Hey guys. Hope all is well.
So I made this video the day after Kyle Rittenhouse was charged and put it up on YouTube. After 24 hours, it had 360,000 views, 13,000 hours of view time, and was the most watched video coming to his defense.
YouTube then shadow banned my comments, started to systematically remove my other videos, and then shortly following, took this video down too before banning me for a week.
So, I did what any red-blooded American would do: said fuck it, made it even longer, and re-uploaded it. They have since shadow banned my comments, suppressed it in the search results, but it hasn't been removed...yet.
I take all known footage of the incident and construct the crime scene together. There's a lot of new footage detailing what sparked the mob's attack on Kyle, the moment the first person fires (not Kyle, obviously), some damning evidence from Gaige's Instagram livestream just moments before he attempts to kill him, and some facts and footage which completely dismantles their "disenfranchised white Trump supporter mass murderer" narrative.
Please help spread this along and get the truth of this kid's innocence out to the world, thanks. He is without question 100% innocent.
https://youtu.be/OdLeT0tuoQg
:rolleyes:
Whatever.
Quote from: Castle_Bravo on September 13, 2020, 11:48:13 AM
:rolleyes:
Whatever.
So you looked at all the YouTube in just over 4min. and the YouTube was 24min long. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Castle_Bravo on September 13, 2020, 11:48:13 AM
:rolleyes:
Whatever.
Posted on: 11:44:45 AM
Your reply was posted at: 11:48:13 AM
And the video is 24 minutes long.
Case in point, if you're going to post something to suggest you don't care (which really suggests that you do), maybe think the stupidity through first.
Quote from: walkstall on September 13, 2020, 11:53:17 AM
So you looked at all the YouTube in just over 4min. and the YouTube was 24min long. :lol: :lol: :lol:
This guy gets it :thumbup:
Quote from: YUM Liberal Tears on September 13, 2020, 12:02:18 PM
Posted on: 11:44:45 AM
Your reply was posted at: 11:48:13 AM
And the video is 24 minutes long.
Case in point, if you're going to post something to suggest you don't care (which really suggests that you do), maybe think the stupidity through first.
This guy gets it :thumbup:
This is not on Bitchute why?
Quote from: taxed on September 13, 2020, 12:17:31 PM
This is not on Bitchute why?
I have to work on getting everything up there. My old version of the video is there, but not this new one with all the new footage.
I had a Jacob Blake video that they gave be a strike for on my account and banned me due to "harassment and cyberbullying." Didn't fit the narrative pointing out he was a rapist who was trespassing on the property of the woman he sexually assaulted, so of course, I was punished for it. This was when I found Bitchute as an alternative and I just haven't gotten around to posting everything on it yet.
Quote from: YUM Liberal Tears on September 13, 2020, 12:24:36 PM
I have to work on getting everything up there. My old version of the video is there, but not this new one with all the new footage.
I had a Jacob Blake video that they gave be a strike for on my account and banned me due to "harassment and cyberbullying." Didn't fit the narrative pointing out he was a rapist who was trespassing on the property of the woman he sexually assaulted, so of course, I was punished for it. This was when I found Bitchute as an alternative and I just haven't gotten around to posting everything on it yet.
I tried to watch it, but the text at the beginning made me bored and I bounced. I watch videos to watch video, not read.....
Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder but he is also not innocent in the situation. He made quite a few childish decisions that could have been avoided. This whole thing lies directly on his own shoulders. It could have easily been avoided.
Quote from: walkstall on September 13, 2020, 11:53:17 AM
So you looked at all the YouTube in just over 4min. and the YouTube was 24min long. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on September 13, 2020, 12:26:03 PM
I tried to watch it, but the text at the beginning made me bored and I bounced. I watch videos to watch video, not read.....
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 13, 2020, 12:28:14 PM
Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder but he is also not innocent in the situation. He made quite a few childish decisions that could have been avoided. This whole thing lies directly on his own shoulders. It could have easily been avoided.
Yeah, had the police been allowed to do their jobs.
Quote from: Castle_Bravo on September 13, 2020, 12:28:42 PM
What's the matter casshole_bravado? I guess you couldn't find someone to read it to you little girl?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 13, 2020, 12:28:14 PM
Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder but he is also not innocent in the situation. He made quite a few childish decisions that could have been avoided. This whole thing lies directly on his own shoulders. It could have easily been avoided.
What is he NOT innocent of or rather what burden of 'guilt' does he bear? My understading is that he was part of a group that was cleaning graffiti off a public building that had been defaced by the rioters. At least that is what I have read somewhere amid the numerous articles posted. If so, that makes him a civic minded citizen, arming himself to protect himself and others at such task when rioting anarchists are armed and aggressive is also within his rights.
It could have been easily avoided had the BLM/ANTIFA people ot started a riot in the first place.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 13, 2020, 12:28:14 PM
Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder but he is also not innocent in the situation. He made quite a few childish decisions that could have been avoided. This whole thing lies directly on his own shoulders. It could have easily been avoided.
Like what? He was right to be there, there needs to be armed militias at all these riots to keep them in line. If this happened more often the riots wld die out fast.
