Quote from: Possum on November 23, 2020, 03:45:25 AM
So answer the question, if charges are dropped, or a jury finds him not guilty, are you still going to scream "Rittenhouse is a fucking criminal"? See, like I said, where I live, he did not commit any crime, so I definitely can see where a jury will find him not guilty, I think the law is wrong not what the kid did. The kid borrowed a gun, big frigging deal, growing up that was common. But, we can not see what will happen but I can not understand all the screaming about how he is now a criminal ruined for life. How about the innocent till proven guilty part? I will say thank God Rittenhouse was able to protect himself, had he not, this issue would be over and forgotten and he would just be another victim of the liberalism that is ruining this country. Hate to see someone jump on the wrong side of this issue because of a bad law.

It doesn't matter whether it's a bad law or not. It was a felony to borrow the rifle and walk around in public with it. If he had someone buy the rifle for him it is another felony. He is a criminal. And to answer your question IF all charges are dropped I will stop calling the criminal a criminal.

Quote from: Bronx on November 23, 2020, 04:54:18 AM
C'mon really.....Where does it state "You don't have to be convicted of a crime to be a criminal".

The democrat party really has your soul with this mob rule democracy bullshit.........you convicted this man with your feelings, you convicted this man even before he had a trial.

You can have the last word...no debating a man that can't comprehend his own post.........look at your post above, the bold words HAS and BEEN in the sentences you posted maybe you will see the era of your ways.............you have a Blessed day.

It says has committed a crime which he did.  He is a criminal.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 22, 2020, 08:05:35 PM
Speak for yourself sky screamer. You don't speak for everyone that supports our Constitution.

Wrong lib, we support the Constitution, just not the one leftists destroyed.

Like I asked earlier, if the left managed to gut the First Amendment and stifle free speech and a fight broke out over protests, people died at the hands of Patriots, would you take the side of the left again?

You really should check yourself, you allowed emotion to cloud your judgment, and now you've rooted yourself on the left, though not the first time, but every time you you moved left, it was all based in emption.

OK, go ahead with your BS sky screamer BS, that really convinces everyone you know what you're talking about, I'm sure..

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 23, 2020, 05:11:53 AM
It says has committed a crime which he did.  He is a criminal.

What crime snowflake?

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 23, 2020, 05:08:15 AM
It doesn't matter whether it's a bad law or not. It was a felony to borrow the rifle and walk around in public with it. If he had someone buy the rifle for him it is another felony. He is a criminal. And to answer your question IF all charges are dropped I will stop calling the criminal a criminal.

Guess again,

QuoteNow he faces two felony charges of homicide in the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum and Anthony M. Huber, and a felony attempted homicide charge in Grosskreutz's incident. Rittenhouse is also facing charges of possessing a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18, which is a misdemeanor. Under Wisconsin law he is not legally allowed to possess a gun at his age. His attorney says he acted in self-defense.

Quote from: Possum on November 23, 2020, 05:16:23 AM
Guess again,

ARRRGGHHH!!!! He's a criminal!!!

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2020, 05:25:15 AM
ARRRGGHHH!!!! He's a criminal!!!

I've looked for age restrictions for militia members and I can't find them anywhere....

Quote from: Owebo on November 23, 2020, 05:15:58 AM
What crime snowflake?

It's all about "Feewings" ya know...
Libs want us to believe it's illegal to disagree with them now, that feelings override facts.

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2020, 05:27:26 AM
It's all about "Feewings" ya know...
Libs want us to believe it's illegal to disagree with them now, that feelings override facts.

The LWNJs are batshit insane....

Quote from: Bronx on November 23, 2020, 04:54:18 AM
C'mon really.....Where does it state "You don't have to be convicted of a crime to be a criminal".

The democrat party really has your soul with this mob rule democracy bullshit.........you convicted this man with your feelings, you convicted this man even before he had a trial.

You can have the last word...no debating a man that can't comprehend his own post.........look at your post above, the bold words HAS and BEEN in the sentences you posted maybe you will see the era of your ways.............you have a Blessed day.

Excellent point Bronx, a criminal can only be labeled as such if they have been convicted in a court of law. No one has been convicted as of yet, and the perps were allowed to walk free.

Quote from: Owebo on November 23, 2020, 04:02:14 AM
If I got the non-propaganda story correct, he was called to service by his militia, was distributed a militia weapon, and was acting on orders from the militia.  When I compare his actions to the law covering militias, he broke no laws....

Has lefty, the felon who had the handgun and attempted to murder Kyle, ever get arrested and charged?

That's what I heard as well, that and he only lives 20 minutes away, these are friends of his who happen to own business on the street rioters were attacking.
Of course facts always get in the way of a good ol fashioned lib meltdown.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 23, 2020, 05:11:53 AM
It says has committed a crime which he did.  He is a criminal.

People are trying to explain to you that you shouldn't convict before all facts are presented in a trial.  You seem to have already convicted Rittenhouse based on feelings; not the law.

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

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

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.

Rittenhouse could be in violation of having a gun within a gun-free zone, if there was one covering, for instance, a school nearby. Also, Illinois law requires anyone who owns any kind of firearm in that state to have a Firearm Owners Identification card, but that is only available to someone 21 or older, or someone with a sponsor who is 21 and eligible for a card.

Rittenhouse did not own the gun, his lawyer said Friday.

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

Quote from: BayouCountry on November 23, 2020, 06:14:04 AM
People are trying to explain to you that you shouldn't convict before all facts are presented in a trial.  You seem to have already convicted Rittenhouse based on feelings; not the law.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

No. I'm saying he is a criminal based on facts. He was not permitted to illegally carry the rifle he used. He didn't own the rifle and was involved in a felony to get the rifle. There is no way possible for him to be legally in possession of the rifle he used. Later information has come out that IF true Rittenhouse committed another felony because he supposedly gave his friend the money to buy the gun for him. That is a straw purchase which is a felony. Also the law says Rittenhouse has to have training and certificates that he does not have to legally open carry a firearm at 17yo for hunting. He was not hunting so he was not legal in carrying the firearm. Those are facts and the law. Rittenhouse is a criminal because he committed crimes.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on November 23, 2020, 06:44:12 AM
No. I'm saying he is a criminal based on facts. He was not permitted to illegally carry the rifle he used. He didn't own the rifle and was involved in a felony to get the rifle. There is no way possible for him to be legally in possession of the rifle he used. Later information has come out that IF true Rittenhouse committed another felony because he supposedly gave his friend the money to buy the gun for him. That is a straw purchase which is a felony. Also the law says Rittenhouse has to have training and certificates that he does not have to legally open carry a firearm at 17yo for hunting. He was not hunting so he was not legal in carrying the firearm. Those are facts and the law. Rittenhouse is a criminal because he committed crimes.

What crimes snowflake?

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2020, 05:34:39 AM
Excellent point Bronx, a criminal can only be labeled as such if they have been convicted in a court of law. No one has been convicted as of yet, and the perps were allowed to walk free.

His 17 years old argument is to justify Rittenhouse attackers to go free of charge.

There is a big difference between rule of law and mob rule............our Founding Fathers drew that line in the sand when they gave us a Republic over a democracy. You can clearly see democracy (mob rule) and a Republic (rule of law) separated in this thread.

Lady justice doesn't picks up her blindfold to take a peek at who is to be guilty before a trial verdict. Only mob rule does that..... not a Republic for which I stand.