'The Truth In 11 Minutes': Defense Lawyer Posts Video Of Kyle Rittenhouse (https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-truth-in-11-minutes-defense-lawyer-posts-video-of-kyle-rittenhouse)
When you put it like that......
What the video doesn't mention is that Rittenhouse was not legally carrying a firearm therefore was not a law abiding citizen. It also doesn't mention that his friend that gave him the firearm committed a felony by doing so and therefore was also not a law abiding citizen. This case is going to be very messy.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 23, 2020, 01:39:47 PM
What the video doesn't mention is that Rittenhouse was not legally carrying a firearm therefore was not a law abiding citizen. It also doesn't mention that his friend that gave him the firearm committed a felony by doing so and therefore was also not a law abiding citizen. This case is going to be very messy.
Whose side are you on?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on September 23, 2020, 01:50:40 PM
Whose side are you on?
:rolleyes:
I'm not on any side. Rittenhouse being charged for murder I s ridiculous especially 1st degree murder. It was obviously self defense. It doesn't make Rittenhouse some kind of hero. He is a stupid kid that made a series of very bad choices. What I don't understand is why the idiot that was shot in the arm is not in jail for assault with a deadly weapon and felon in posession of a firearm. I also don't understand why the rioter aren't in jail and why aren't the cops doing their job.
He is a hero.
When it comes to Antifa, kill 'em all and let God reject 'em.
:cursing:
Rittenhouse wasn't the law and without law, chaos ensues. Kinda simple. I have to admit being an old timer, men fought with their hands if they had to, and were never armed. A gun mad society is the reason for this and that is a truth Americans can't face. Other nations do not have these statistics. Wake up.
Life in the land of Guns:
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can't get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."
https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-and-rage-how-toxic-masculinity-fuels-mass-shootings
Quote from: lecarrjan on September 23, 2020, 04:12:47 PM
Rittenhouse wasn't the law and without law, chaos ensues. Kinda simple. I have to admit being an old timer, men fought with their hands if they had to, and were never armed. A gun mad society is the reason for this and that is a truth Americans can't face. Other nations do not have these statistics. Wake up.
Life in the land of Guns:
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can't get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."
https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-and-rage-how-toxic-masculinity-fuels-mass-shootings
This is all BS and has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Nice try libby.
Quote from: lecarrjan on September 23, 2020, 04:12:47 PM
Rittenhouse wasn't the law and without law, chaos ensues. Kinda simple. I have to admit being an old timer, men fought with their hands if they had to, and were never armed. A gun mad society is the reason for this and that is a truth Americans can't face. Other nations do not have these statistics. Wake up.
Life in the land of Guns:
https://www.bradyunited.org/key-statistics
"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can't get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same."
https://aeon.co/essays/humiliation-and-rage-how-toxic-masculinity-fuels-mass-shootings
People don't have the moral right to talk about law while chaos is ensuing during a riot to de-fund police and rally around criminals. Let's not forget, those people in the streets are the violent ones, not Rittenhouse.
I want you to further break down the male statistics: into ideology (political, religious, and group). You may find out that black males who shoot and kill other black males outnumber all the Columbines added up, and none of them where Conservatives or Libertarians. If you want to talk about mass shootings, they were either left-wing or Islamic.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 23, 2020, 01:39:47 PM
What the video doesn't mention is that Rittenhouse was not legally carrying a firearm therefore was not a law abiding citizen. It also doesn't mention that his friend that gave him the firearm committed a felony by doing so and therefore was also not a law abiding citizen. This case is going to be very messy.
Dude, weve already been over this, the law is clear as taxed pointed out, Kyle didnt break the law.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55
Quote
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) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(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.
948.60(3)(c)
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
What exactly do you think "THIS SECTION" refers too? It is refering to the entire SECTION of 940.60, not simply part C.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 24, 2020, 01:54:27 AM
Dude, weve already been over this, the law is clear as taxed pointed out, Kyle didnt break the law.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55
What exactly do you think "THIS SECTION" refers too? It is refering to the entire SECTION of 940.60, not simply part C.
Again you're WRONG! 2a is a misdemeanor and 3c is a felony. Rittenhouse did break the law. The guy thst loaned him the gun also committed a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 23, 2020, 02:19:23 PM
I'm not on any side. Rittenhouse being charged for murder I s ridiculous especially 1st degree murder. It was obviously self defense. It doesn't make Rittenhouse some kind of hero. He is a stupid kid that made a series of very bad choices. What I don't understand is why the idiot that was shot in the arm is not in jail for assault with a deadly weapon and felon in posession of a firearm. I also don't understand why the rioter aren't in jail and why aren't the cops doing their job.
This is silly beyond belief! This is akin to blaming an individual involved in an even larger issue, because the vehicle had expired tags, contending the person who owned and loaned him the vehicle is equally culpable.
This is all secondary to the issue at hand and will be tossed out of court and handed over to another council.
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2020, 06:43:18 AM
This is silly beyond belief! This is akin to blaming an individual involved in an even larger issue, because the vehicle had expired tags, contending the person who owned and loaned him the vehicle is equally culpable.
This is all secondary to the issue at hand and will be tossed out of court and handed over to another council.