Quote from: Castle_Bravo on September 13, 2020, 12:28:42 PM
OIC, so you are just using someone elses excuse instead of just owning up to your own dismissal. Nice try but try again.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 14, 2020, 05:29:29 AM
What is he NOT innocent of or rather what burden of 'guilt' does he bear? My understading is that he was part of a group that was cleaning graffiti off a public building that had been defaced by the rioters. At least that is what I have read somewhere amid the numerous articles posted. If so, that makes him a civic minded citizen, arming himself to protect himself and others at such task when rioting anarchists are armed and aggressive is also within his rights.
It could have been easily avoided had the BLM/ANTIFA people ot started a riot in the first place.
Rittenhouse was breaking the law too. A 17yo carrying an AR15 to a riot was an invitation to a fight and he got it. He should not have been there. Granted the rioters were in the wrong too and I have no sympathy for the assholes that were shot.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 14, 2020, 06:16:32 AM
Like what? He was right to be there, there needs to be armed militias at all these riots to keep them in line. If this happened more often the riots wld die out fast.
No he was not right to be there. He was asking for trouble and he got it. He was, by law, illegally carrying a firearm. He was only 17yo. The rioters are not right to be there either.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 06:50:14 AM
No he was not right to be there. He was asking for trouble and he got it. He was, by law, illegally carrying a firearm. He was only 17yo. The rioters are not right to be there either.
The constitution does not state an age at which the right to self defense begins. Can he not hold a gun in his own home?
On top of that, He was old enough to carry a gun in the military.
He was defending his own property also, giving him a legit reason to be there.
I see him as someone myself and other on the right shld emulate.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 14, 2020, 09:32:52 AM
The constitution does not state an age at which the right to self defense begins. Can he not hold a gun in his own home?
On top of that, He was old enough to carry a gun in the military.
He was defending his own property also, giving him a legit reason to be there.
I see him as someone myself and other on the right shld emulate.
I'm with you on this T... he did nothing wrong and before the incident was behaving like a model citizen.
https://conservativehardliner.com/patriot-kyle-rittenhouse-made-world-better-place-taking-out-some-antifa-blm-trash
Quote from: T Hunt on September 14, 2020, 09:32:52 AM
The constitution does not state an age at which the right to self defense begins. Can he not hold a gun in his own home?
On top of that, He was old enough to carry a gun in the military.
He was defending his own property also, giving him a legit reason to be there.
I see him as someone myself and other on the right shld emulate.
He was not in his own home. He is not in the military. He was in public illegally carrying a firearm that didn't belong to him. He was a minor that made a bad decision. He is partially responsible for what happened. His parents are also partially responsible for what happened. His friend that gave him the gun is partially responsible for what happened. The rioters are definitely mostly responsible for what happened. The kid is not a hero. He is a juvenile delinquent criminal. He was breaking the law just like the rioters were and are. He should never have been there in the first place. He knew there was going to be trouble and his avoidable actions insured trouble would happen. Everyone can make excuses but the facts don't change. He made bad decisions and got the trouble he was looking for.
What are you doing tonight Kyle?
I'm going downtown where the riots are to remove graffiti from Mr. Smith's furniture store.
That's not a good idea. It's also dangerous.
Don't worry Dad. Johnny is letting me borrow his AR15 to protect myself.
Ok Kyle have fun and be careful.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 06:45:55 AM
Rittenhouse was breaking the law too. A 17yo carrying an AR15 to a riot was an invitation to a fight and he got it. He should not have been there. Granted the rioters were in the wrong too and I have no sympathy for the assholes that were shot.
WRONG He was not carrying a borrowed frearm to a Riot he was engaging in LEGAL civic minded action IE clean up of damaged and destroyed property. The RIOTERS decided to re-engage and commence hostilities when they were outraged that citizens would defy their lawlessess and clean up their mess. So the onus lies entirely with them.
And here is a tenuous matter of law, what law says a 17 year old cannot carry a firearm? True He cannot buy one but what statute do you cite that says a minor can't carry a firearm WHEN ENGAGED IN LEGAL ACTIVETY, such as Hunting or target shooting, and twist it as you might he was engaged in a legal activety. So when did he come to possess this weapon?....did an adult give it to him? A relative? When? at the scene? when? at the point where armed rioters returned to instigate a fight?
He is NOT a juvenile delinquent, a delinquent under common law is a minor who has frequent brushes with the law
I have a serious issue with you over the fact you say he should NOT have ever been there in the first place. Who has the authority to say where he can go or not? The cops did not corrdon off the area or limit access so HE HAS A RIGHT TO BE ANYWHERE......FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT...just like you do driving down the road. He or anyone else does not have to submit to mob rule or the dictates of anarchists who say "this is "our" area stay out."
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 14, 2020, 12:57:18 PM
WRONG He was not carrying a borrowed frearm to a Riot he was engaging in LEGAL civic minded action IE clean up of damaged and destroyed property. The RIOTERS decided to re-engage and commence hostilities when they were outraged that citizens would defy their lawlessess and clean up their mess. So the onus lies entirely with them.
