almost all of us started with that premise. It was, for God’s sake, the primary focus, of even those who believed he shot 3 people in self defense."





Well this one for sure lump. But I never did.
Click to expand...
True, you didn’t. ?
 
2lumpy said:
It seems the case had a lot invested in the legality of Rittenhouse carrying a AR at the age of 17. THEY’RE entire case was built on the false premise that it was illegal for him to be there with the others, armed with that weaponi. By virtue of that, THEY painted him guilty before the first shooting ever took place.... so how could anyone trust anything he did, said he did, didn’t do, or said he didn’t do...... he was committing a crime before the riot/protest ever got starte. It was a critical component, in positioning his credibility and his real intent.

All of that bad/stupid/evil/power hungry, character assignation claim, was calculated to support that he was not defending himself, but the illegal punk kid came looking to do harm. After THEY manufactured that motive,THEY then spent the rest of the trial, poorly but certainly, using that “foundation lie” to justify why, this punk illegal behaving young kid, went on killing spree. Thereby confirming the bias THEY established at the beginning and asking the jury to accept their lies about how he provoke violence, to justify murders. And, THEY went to great length to manufacture confirming evidence, for each individual shooting.

It actually pisses me off this underage charge was ever allow by the court in the beginning. This truth absolutely should have been established two fricking weeks ago, before it was allowed to be used to falsely bias the jury. The harm was done a long time before the trail was even started, by the media claim it was illegal for Rittenhouse to be carry this weapon.

If we look back on this thread, how many of us started out calling out Rittenhouse for being 17 with an AR......... before we added any other comments about the shooting. Almost all of us started with that premise. It was, for God’s sake, the primary focus, of even those who believed he shot 3 people in self defense.

This entire case should be thrown out, without prejudice, for that fact alone. How can a State allow a State’s D.A. to prejudice a case before it even starts and not throw it out on that basis alone? It’s utter insanity. And it’s equally insane that they let the DA bias the jury for 2 weeks and then throw out the very platform the rest of the case was built upon.

I can’t find anywhere the Judge told the jury they could convict him on new, lesser charges, as the media claimed he said he might do. That certainly seems wrong to do at the end of a trial too. It seems to say, we couldn’t convict him on the original charges, would you consider convicting him on something else? How is that fair or even legal, after the fact.

Still, I don’t trust what comes out these kinds of trials anymore. Hell, most attorneys freely admit, you never know what a jury will do.

I believe he’s going to get convicted of something and do some time.........BECAUSE that’s what the system wants to happen, at this place in time.

Hope I’m total wrong, because I should be.
Click to expand...
I believe he actually wants it thrown out with prejudice.

And there was no They pulling his strings. HE put himself in the middle of all of this. Of course there are plenty of They’s pulling on strings now.

And the dismissal of the gun charge appears to be because of a poorly written statute.

I will bet any one of you that the state of WI will pass stricter gun control laws in response to this circus before Kyle gets a dime of defamation or libel money.

But thank goodness for happy endings.:)
 

Similar threads

L
Elk antler poacher fined, loses hunting privileges for 3 years
Replies
19
Views
1k
Vanilla
Vanilla
Onthehoof
Mike Tyson hand delivered beatdown
Replies
84
Views
3k
runamuk
runamuk
littlebighorn
Backfire Milk Jug Challenge
Replies
73
Views
2k
elkassassin
elkassassin

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Taker Buck???
horns_sky.JPG
IMG_5861.jpeg
9976B536-ADD6-406D-B791-BAF9ED0C7547.png
IMG_8700.jpeg
1704057464987.jpeg
5E1EA3F3-3CCA-4A05-9319-8B54C7504D33.png
22E465B7-4FB4-402F-B960-9A6C0678BF0F.jpeg
Packing a Whopper Bull!
IMG_3560.MOV
IMG_2261.JPG
IMG_1434sa.jpg
Back
Top Bottom