WTF are you talking about? Rittenhouse defended himself. That I agree on. He borrowed a firearm and carried it in public which is a misdemeanor at minimum. The person that loaned a 17yo said firearm committed a felony. Rittenhouse is not a hero. He is a stupid kid that made stupid decisions. He should have never put himself in the situation in the first place. Now he will suffer for his stupid decisions for the rest of his life.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 06:59:39 AM
WTF are you talking about? Rittenhouse defended himself. That I agree on. He borrowed a firearm and carried it in public which is a misdemeanor at minimum. The person that loaned a 17yo said firearm committed a felony. Rittenhouse is not a hero. He is a stupid kid that made stupid decisions. He should have never put himself in the situation in the first place. Now he will suffer for his stupid decisions for the rest of his life.
All Pure Bull Shit!!! You of all people have been whining that no one was doing anything, that people needed to stand up to these assholes, and when one does, you condemn him?
Get your priorities straight, either we allow chaos in the streets or we do not! The left refuses to follow the law, so it sadly falls in the laps of the citizenry to enforce the law, and if a few thugs and perverts die along the way, GOOD!
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2020, 07:24:46 AM
All Pure Bull Shit!!! You of all people have been whining that no one was doing anything, that people needed to stand up to these assholes, and when one does, you condemn him?
Get your priorities straight, either we allow chaos in the streets or we do not! The left refuses to follow the law, so it sadly falls in the laps of the citizenry to enforce the law, and if a few thugs and perverts die along the way, GOOD!
No it's not bullshit. Everything I stated is true. That child had no business illegally borrowing a gun to go into a riot. That was a stupid decision. The person that committed a FELONY loaning a minor a firearm is just as much to blame as the guys that got shot. Rittenhouse killed 2 people and wounded 1 person defending himself. That will be on his conscience for the rest of his life. He never should have been there in the first place. HE IS JUST A CHILD! HE IS A CRIMINAL TOO! Yes the cops should be doing their job. Yes the rioters are wrong and should be arrested. That doesn't change the facts it also doesn't justify breaking the law on either side. If Rittenhouse would have been born 4 months earlier than he was this wouldn't even be a discussion but he wasn't. The rioters were and still are wrong but so is Rittenhouse and his friend.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 04:22:40 AM
Again you're WRONG! 2a is a misdemeanor and 3c is a felony. Rittenhouse did break the law. The guy thst loaned him the gun also committed a felony.
So are you going to answer my question? Which SECTION is it referring too?
Quote from: T Hunt on September 24, 2020, 09:17:53 AM
So are you going to answer my question? Which SECTION is it referring too?
I did answer your question. 2a say a minor open carrying a deadly weapon is a misdemeanor. Violations in 3c make the misdemeanor in 2a a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 08:37:31 AM
No it's not bullshit. Everything I stated is true. That child had no business illegally borrowing a gun to go into a riot. That was a stupid decision. The person that committed a FELONY loaning a minor a firearm is just as much to blame as the guys that got shot. Rittenhouse killed 2 people and wounded 1 person defending himself. That will be on his conscience for the rest of his life. He never should have been there in the first place. HE IS JUST A CHILD! HE IS A CRIMINAL TOO! Yes the cops should be doing their job. Yes the rioters are wrong and should be arrested. That doesn't change the facts it also doesn't justify breaking the law on either side. If Rittenhouse would have been born 4 months earlier than he was this wouldn't even be a discussion but he wasn't. The rioters were and still are wrong but so is Rittenhouse and his friend.
So fucking what? He borrowed a gun? As I stated, it's very much akin to borrowing a car with expired tags, it too is illegal. Now he hit some pedophile with the car as he was being attacked, is that illegal, is self defense illegal?
I think your blinders are stuck, you are hung up on a technicality. You do realize kids went to war in the past to protect this country, should they be held to you same ridiculous standards?
Same scenario, perp breaks into a home, the law states kids can't brandish a gun, yet the gun was used by a 7 yro to protect his siblings. Are you going to stick with this same ridiculous claim on the law?
(https://www.azquotes.com/vangogh-image-quotes/80/87/Quotation-Benjamin-Franklin-War-is-when-the-government-tells-you-who-the-bad-80-87-69.jpg)
The kid is innocent of what they are charging him with. He was attacked and he defended himself. IF he hadn't he'd be vegetative today or dead.
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2020, 09:59:06 AM
So fucking what? He borrowed a gun? As I stated, it's very much akin to borrowing a car with expired tags, it too is illegal. Now he hit some pedophile with the car as he was being attacked, is that illegal, is self defense illegal?
I think your blinders are stuck, you are hung up on a technicality. You do realize kids went to war in the past to protect this country, should they be held to you same ridiculous standards?
Same scenario, perp breaks into a home, the law states kids can't brandish a gun, yet the gun was used by a 7 yro to protect his siblings. Are you going to stick with this same ridiculous claim on the law?