And here is a tenuous matter of law, what law says a 17 year old cannot carry a firearm? True He cannot buy one but what statute do you cite that says a minor can't carry a firearm WHEN ENGAGED IN LEGAL ACTIVETY, such as Hunting or target shooting, and twist it as you might he was engaged in a legal activety. So when did he come to possess this weapon?....did an adult give it to him? A relative? When? at the scene? when? at the point where armed rioters returned to instigate a fight?
He is NOT a juvenile delinquent, a delinquent under common law is a minor who has frequent brushes with the law
I have a serious issue with you over the fact you say he should NOT have ever been there in the first place. Who has the authority to say where he can go or not? The cops did not corrdon off the area or limit access so HE HAS A RIGHT TO BE ANYWHERE......FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT...just like you do driving down the road. He or anyone else does not have to submit to mob rule or the dictates of anarchists who say "this is "our" area stay out."
The law says a minor can have a firearm for hunting or target practice. Which one was he doing? Either way it was illegal. He did have a borrowed firearm he admitted he got from a friend. Also illegal. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. He went there knowing what was happening and knew there would be trouble. He got what he wanted. He ended up killing 2 people and injuring another in self defense. He never should have been there in the first place. He's not a hero. He is a criminal too. He's a stupid kid that did a stupid thing and almost got killed in the process.
Your spin is just that. SPIN! But the facts don't change. He was a minor that was illegally carrying a borrowed firearm to an area where a riot was happening. That is fact. It doesn't matter why he was there. He didn't need to be there and shouldn't have been there. Your "He was doing his civic minded duty" is unadulterated BULL SHIT.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 01:04:55 PM
The law says a minor can have a firearm for hunting or target practice. Which one was he doing? Either way it was illegal. He did have a borrowed firearm he admitted he got from a friend. Also illegal. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. He went there knowing what was happening and knew there would be trouble. He got what he wanted. He ended up killing 2 people and injuring another in self defense. He never should have been there in the first place. He's not a hero. He is a criminal too. He's a stupid kid that did a stupid thing and almost got killed in the process.
Your spin is just that. SPIN! But the facts don't change. He was a minor that was illegally carrying a borrowed firearm to an area where a riot was happening. That is fact. It doesn't matter why he was there. He didn't need to be there and shouldn't have been there. Your "He was doing his civic minded duty" is unadulterated BULL SHIT.
No he was not carrying it illegally. And whats wrong with going to a riot to defend your own property? And whats wrong with helping others while there?
Quote from: T Hunt on September 14, 2020, 04:17:50 PM
No he was not carrying it illegally. And whats wrong with going to a riot to defend your own property? And whats wrong with helping others while there?
Yes he was carrying it illegally. IT WAS A BORROWED WEAPON! HE'S A MINOR. HE'S ONLY 17YO! ILLEGAL! What don't you understand? He wasn't defending his own property. The kid is a criminal.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 01:04:55 PM
The law says a minor can have a firearm for hunting or target practice. Which one was he doing? Either way it was illegal. He did have a borrowed firearm he admitted he got from a friend. Also illegal. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. He went there knowing what was happening and knew there would be trouble. He got what he wanted. He ended up killing 2 people and injuring another in self defense. He never should have been there in the first place. He's not a hero. He is a criminal too. He's a stupid kid that did a stupid thing and almost got killed in the process.
Your spin is just that. SPIN! But the facts don't change. He was a minor that was illegally carrying a borrowed firearm to an area where a riot was happening. That is fact. It doesn't matter why he was there. He didn't need to be there and shouldn't have been there. Your "He was doing his civic minded duty" is unadulterated BULL SHIT.
As a trained investigator for a major metropolitan Police Dept for more than two decades and a few more in private practice I do not engage in SPIN or BULLSHIT, I deal in facts and the law, trust me on this I have been before the courts many many times and the issues I raise will be a point of contention by the lad's lawyers.
But first, lets back up and regroup, I asked you to CITE THE STATUTE, or ordinance that says a minor (or adult) is prevented from carrying a firearm in public space....or perhaps private property. So do it or stand down.
And you are showing your ignorance of the law by saying "it does'nt matter why he was there" His INTENT certainly does matter. Being present in such conflicted area is a major factor..
.he did not go there to shoot people
he went there to clean up a mess A LEGAL PURPOSE. Something HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO. In the course of which it was necessary to defend himself and others FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVETY (Attempted murder aggrivated assault etc etc)
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 14, 2020, 05:09:42 PM
As a trained investigator for a major metropolitan Police Dept for more than two decades and a few more in private practice I do not engage in SPIN or BULLSHIT, I deal in facts and the law, trust me on this I have been before the courts many many times and the issues I raise will be a point of contention by the lad's lawyers.
But first, lets back up and regroup, I asked you to CITE THE STATUTE, or ordinance that says a minor (or adult) is prevented from carrying a firearm in public space....or perhaps private property. So do it or stand down.