(https://www.azquotes.com/vangogh-image-quotes/80/87/Quotation-Benjamin-Franklin-War-is-when-the-government-tells-you-who-the-bad-80-87-69.jpg)
Now you're comparing apples and oranges. I have never said he committed murder. I agree that it was self defense. I agree he will not be convicted of first degree murder. All I have said all along is he committed a crime by borrowing and carrying a deadly weapon. I also have said Rittenhouse is a criminal for doing so. He made stupid childish decisions that will haunt him for the rest of his life. He is guilty of the firearms charges. He was not legally carrying a firearm. The person that loaned him the firearm committed a felony. As far as your car scenario the person that loaned the car will be on the hook for the damages caused by the car. You know that.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 11:08:44 AM
Now you're comparing apples and oranges. I have never said he committed murder. I agree that it was self defense. I agree he will not be convicted of first degree murder. All I have said all along is he committed a crime by borrowing and carrying a deadly weapon. I also have said Rittenhouse is a criminal for doing so. He made stupid childish decisions that will haunt him for the rest of his life. He is guilty of the firearms charges. He was not legally carrying a firearm. The person that loaned him the firearm committed a felony. As far as your car scenario the person that loaned the car will be on the hook for the damages caused by the car. You know that.
Then would you agree it's time to change the law so this shit never happens again?
My point is, this is a 2ND Amendment issue, and there should never have been any law against his Right to carry a weapon!
In other words my Franklin quote fits perfectly, this was a bad law from the day it was illegally signed into law!
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2020, 01:46:15 PM
Then would you agree it's time to change the law so this shit never happens again?
My point is, this is a 2ND Amendment issue, and there should never have been any law against his Right to carry a weapon!
In other words my Franklin quote fits perfectly, this was a bad law from the day it was illegally signed into law!
No I don't agree minors should be able to carry dangerous weapons. When they are adults then yes.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 02:09:13 PM
No I don't agree minors should be able to carry dangerous weapons. When they are adults then yes.
I assume you aren't old enough to remember when kids to guns to school for classes in gun safety, and how we were taught to handle them?
So what changed? Marxists, they've slowly been taking our rights away. Look at yourself, arguing that some 17 yro is somehow guilty of defending the Right to self defense.
You really need some self introspection on what you're arguing here.
(https://www.azquotes.com/vangogh-image-quotes/61/8/Quotation-Ronald-Reagan-Either-you-will-control-your-government-or-government-will-control-61-8-0895.jpg)
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2020, 03:37:04 PM
I assume you aren't old enough to remember when kids to guns to school for classes in gun safety, and how we were taught to handle them?
So what changed? Marxists, they've slowly been taking our rights away. Look at yourself, arguing that some 17 yro is somehow guilty of defending the Right to self defense.
You really need some self introspection on what you're arguing here.
(https://www.azquotes.com/vangogh-image-quotes/61/8/Quotation-Ronald-Reagan-Either-you-will-control-your-government-or-government-will-control-61-8-0895.jpg)
I do remember that. I'm not arguing against his right of self defense. I'm saying he broke the law and he did. I'm also saying he made childish and stupid decisions that could have easily been avoided. I don't need any self introspection on this subject. He was wrong and he's a criminal. He's not a hero.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 05:14:13 PM
I do remember that. I'm not arguing against his right of self defense. I'm saying he broke the law and he did. I'm also saying he made childish and stupid decisions that could have easily been avoided. I don't need any self introspection on this subject. He was wrong and he's a criminal. He's not a hero.
And no, he was not, regardless of what an unconstitutional law says.
This is a state law, laws vary from state to state.
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2020, 05:20:24 PM
And no, he was not, regardless of what an unconstitutional law says.
This is a state law, laws vary from state to state.
Why don't you try walking around any city in the state you live in open carrying a loaded gun and see what happens. Better yet try putting a loaded gun in the back widow of your truck in your state and see what happens. After you get out of jail then tell me about unconstitutional laws. And while your at it drive by a school or 2. Go out shooting with an unregistered unmodified AR15 with a 30rd magazine in your state and see what happens if any LEO shows up. Take a Taurus Judge 5 shot revolver out shooting a see what happens if you happen to encounter a LEO. After you do that then get back to me. IN MY OPINION those are constitutional situations that will get you felony charges in your state.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 05:58:00 PM
Why don't you try walking around any city in the state you live in open carrying a loaded gun and see what happens. Better yet try putting a loaded gun in the back widow of your truck in your state and see what happens. After you get out of jail then tell me about unconstitutional laws. And while your at it drive by a school or 2. Go out shooting with an unregistered unmodified AR15 with a 30rd magazine in your state and see what happens if any LEO shows up. Take a Taurus Judge 5 shot revolver out shooting a see what happens if you happen to encounter a LEO. After you do that then get back to me. IN MY OPINION those are constitutional situations that will get you felony charges in your state.
WTF do you think I've been trying to get through your thick skull?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Quote from: Solar on September 24, 2020, 06:01:26 PM
WTF do you think I've been trying to get through your thick skull?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
...and, the state law allows for Rittenhouse to carry.
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 06:02:05 PM
...and, the state law allows for Rittenhouse to carry.
No it does not. He is a minor.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 06:09:57 PM
No it does not. He is a minor.
He is a minor. I proved he was in the clear. You didn't'
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 06:11:26 PM
He is a minor. I proved he was in the clear. You didn't'
You didn't prove anything other than it wasn't a felony. It is still a midemeanor. 2a is a misdemeanor, 3c makes 2a a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 06:12:29 PM
You didn't prove anything other than it wasn't a felony. It is still a midemeanor.