And you are showing your ignorance of the law by saying "it does'nt matter why he was there" His INTENT certainly does matter. Being present in such conflicted area is a major factor...he did not go there to shoot people
he went there to clean up a mess A LEGAL PURPOSE. Something HE HAS A RIGHT TO DO. In the course of which it was necessary to defend himself and others FROM CRIMINAL ACTIVETY (Attempted murder aggrivated assault etc etc)
You say you don't deal in spin and that obviously is a lie. If you are what you say you are you know damn good and well a minor cannot open carry a firearm in public. I will not stand down because you are wrong and when this goes to court the kid will get time. If it was legit he wouldn't still be held. Rittenhouse was breaking the law too.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 05:26:05 PM
You say you don't deal in spin and that obviously is a lie. If you are what you say you are you know damn good and well a minor cannot open carry a firearm in public. I will not stand down because you are wrong and when this goes to court the kid will get time. If it was legit he wouldn't still be held. Rittenhouse was breaking the law too.
Billy is indeed legit. I was hoping, though, you could cite the law he broke. Otherwise, I'd hope that you'd conceded that point.
https://www.bucherlawgroup.com/milwaukee-county-lawyer/open-carry-laws-in-wisconsin-what-you-should-know
Open carryEdit
Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. 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." However, the exception is: "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult." [8] Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "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."[9] Statute 29.304(3)(b) states: "Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm" with added exceptions listed.[10] Children over 12 and under 16 are allowed to use rifles and shotguns under very limited, supervised situations.[11] A license for adults is not required unless in a taxpayer-owned building or within 1000 feet of school property and not on private property.[12]
In the past, some jurisdictions have tried to prosecute open-carry by equating the open carry of handguns with disorderly conduct. On April 20, 2009 the Wisconsin Attorney General's office released a memorandum to all law enforcement agencies stating that mere open carry of a firearm was not disorderly conduct, and instructed both law enforcement and the district attorneys to cease this practice.
In 2011 a subsection was added to the Disorderly Conduct statute (947.01 [13]) reading "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried." This codified open carry, ending any debate as to its legality.
Loading, or having a loaded, uncased handgun inside a vehicle was legalized beginning November 1, 2011.[14] The firearm must not be "hidden from ordinary observation" while inside the vehicle unless the citizen has a license.[15] However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a license is required to have a concealed loaded handgun within reach in a vehicle, regardless of the Safe Transport Statue removing restrictions on transporting loaded handguns.[
Eat shit Billy! A minor cannot open carry or conceal carry a firearm in public.
Rittenhouse is a resident of Illinois. He didn't own the firearm he used. If he owned it he did so illegally. That opens another can of worms.
https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/illinois-gun-laws
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 05:27:58 PM
Billy is indeed legit. I was hoping, though, you could cite the law he broke. Otherwise, I'd hope that you'd conceded that point.
Billy is full of shit on this one.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 05:51:23 PM
Billy is full of shit on this one.
One thing Billy is never full of is shit.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 05:59:44 PM
One thing Billy is never full of is shit.
He is on this subject. He's completely WRONG! Kyle Rittenhouse was illegally open carrying a borrowed firearm in Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse, being a resident of Illinois, cannot legally own a firearm. Billy is full of shit on this one.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 06:07:04 PM
He is on this subject. He's completely WRONG! Kyle Rittenhouse was illegally open carrying a borrowed firearm in Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse, being a resident of Illinois, cannot legally own a firearm. Billy is full of shit on this one.
Does U.S. Code Section 10 - Title 246 come into play?
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 06:11:08 PM
Does U.S. Code Section 10 - Title 246 come into play?
Not in this case it doesn't.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 06:26:51 PM
Why?
Why would it? Rittenhouse was not part of a militia AND Wisconsin state law prohibits a minor from open carrying a firearm. Rittenhouse committed a crime and the friend that loaned him the firearm also committed a crime.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 06:07:04 PM
He is on this subject. He's completely WRONG! Kyle Rittenhouse was illegally open carrying a borrowed firearm in Wisconsin. Kyle Rittenhouse, being a resident of Illinois, cannot legally own a firearm. Billy is full of shit on this one.
How does asking you for stautory PROOF of your claim constitute being full of shit? Or worse brand me a Liar?
Since you are playing shithouse lawyer the "Proof" I asked for is some blurb on a Law firm site that merely states one must be 18 to legally open carry a firearm really doesnt qualify because the Statute or codified law is not quoted verbatim. SO we have no way of knowing what the full statute prohibiting minors from "open carry" says in detail or any EXCEPTIONS or expemptions to the law such as carry on private property or hunting shooting range etc. And the wording of that law if any is going to be picked apart by Lawyers
None the less I will concede your point that in Wisconsin him being a minor openly carrying a firearm was not legal and does constitute a crime. Now before you get all full of yourself understand that every state has different laws concerning carrying openly, concealed & minors in possession of firearms etc etc.
And last but not least HE IS NOT A CRIMINAL until proven guilty in a court of law.....remember the concept of innocent until proven guilty
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 06:35:26 PM
Why would it? Rittenhouse was not part of a militia AND Wisconsin state law prohibits a minor from open carrying a firearm. Rittenhouse committed a crime and the friend that loaned him the firearm also committed a crime.
That statute says everyone 17 and over is part of the militia.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 06:19:49 PM
Not in this case it doesn't.
It's a misdemeanor. I'd bet money he walks, regardless. Both statutes are from Wisconsin law.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a)
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55
Then there's the self defense issue.
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
939.48939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 05:31:29 PM
https://www.bucherlawgroup.com/milwaukee-county-lawyer/open-carry-laws-in-wisconsin-what-you-should-know
Open carryEdit
Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. 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." However, the exception is: "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult." [8] Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "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."[9] Statute 29.304(3)(b) states: "Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm" with added exceptions listed.[10] Children over 12 and under 16 are allowed to use rifles and shotguns under very limited, supervised situations.[11] A license for adults is not required unless in a taxpayer-owned building or within 1000 feet of school property and not on private property.[12]
In the past, some jurisdictions have tried to prosecute open-carry by equating the open carry of handguns with disorderly conduct. On April 20, 2009 the Wisconsin Attorney General's office released a memorandum to all law enforcement agencies stating that mere open carry of a firearm was not disorderly conduct, and instructed both law enforcement and the district attorneys to cease this practice.
In 2011 a subsection was added to the Disorderly Conduct statute (947.01 [13]) reading "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried." This codified open carry, ending any debate as to its legality.
Loading, or having a loaded, uncased handgun inside a vehicle was legalized beginning November 1, 2011.[14] The firearm must not be "hidden from ordinary observation" while inside the vehicle unless the citizen has a license.[15] However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a license is required to have a concealed loaded handgun within reach in a vehicle, regardless of the Safe Transport Statue removing restrictions on transporting loaded handguns.[
Eat shit Billy! A minor cannot open carry or conceal carry a firearm in public.
Rittenhouse is a resident of Illinois. He didn't own the firearm he used. If he owned it he did so illegally. That opens another can of worms.
https://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/illinois-gun-laws
What about this?:
https://gunsinthenews.com/kyle-rittenhouse-are-people-under-the-age-of-18-forbidden-from-open-carry-in-wi/
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 05:05:32 PM
Yes he was carrying it illegally. IT WAS A BORROWED WEAPON! HE'S A MINOR. HE'S ONLY 17YO! ILLEGAL! What don't you understand? He wasn't defending his own property. The kid is a criminal.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whats not to understand?
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 06:51:56 PM
What about this?:
https://gunsinthenews.com/kyle-rittenhouse-are-people-under-the-age-of-18-forbidden-from-open-carry-in-wi/
Hmm... I think we may have a prosecutor get his ass kick all the way out of office by a dam good defense attorney.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 06:51:56 PM
What about this?:
https://gunsinthenews.com/kyle-rittenhouse-are-people-under-the-age-of-18-forbidden-from-open-carry-in-wi/
That was my point above, it wasn't illegal, if anything a misdemeanor. They will have a really hard time making a murder charge stick in what is clearly a self defense issue.
I have a feeling the DA will attempt a plea on 2nd degree, but he has some excellent lawyers who won't stand for it and shouldn't.
As T said, it's a Second Amendment issue, we can't give ground!
Quote from: walkstall on September 14, 2020, 07:15:31 PM
Hmm... I think we may have a prosecutor get his ass kick all the way out of office by a dam good defense attorney.
That's what it's looking like to me so far...
Quote from: T Hunt on September 14, 2020, 07:00:33 PM
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Whats not to understand?
He is a minor. He broke the law. He is 17yo. He is a criminal. Facts are still facts.
I understand the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment has been infringed upon by every state in the union and the federal government itself. Why does anyone need permission to buy and own any firearm or ammo? Why does anyone need permission to carry a firearm open or concealed? The reason is because the law says so. The 2nd amendment does not negate the fact that Rittenhouse broke the law. The person that loaned him the firearm broke the law. If as you say Rittenhouse owned the firearm, and he didn't, he owned it illegally and committed a felony in his home state of Illinois. Your wrong again and can't prove me wrong.
Quote from: Solar on September 14, 2020, 07:18:51 PM
That was my point above, it wasn't illegal, if anything a misdemeanor. They will have a really hard time making a murder charge stick in what is clearly a self defense issue.
I have a feeling the DA will attempt a plea on 2nd degree, but he has some excellent lawyers who won't stand for it and shouldn't.
As T said, it's a Second Amendment issue, we can't give ground!
It seems it's not even a misdemeanor... he's completely in the clear.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 07:22:48 PM
He is a minor. He broke the law. He is 17yo. He is a criminal. Facts are still facts.
I understand the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment has been infringed upon by every state in the union and the federal government itself. Why does anyone need permission to buy and own any firearm or ammo? Why does anyone need permission to carry a firearm open or concealed? The reason is because the law says so. The 2nd amendment does negate the fact that Rittenhouse broke the law. The person that loaned him the firearm broke the law. If as you say Rittenhouse owned the firearm, and he didn't, he owned it illegally and committed a felony in his home state of Illinois. Your wrong again and can't prove me wrong.
What statue did he break? Specifically?
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 07:24:42 PM
It seems it's not even a misdemeanor... he's completely in the clear.