What does "this section" refer to?
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 06:28:31 PM
...and 3(c) says?
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
Rittenhouse was not in compliance 29.593. He was not hunting so 2a applies. If he would have been hunting it would have been a felony. The guy that loaned him the firearm committed a felony. Rittenhouse was not in legal possession of the firearm he was carrying.
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 06:13:10 PM
What does "this section" refer to?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 06:23:38 PM
948.60
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 06:28:31 PM
...and 3(c) says?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 06:37:39 PM
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
Rittenhouse was not in compliance 29.593. He was not hunting so 2a applies. If he would have been hunting it would have been a felony. The guy that loaned him the firearm committed a felony. Rittenhouse was not in legal possession of the firearm he was carrying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZSSgRpYUM
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 06:45:35 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZSSgRpYUM
He was not in compliance with 28.593. 2a applies. Misdemeanor possession of a deadly weapon. Guilty. What don't you understand about a minor cannot carry a dangerous weapon in public? The person that gave Rittenhouse the gun is in violation af 948.60 2b and 2c. Rittenhouse was in possession of an illegal deadly weapon.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 06:49:52 PM
He was not in compliance with 28.593. 2a applies. Misdemeanor possession of a deadly weapon. Guilty. What don't you understand about a minor cannot carry a dangerous weapon in public? The person that gave Rittenhouse the gun is in violation af 948.60 2b and 2c. Rittenhouse was in possession of an illegal deadly weapon.
Quote29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
He wasn't hunting. It doesn't apply to him.
Checkmate.
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 07:01:26 PM
He wasn't hunting. It doesn't apply to him.
Checkmate.
Wrong again. Since he wasn't hunting 2a apllies. He also was in possession of the deadly weapon illegally. 2a applies. Misdemeanor. He's a criminal. Checkmate!
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 07:11:59 PM
Wrong again. Since he wasn't hunting 2a apllies. He also was in possession of the deadly weapon illegally. 2a applies. Misdemeanor. He's a criminal. Checkmate!
What does "this section" in 3(c) refer to again?
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 07:13:41 PM
What does "this section" in 3(c) refer to again?
Jesus fucking christ! We've been over this and you're wrong. 2a misdemeanor. If the exception under 3c apply it's a felony. The fact that a felony was committed when his friend loaned him the rifle to begin might also play a factor in it. Accessory to a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 07:15:36 PM
Jesus fucking christ! We've been over this and you're wrong. 2a misdemeanor. If the exception under 3c apply it's a felony.
What age does 3(c) cover?
Just to show you how ridiculous KC's argument is, 3(b) says this:
Quote3(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.
If you're under 18 and in the Armed Forces or Nation Guard, KC thinks you get charged with a misdemeanor.
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 07:20:11 PM
What age does 3(c) cover?
Under 18. Was he in compliance with 29.593 or not? Was he an accomplice to a crime or not? No he was not in compliance and yes he was an accomplice to a felony.
3c ARE FELONY EXCEPTIONS TO 2a THAT IS A MISDEMEANOR! He was in possession of an illegal deadly weapon. The deadly weapon did not belong to him. It was acquired illegally.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 07:39:18 PM
Under 18. Was he in compliance with 29.593 or not? Was he an accomplice to a crime or not? No he was not in compliance and yes he was an accomplice to a felony.
3c ARE FELONY EXCEPTIONS TO 2a THAT IS A MISDEMEANOR!
He was in possession of an illegal deadly weapon. The deadly weapon did not belong to him. It was acquired illegally.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He was in compliance with 29.593 because it didn't apply... he wasn't hunting... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I disagree with your premise that if he were under 18 and active duty, he'd get a misdemeanor.
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 07:52:30 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
He was in compliance with 29.593 because it didn't apply... he wasn't hunting... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I disagree with your premise that if he were under 18 and active duty, he'd get a misdemeanor.
If he was under 18 and active duty he would not get a misdemeanor if he was on duty. If he was not on duty 2a would apply.. Also since he wasn't hunting he wasn't in compliance with 29.593. He was also in possession of an illegally acquired firearm. I notice you don't want to address that issue either. When he BORROWED the firearm he was an accomplice to a felony. The exceptions in 3a and 3b negate the misdemeanor. The exception in 3c makes the misdemeanor in 2a into a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 08:17:38 PM
If he was under 18 and active duty he would not get a misdemeanor if he was on duty. If he was not on duty 2a would apply.. Also since he wasn't hunting he wasn't in compliance with 29.593. He was also in possession of an illegally acquired firearm. I notice you don't want to address that issue either. When he BORROWED the firearm he was an accomplice to a felony. The exceptions in 3a and 3b negate the misdemeanor. The exception in 3c makes the misdemeanor in 2a into a felony.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nope... you have to stick to your argument as to why 3(c) wouldn't apply. He's not hunting, hence 29.593 doesn't apply. I'd love for you to explain why it does, however...
Quote from: taxed on September 24, 2020, 08:23:03 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nope... you have to stick to your argument as to why 3(c) wouldn't apply. He's not hunting, hence 29.593 doesn't apply. I'd love for you to explain why it does, however...