It is a misdemeanor. I posted it above. Its6also a misdemeanor that will prohibit from owning a firearm in the future.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 07:24:42 PM
It seems it's not even a misdemeanor... he's completely in the clear.
Not to mention he was being pursued by a known pedophile felon who had just thrown an object at him, hit with a skateboard and had a pistol aimed at him.
This is a clear cut case of self defense and charged on political crimes.
(https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rittenhouse-being-chased-by-Rosenbaum.png)
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 07:29:38 PM
It is a misdemeanor. I posted it above. Its6also a misdemeanor that will prohibit from owning a firearm in the future.
Which statue specifically?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 07:29:38 PM
It is a misdemeanor. I posted it above. Its6also a misdemeanor that will prohibit from owning a firearm in the future.
Misdemeanors under 18 end on his 18th birthday. There is no provision in the law that states he can lose his Second Amendment Right.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55
Quote from: Solar on September 14, 2020, 07:35:41 PM
Not to mention he was being pursued by a known pedophile felon who had just thrown an object at him, hit with a skateboard and had a pistol aimed at him.
This is a clear cut case of self defense and charged on political crimes.
(https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Rittenhouse-being-chased-by-Rosenbaum.png)
That's why they're going after him... he killed one of their own! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 07:39:40 PM
That's why they're going after him... he killed one of their own! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Such a loss...... NOTTTT! :lol: :lol: :lol:
If he committed a "crime" misdemeanor or not, while under the age of 18 then he must be tried as a juvenile.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 14, 2020, 07:53:28 PM
If he committed a "crime" misdemeanor or not, while under the age of 18 then he must be tried as a juvenile.
The little bit I've just now dug into, it seems like you were right originally... he's completely in the clear and legal.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 07:25:29 PM
What statue did he break? Specifically?
948.60 (2)(a)
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 07:59:32 PM
948.60 (2)(a)
"Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593."
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 08:08:45 PM
"Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593."
That is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. The guy that gave Rittenhouse the firearm committed a felony as perv948.60(2)(b),
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 08:24:01 PM
That is the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony. The guy that gave Rittenhouse the firearm committed a felony as perv948.60(2)(b),
How so?
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 08:34:25 PM
How so?
Posession of NFA weapons without the proper permits and hunting without the proper license are both felonies. Selling a firearm to a minot is also a felony. In other words if someone under 18yo is open carrying a dangerous weapon it's a misdemeanor. If the exceptions apply it becomes a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 08:48:33 PM
Posession of NFA weapons without the proper permits and hunting without the proper license are both felonies. Selling a firearm to a minot is also a felony. In other words if someone under 18yo is open carrying a dangerous weapon it's a misdemeanor. If the exceptions apply it becomes a felony.
"In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or either which have an overall length of less than 26 inches.
The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type and does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28."
"Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. ... Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304."
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 08:57:09 PM
"In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or either which have an overall length of less than 26 inches.
The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type and does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28."
"Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. ... Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304."
And... Rittenhouse is still in violation of 948.60(2)(a). It's a misdemeanor. The exceptions make the misdemeanor into a felony. That is what the exception applies to. Read the whole statute 948.60. By definition any firearm, loaded or unloaded, is a dangerous weapon. The artcle is wrong. There is no state that is going to let 17yo kids walk around in public with AR15s or any other rifle.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 08:59:25 PM
And... Rittenhouse is still in violation of 948.60(2)(a). It's a misdemeanor. The exceptions are make the misdemeanor into a felony. That is what the exception applies to. Read the whole statute 948.60.
How is he in violation? He's over 16.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:06:58 PM
How is he in violation? He's over 16.
He is not 18yo. That is a misdemeanor.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:17:08 PM
He is not 18yo. That is a misdemeanor.
He's covered under 3(c) per 29.304, which deals with 16 and under. He's 17.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:18:58 PM
He's covered under 3(c) per 29.304, which deals with 16 and under. He's 17.
No he is not. That exception makes the misdemeanor in 2a into a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
It's kind of like the difference when you get into a traffic accident and cause minor injuries when your sober is usually a misdemeanor. If you're DUI and get into an accident and cause injuries It's a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:22:43 PM
No he is not. That exception makes the misdemeanor in 2a into a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
3(c) is clear:
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c)
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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
He's in the clear on 941.28, 29.304, and 29.593 doesn't apply.
3(c) was added in 2005, hence the confusion, but being 17 (over 16), he's completely in the clear.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:27:48 PM
3(c) is clear:
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
He's in the clear on 941.28, 29.304, and 29.593 doesn't apply.
3(c) was added in 2005, hence the confusion, but being 17 (over 16), he's completely in the clear.
It is clear that under 18 is a misdemeanor and the exception makes it a felony. If it was legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles I guarantee alot more stupid ass kids would be doing it. Section 3 only applies. Rittenhouse is not clear of the misdemeanor charge of carrying a dangerous weapon. He will be cleared of everything else possibly.
Read the whole statute.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:31:02 PM
It is clear that under 18 is a misdemeanor and the exception makes it a felony. If it was legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles I guarantee alot more stupid ass kids would be doing it.
What exception? And where is it made a misdemeanor?
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:35:14 PM
What exception? And where is it made a misdemeanor?
2a says it's a misdemeanor. 3c makes the same crime a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:49:40 PM
2a says it's a misdemeanor.
3 has the exceptions to this....
Quote
3c makes the same crime a felony.
Not in Kyle's case.
3(c) completely clears Kyle of the ENTIRE section. Again, here's the language:
QuoteThis 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.
Kyle is not in violation of any of those three statutes. If we can't agree on that then I guess we're at an impasse.
I have to go night-night. Maybe someone else can do a better job than I in explaining it.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 10:10:13 PM
3 has the exceptions to this....
Not in Kyle's case.
3(c) completely clears Kyle of the ENTIRE section. Again, here's the language:
Kyle is not in violation of any of those three statutes. If we can't agree on that then I guess we're at an impasse.
I have to go night-night. Maybe someone else can do a better job than I in explaining it.
You've explained it fine and you're wrong. You don't get it. 2a applies to Rittenhouse. 3c does not apply to Rittenhouse .
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 04:15:33 AM
You've explained it fine and you're wrong. You don't get it. 2a applies to Rittenhouse. 3c does not apply to Rittenhouse .
If you were on that jury would you convict him?
Quote from: Possum on September 15, 2020, 04:44:37 AM
If you were on that jury would you convict him?
Very good question young man.
Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 07:59:12 PM
The little bit I've just now dug into, it seems like you were right originally... he's completely in the clear and legal.
This is why I asked "clouded" for the verbatim Statute. Laws are sometimes intentionally worded in such thick legalese it takes a platoon of lawyers to figure it out. Guarantee's them a source of income.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 07:22:48 PM
He is a minor. He broke the law. He is 17yo. He is a criminal. Facts are still facts.
I understand the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment has been infringed upon by every state in the union and the federal government itself. Why does anyone need permission to buy and own any firearm or ammo? Why does anyone need permission to carry a firearm open or concealed? The reason is because the law says so. The 2nd amendment does not negate the fact that Rittenhouse broke the law. The person that loaned him the firearm broke the law. If as you say Rittenhouse owned the firearm, and he didn't, he owned it illegally and committed a felony in his home state of Illinois. Your wrong again and can't prove me wrong.
Yet you continue to ignore the most important fact. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Certainly you can agree that that fact is the most important fact here and trounces all other facts.
Besides he didnt really break the law did he. He was defending his own property, which is the equivalent of being in ones own home.
Now for this last point Im just spitballing, but wasnt this declared a riot? Now if a riot of other state of emergency is declared does that not temporarily overwrite certain laws? If we were being invaded wld he not have the right to carry outdoors? Or what happens if martial law is declared? The riots can certainly be considered a type of foreign invasion or rebellion considering their foreign support and anti american stances.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 15, 2020, 05:14:44 AM
Yet you continue to ignore the most important fact. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Certainly you can agree that that fact is the most important fact here and trounces all other facts.
Besides he didnt really break the law did he. He was defending his own property, which is the equivalent of being in ones own home.
Now for this last point Im just spitballing, but wasnt this declared a riot? Now if a riot of other state of emergency is declared does that not temporarily overwrite certain laws? If we were being invaded wld he not have the right to carry outdoors? Or what happens if martial law is declared? The riots can certainly be considered a type of foreign invasion or rebellion considering their foreign support and anti american stances.
I'm not overlooking the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately unconstitutional laws still apply. By your theory, of which I agree with by the way, I could by a Tommy gun without a background check or special permission from the government. You keep saying he was protecting his property and he wasn't. At this point we will have to see what happens. Rittenhouse is in custody and has lawyers. There were multiple laws broken by multiple people. The most annoying thing about the whole situation is why aren't all the rioters in jail? They committed worse crimes than Rittenhouse.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 15, 2020, 05:05:47 AM
This is why I asked "clouded" for the verbatim Statute. Laws are sometimes intentionally worded in such thick legalese it takes a platoon of lawyers to figure it out. Guarantee's them a source of income.
Outside of the corruption trump is cleaning, I think that our deliberately over-complex legal system is the worst problem facing America because so many other problems stem from it. I was raised to really hate lawyers.
In the movie back to the future (the second one where they go to the future) doc explains that the legal system works very quickly ever since they abolished lawyers, lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EMv24dg2E0
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 05:23:41 AM
I'm not overlooking the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately unconstitutional laws still apply. By your theory, of which I agree with by the way, I could by a Tommy gun without a background check or special permission from the government. You keep saying he was protecting his property and he wasn't. At this point we will have to see what happens. Rittenhouse is in custody and has lawyers. There were multiple laws broken by multiple people. The most annoying thing about the whole situation is why aren't all the rioters in jail? They committed worse crimes than Rittenhouse.
Well as my grandma sometime says, "We will have to just agree, to disagree"
Quote from: T Hunt on September 15, 2020, 05:28:11 AM
Well as my grandma sometime says, "We will have to just agree, to disagree"
I agree we disagree. No hard feelings.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 15, 2020, 05:05:47 AM
This is why I asked "clouded" for the verbatim Statute. Laws are sometimes intentionally worded in such thick legalese it takes a platoon of lawyers to figure it out. Guarantee's them a source of income.