Same for you and why 2a doesn't apply. And why don't you try to explain how he legally acquired the dangerous weapon he was illegally carrying? Because he wasn't hunting he had no reason to have the weapon to begin with. It really is a mute point because the weapon he had was illegal and his possession was illegal. He didn't own the weapon. 2a applies. When he is convicted he will never be able to own a firearm in the future.
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 not in compliance with ss.29.593.
There does that clear it up? He was under 18 years of age and he is not in compliance with ss.29.593. It doesn't matter if he was hunting or not. If he was hunting and not in compliance it would be a felony.
Ok Solar prove me wrong.
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) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17yo resident of Illinois. He borrowed a rifle and in the process of defending himself he killed 2 people and wounded 1 person. Now explain to me how a minor can legally be in possession of a deadly weapon and legally carry that same weapon in public when the law clearly says he can't. He borrowed the deadly weapon which is an accomplice to a felony. He is a minor in possession of a deadly weapon which is a misdemeanor.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 25, 2020, 07:49:58 PM
Ok Solar prove me wrong.
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) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17yo resident of Illinois. He borrowed a rifle and in the process of defending himself he killed 2 people and wounded 1 person. Now explain to me how a minor can legally be in possession of a deadly weapon and legally carry that same weapon in public when the law clearly says he can't. He borrowed the deadly weapon which is an accomplice to a felony. He is a minor in possession of a deadly weapon which is a misdemeanor.
As stated above, it's a misdemeanor. The only person liable is the person that provided said weapon. Where does it say he can't carry a weapon?
Rittenhouse is clear because it was clearly an act of self defense.
The burden of proof is not in the courts favor.
(
3) Burden of proof. When the existence of an affirmative defense under sub. (2) has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt under sub. (1).History: 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: First-degree intentional homicide is analogous to the prior offense of first-degree murder. Sub. (2) formerly contained a narrower definition of "intent to kill" than the general definition of criminal intent. That narrower definition has been eliminated in the interest of uniformity. Section 939.23 now defines the intent referred to.
The affirmative defenses specified in sub. (2) were formerly treated in s. 940.05. This caused confusion because they seemed to be elements of manslaughter rather than defenses to first-degree murder. Sub. (2) specifies only those affirmative defenses which mitigate an intentional homicide from first to 2nd degree. Other affirmative defenses are a defense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide also, such as self-defense, i.e., when both beliefs specified in sub. (2) (b) are reasonable. Section 939.48.
The prosecution is required to prove only that the defendant's acts were a substantial factor in the victim's death; not the sole cause. State v. Block, 170 Wis. 2d 676, 489 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1992).
The trial court must apply an objective reasonable view of the evidence test to determine whether under sub. (3) a mitigating affirmative defense "has been placed in issue" before submitting the issue to the jury. In Interest of Shawn B. N. 173 Wis. 2d 343, 497 N.W.2d 141 (Ct. App. 1992).
Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
Sub. (1) (a) cannot be applied against a mother for actions taken against a fetus while pregnant as the applicable definition of human being under s. 939.22 (16) is limited to one who is born alive. Sub. (1) (b) does not apply because s. 939.75 (2) (b) excludes from its application actions by a pregnant woman. State v. Deborah J.Z. 228 Wis. 2d 468, 596 N.W.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1999), 96-2797.
Barring psychiatric or psychological opinion testimony on the defendant's capacity to form an intent to kill is constitutional. Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F. 2d 384 (1990) citing Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72, 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980).
A privilege for excusable homicide by accident or misfortune is incorporated in s. 939.45 (6). Accident is a defense that negatives intent. If a person kills another by accident, the killing could not have been intentional. Accident must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant raises it as a defense. When the state proves intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, it necessarily disproves accident. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
A defendant may demonstrate that he or she was acting lawfully, a necessary element of an accident defense, by showing that he or she was acting in lawful self-defense. Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under s. 939.48 (1)
a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/01
Quote from: Solar on September 25, 2020, 08:28:28 PM
As stated above, it's a misdemeanor. The only person liable is the person that provided said weapon. Where does it say he can't carry a weapon?
Rittenhouse is clear because it was clearly an act of self defense.
The burden of proof is not in the courts favor.
(3) Burden of proof. When the existence of an affirmative defense under sub. (2) has been placed in issue by the trial evidence, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the facts constituting the defense did not exist in order to sustain a finding of guilt under sub. (1).
History: 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: First-degree intentional homicide is analogous to the prior offense of first-degree murder. Sub. (2) formerly contained a narrower definition of "intent to kill" than the general definition of criminal intent. That narrower definition has been eliminated in the interest of uniformity. Section 939.23 now defines the intent referred to.
The affirmative defenses specified in sub. (2) were formerly treated in s. 940.05. This caused confusion because they seemed to be elements of manslaughter rather than defenses to first-degree murder. Sub. (2) specifies only those affirmative defenses which mitigate an intentional homicide from first to 2nd degree. Other affirmative defenses are a defense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide also, such as self-defense, i.e., when both beliefs specified in sub. (2) (b) are reasonable. Section 939.48.
The prosecution is required to prove only that the defendant's acts were a substantial factor in the victim's death; not the sole cause. State v. Block, 170 Wis. 2d 676, 489 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1992).
The trial court must apply an objective reasonable view of the evidence test to determine whether under sub. (3) a mitigating affirmative defense "has been placed in issue" before submitting the issue to the jury. In Interest of Shawn B. N. 173 Wis. 2d 343, 497 N.W.2d 141 (Ct. App. 1992).
Imperfect self-defense contains an initial threshold element requiring a reasonable belief that the defendant was terminating an unlawful interference with his or her person. State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993).
Sub. (1) (a) cannot be applied against a mother for actions taken against a fetus while pregnant as the applicable definition of human being under s. 939.22 (16) is limited to one who is born alive. Sub. (1) (b) does not apply because s. 939.75 (2) (b) excludes from its application actions by a pregnant woman. State v. Deborah J.Z. 228 Wis. 2d 468, 596 N.W.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1999), 96-2797.
Barring psychiatric or psychological opinion testimony on the defendant's capacity to form an intent to kill is constitutional. Haas v. Abrahamson, 910 F. 2d 384 (1990) citing Steele v. State, 97 Wis. 2d 72, 294 N.W.2d 2 (1980).
A privilege for excusable homicide by accident or misfortune is incorporated in s. 939.45 (6). Accident is a defense that negatives intent. If a person kills another by accident, the killing could not have been intentional. Accident must be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt when a defendant raises it as a defense. When the state proves intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt, it necessarily disproves accident. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
A defendant may demonstrate that he or she was acting lawfully, a necessary element of an accident defense, by showing that he or she was acting in lawful self-defense. Although intentionally pointing a firearm at another constitutes a violation of s. 941.20, under s. 939.48 (1) a person is privileged to point a gun at another person in self-defense if the person reasonably believes that the threat of force is necessary to prevent or terminate what he or she reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference. State v. Watkins, 2002 WI 101, 255 Wis. 2d 265, 647 N.W.2d 244, 00-0064.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/940/I/01
2a says he can't carry a dangerous weapon. You can't legally carry something you can't legally possess. I've never disagreed that it was self defense. He is guilty of a misdemeanor of the possession. They possibly can make the other charges stick because he shouldn't have been carrying the rifle in the first place. Rittenhouse is also an accomplice to a felony by willfully taking possession of the firearm. Rittenhouse broke the law and 2 people died and 1 person was injured because he broke the law. The person that gave him the firearm is guilty of multiple felonies. He shot 3 people with a rifle he illegally had possession of. Rittenhouse is a criminal and so is his friend that loaned him the rifle. Again I will say he made stupid and childish decisions that could have been avoided. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people for the rest of his life. He legally had no right to be in possession of a dangerous weapon. He legally had no right to be open carrying that same dangerous weapon. He will be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly manslaughter and possibly wreck less endangerment. Based on the provable facts he did not commit 1st degree murder.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 25, 2020, 09:09:55 PM
2a says he can't carry a dangerous weapon. You can't legally carry something you can't legally possess. I've never disagreed that it was self defense. He is guilty of a misdemeanor of the possession. They possibly can make the other charges stick because he shouldn't have been carrying the rifle in the first place. Rittenhouse is also an accomplice to a felony by willfully taking possession of the firearm. Rittenhouse broke the law and 2 people died and 1 person was injured because he broke the law. The person that gave him the firearm is guilty of multiple felonies. He shot 3 people with a rifle he illegally had possession of. Rittenhouse is a criminal and so is his friend that loaned him the rifle. Again I will say he made stupid and childish decisions that could have been avoided. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people for the rest of his life. He legally had no right to be in possession of a dangerous weapon. He legally had no right to be open carrying that same dangerous weapon. He will be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly manslaughter and possibly wreck less endangerment. Based on the provable facts he did not commit 1st degree murder.
WRONG! Two people died because they tried to harm or kill Rittenhouse. Period.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 25, 2020, 09:09:55 PM
2a says he can't carry a dangerous weapon. You can't legally carry something you can't legally possess. I've never disagreed that it was self defense. He is guilty of a misdemeanor of the possession. They possibly can make the other charges stick because he shouldn't have been carrying the rifle in the first place. Rittenhouse is also an accomplice to a felony by willfully taking possession of the firearm. Rittenhouse broke the law and 2 people died and 1 person was injured because he broke the law. The person that gave him the firearm is guilty of multiple felonies. He shot 3 people with a rifle he illegally had possession of. Rittenhouse is a criminal and so is his friend that loaned him the rifle. Again I will say he made stupid and childish decisions that could have been avoided. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people for the rest of his life. He legally had no right to be in possession of a dangerous weapon. He legally had no right to be open carrying that same dangerous weapon. He will be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly manslaughter and possibly wreck less endangerment. Based on the provable facts he did not commit 1st degree murder.
Nope. No court in the land will stretch a misdemeanor into a felony, and it's for this very reason we have a Second Amendment, so some politically motivated, overzealous court/DA doesn't abuse our Rights.
You can't legally tie charges on a minor that only apply to another party, that's simply illegal. No, the person that supplied him the weapon owns any charges stemming from their own actions.
The law is not always the remedy for all wrongs, especially unintentional ones consequences.