No question, and that's exactly what this is. 3(c) (modified relatively recently) would only apply to Kyle if he were in violation of any of those three statues within. Therefore, that section completely clears him.
Quote from: taxed on September 15, 2020, 07:50:02 AM
No question, and that's exactly what this is. 3(c) (modified relatively recently) would only apply to Kyle if he were in violation of any of those three statues within. Therefore, that section completely clears him.
3c clears him of a felony. 2a still applies and is a misdemeanor.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 08:59:56 AM
3c clears him of a felony. 2a still applies and is a misdemeanor.
Wrong. 3(c) clears him OF THE ENTIRE SECTION.
Quote from: taxed on September 15, 2020, 09:00:47 AM
Wrong. 3(c) clears him OF THE ENTIRE SECTION.
No it does not. 3c is felony charges. 2a is misdemeanor charge.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 09:02:25 AM
No it does not. 3c is felony charges. 2a is misdemeanor charge.
Wrong.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 09:06:05 AM
Yes you are wrong
Nope. 3(c) is clear. "This section only applies...". 948.60 is the "section". It only applies to those violating those three statues. Rittenhouse violated none of them. Therefore, 948.60 doesn't apply to Rittenhouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpMwDgxC-I
Quote from: taxed on September 15, 2020, 09:09:28 AM
Nope. 3(c) is clear. "This section only applies...". 948.60 is the "section". It only applies to those violating those three statues. Rittenhouse violated none of them. Therefore, 948.60 doesn't apply to Rittenhouse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DpMwDgxC-I
It is very clear. 2a is misdemeanor and 3c is felony charges. I guess we will see what happens when this goes to trial. Meanwhile Rittenhouse is locked in a cell. Another thing will be who owned the rifle he had. If borrowed the loaner faces a felony. If Rittenhouse says it's his and brought it with him he will face felony charges in Illinois.
Just to be clear I don't disagree with Rittenhouse defending himself. I agree he will beat 4 of the 5 charges on him now. The rest of the story is what we will see. Like THunt said at this point all we agree on is that we disagree.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 10:05:18 AM
It is very clear. 2a is misdemeanor and 3c is felony charges. I guess we will see what happens when this goes to trial. Meanwhile Rittenhouse is locked in a cell. Another thing will be who owned the rifle he had. If borrowed the loaner faces a felony. If Rittenhouse says it's his and brought it with him he will face felony charges in Illinois.
3(c) is clear. Rittenhouse is in the clear on the ENTIRE SECTION.
Quote
Just to be clear I don't disagree with Rittenhouse defending himself. I agree he will beat 4 of the 5 charges on him now. The rest of the story is what we will see. Like THunt said at this point all we agree on is that we disagree.
He'll beat them all.
Quote from: taxed on September 15, 2020, 10:10:55 AM
3(c) is clear. Rittenhouse is in the clear on the ENTIRE SECTION.
He'll beat them all.
Again 2a is very clear Rittenhouse is guilty of a misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon. It's also clear that 3c says Rittenhouse isn't guilty of felony possession of a dangerous weapon.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 10:22:15 AM
Again 2a is very clear Rittenhouse is guilty of a misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon. It's also clear that 3c says Rittenhouse isn't guilty of felony possession of a dangerous weapon.
Incorrect. You're making stuff up.
Quote from: taxed on September 15, 2020, 12:32:14 PM
Incorrect. You're making stuff up.
I'm not making up anything. 2a misdemeanor 3c felony
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 01:26:11 PM
I'm not making up anything. 2a misdemeanor 3c felony
It doesn't say that anywhere.
Quote from: taxed on September 15, 2020, 01:43:04 PM
It doesn't say that anywhere.
Sure it does. 2a misdemeanor.
The infractions in 3c are all felonies.
Quote from: Possum on September 15, 2020, 04:44:37 AM
If you were on that jury would you convict him?
God no, because I understand the concept of jury nullification. Which, incidentally, is why I'll never serve on a jury. Funny about that.
Quote from: Possum on September 15, 2020, 04:44:37 AM
If you were on that jury would you convict him?
I would vote not guilty. He defended himself from being attacked from violent, criminal thugs. Thugs that have a history of being violent, criminal thugs.
Quote from: Possum on September 15, 2020, 04:44:37 AM
If you were on that jury would you convict him?
Sorry for not answering sooner. No I would not convict Rittenhouse especially with the overreach charges they are trying to get. They are trying to charge him with 1st degree homicide. The misdemeanor firearm charge is minor and will get thrown out. The guy that loaned Rittenhouse the rifle might be in trouble still. That is a felony.
Quote from: Possum on September 15, 2020, 04:44:37 AM
If you were on that jury would you convict him?
No one wld, the law is clear, he didnt break it. Taxed did a good job of proving that.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 16, 2020, 11:12:03 AM
No one wld, the law is clear, he didnt break it. Taxed did a good job of proving that.
Yes he did break the law. Taxed proved it wasn't a felony.