That's like me giving a child a pack of balloons, the kid shares them with friends, one slow learner in the group chokes to death on one, and you want to see me hang over a pack of balloons?
The Federal Govt doesn't have an issue with age, it is the state that assigned a clause to our Bill of Rights and a good attorney will expose this.
This is akin to playing ball in a park that doesn't allow sports during the week, makes sports off limits except on weekends, a misdemeanor and someone died when they were hit by a spectators beer bottle from the stands on Wednesday.
Point is, Wisconsin knew, and if you read through all their laws, they are huge on liberty and Freedom and never intended a misdemeanor to misconstrued and put someones life in jeopardy for a minor infraction for defending oneself.
You are looking at all of this through the eyes of vengeful leftists. Stop it, look at it through the eyes of our Founders idea of justice, and think, how would they have approached this matter......Self Defense...
Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 06:08:19 AM
Nope. No court in the land will stretch a misdemeanor into a felony, and it's for this very reason we have a Second Amendment, so some politically motivated, overzealous court/DA doesn't abuse our Rights.
You can't legally tie charges on a minor that only apply to another party, that's simply illegal. No, the person that supplied him the weapon owns any charges stemming from their own actions.
The law is not always the remedy for all wrongs, especially unintentional ones consequences.
That's like me giving a child a pack of balloons, the kid shares them with friends, one slow learner in the group chokes to death on one, and you want to see me hang over a pack of balloons?
The Federal Govt doesn't have an issue with age, it is the state that assigned a clause to our Bill of Rights and a good attorney will expose this.
This is akin to playing ball in a park that doesn't allow sports during the week, makes sports off limits except on weekends, a misdemeanor and someone died when they were hit by a spectators beer bottle from the stands on Wednesday.
Point is, Wisconsin knew, and if you read through all their laws, they are huge on liberty and Freedom and never intended a misdemeanor to misconstrued and put someones life in jeopardy for a minor infraction for defending oneself.
You are looking at all of this through the eyes of vengeful leftists. Stop it, look at it through the eyes of our Founders idea of justice, and think, how would they have approached this matter......Self Defense...
Bulletin. The law is clear. The misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon will stick. Just because he is a minor doesn't absolve him of other crimes. He broke the law c and the 2nd amendment isn't going to save him on this one.
I notice you won't answer the question I posed to you earlier. What do you know would happen to you if you walked down the street open carrying an unloaded gun? You would be arrested and charged. The state you live in the 2nd amendment doesn't mean shit. The bottom line is Rittenhouse broke the law. He is a criminal. All you and Taxed have proven is just that. Again we'll have to wait and see.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 07:25:24 AM
Bulletin. The law is clear. The misdemeanor possession of a dangerous weapon will stick. Just because he is a minor doesn't absolve him of other crimes. He broke the law c and the 2nd amendment isn't going to save him on this one.
Get it through your head, a misdemeanor offense is not a felony, no matter how you want to twist the law to fit your scenario.
QuoteI notice you won't answer the question I posed to you earlier. What do you know would happen to you if you walked down the street open carrying an unloaded gun? You would be arrested and charged. The state you live in the 2nd amendment doesn't mean shit. The bottom line is Rittenhouse broke the law. He is a criminal. All you and Taxed have proven is just that. Again we'll have to wait and see.
Because it was a stupid question!
Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights.
Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 08:40:33 AM
Get it through your head, a misdemeanor offense is not a felony, no matter how you want to twist the law to fit your scenario.
Because it was a stupid question!
Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights.
I know a misdemeanor is not a crime. I have never said it was. A misdemeanor is still a crime. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor and is a crime. Get it through your head Rittenhouse is a criminal. He was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon. He committed a crime and because he did it caused bodily damage or death to 3 other people. It still doesn't change the fact that he is an accomplice to a class H felony.
You won't answer the question, not because it's stupid but because you know I'm right.
Rittenhouse is just as much of a criminal as the rioters. He is charged and he will be convicted of something. He and his parents will definitely be sued. The person that gave him the rifle will be charged, convicted and sued. Are you denying any responsibility for the guy that gave him the rifle?He was wrong. He is stupid and he is immature and childish. He fucked up BAD.
You still won't answer my question. What happens to you if you get caught with an unmodified AR15 in your state? Where is the 2nd amendment then?
The man is a hero! What does the city expect when there is a state of utter lawlessness? Yes he shouldnt have been illegally carrying a firearm, but there shouldnt have been a state of rioting and anarchy in the city either. And either way IT was self defense and not murder.
Also, funny how all these antifa thugs want to act all tough but got totally owned by a 17 year old with a gun 😅 they act like they want civil war, but cant even handle one 17 year old. Good luck with that..
Quote from: American Loving Norwegian on September 26, 2020, 11:16:14 AM
The man is a hero! What does the city expect when there is a state of urter lawlessness? Yes he shouldnt have been illegally carrying a firearm, but there shouldnt have been a state of rioting and anarchy in the city either. And either way IT was self defense and not murder.
Also, funny how all these antifa thugs want to act all tough but got totally owned by a 17 year old with a gun 😅 they act like they want civil war, but cant even handle one 17 year old. Good luck with that..
He isn't a hero. He is a criminal just like the rioters. He did nothing heroic. He is a stupid kid that made stupid decisions that will affect the rest of his life. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people. Just because it was in self defense doesn't change the fact. I'm not saying he was wrong to defend himself. What I'm saying is he never should have been in the situation to begin with. Killing someone in real life is not the same as killing someone in a video game. There is no reset button. Why do you or anyone else say he's a hero? What did he do that was heroic? NOTHING! He's a criminal.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 11:28:26 AM
He isn't a hero. He is a criminal just like the rioters. He did nothing heroic. He is a stupid kid that made stupid decisions that will affect the rest of his life. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people. Just because it was in self defense doesn't change the fact. I'm not saying he was wrong to defend himself. What I'm saying is he never should have been in the situation to begin with. Killing someone in real life is not the same as killing someone in a video game. There is no reset button. Why do you or anyone else say he's a hero? What did he do that was heroic? NOTHING! He's a criminal.
He came there to protect the city when the police and cities politicians failed to. Thats why he is a hero. He broke a law that shouldnt really be a law according to 2a as far as I understand it? Either way its a misdemeanor. Rioting should be a felony, so cant compare him to them anyway. He was trying to protect the city from the anarchy these rioting thugs created
Quote from: American Loving Norwegian on September 26, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
He came there to protect the city when the police and cities politicians failed to. Thats why he is a hero. He broke a law that shouldnt really be a law according to 2a as far as I understand it? Either way its a misdemeanor. Rioting should be a felony, so cant compare him to them anyway. He was trying to protect the city from the anarchy these rioting thugs created
He did nothing other than make the situation worse. He's not a cop and had no business being there. He is a minor. He did nothing heroic. 2 people got killed by him. There can't be kids walking around carrying guns. Your 2a excuse doesn't work. He broke the law and that makes him a criminal too. Not a hero. He's a stupid child. He will have a legal battle when all is said and done. He will also have a legal battle to ever legally own a firearm ever again. Have you ever killed anyone? I bet not. He will have to live with the fact that he did. That will be on his conscience forever. If it isn't it's another problem. You also understand he didn't even live in Minnesota much less the community? Would you consider a person that was shoplifting to feed themselves a hero? I wouldn't. I would say they are a criminal. Rittenhouse is a criminal.
Quote from: American Loving Norwegian on September 26, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
He came there to protect the city when the police and cities politicians failed to. Thats why he is a hero. He broke a law that shouldnt really be a law according to 2a as far as I understand it? Either way its a misdemeanor. Rioting should be a felony, so cant compare him to them anyway. He was trying to protect the city from the anarchy these rioting thugs created
He broke no laws. He's COMPLETELY covered under Wisconsin law under 3(c) in that section. KC is making up a lie because he got caught insulting a core member who knows his shit, so instead of backtracking, he's pretending the law says something other than it does. He's not even guilty of a misdemeanor.
Sub-section 3 was added later in 2005 because of how convoluted the language was. If it were not for 3(c), then Rittenhouse would indeed have a problem.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 11:28:26 AM
He isn't a hero. He is a criminal just like the rioters. He did nothing heroic. He is a stupid kid that made stupid decisions that will affect the rest of his life. He will have to live with the fact that he killed 2 people. Just because it was in self defense doesn't change the fact. I'm not saying he was wrong to defend himself. What I'm saying is he never should have been in the situation to begin with. Killing someone in real life is not the same as killing someone in a video game. There is no reset button. Why do you or anyone else say he's a hero? What did he do that was heroic? NOTHING! He's a criminal.
He is a hero. He was a good kid who was cleaning up the city. That's a fact.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 08:56:08 AM
I know a misdemeanor is not a crime. I have never said it was.
QuoteA misdemeanor is still a crime.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
QuoteShoplifting is a misdemeanor and is a crime. Get it through your head Rittenhouse is a criminal.
Do you hear yourself? This is not an emotional issue and you're caught up in looking at this from a lib POV, emotional and guns are bad.
That is not the case, he didn't look for trouble, he was there to prevent it and these morons attacked this kid and paid the ultimate price for their stupidity!
QuoteHe was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.
Again, do you hear yourself? Dangerous? It's a fuckin tool, that's all, there is NOTHING D"Dangerous" about an inanimate object! Not a single one of my guns has done anything "Dangerous on its own!
QuoteHe committed a crime and because he did it caused bodily damage or death to 3 other people. It still doesn't change the fact that he is an accomplice to a class H felony.
Wrong!!! He can't be indicted for law that only pertains to an adult.
QuoteYou won't answer the question, not because it's stupid but because you know I'm right.
I did answer it, you just didn't like facing the fact this is a Constitutional issue and not the emotional one you're arguing. Here's the answer I posted!
"Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights."
QuoteRittenhouse is just as much of a criminal as the rioters.
Seriously? Are you even listening to the shit you're saying?
QuoteHe is charged and he will be convicted of something.
Sure he will, the first go around, but on appeal he'll be cleared of all charges. Also he will win a defamation suit when all is said and done, just like the Covington kid.
QuoteHe and his parents will definitely be sued. The person that gave him the rifle will be charged, convicted and sued. Are you denying any responsibility for the guy that gave him the rifle?He was wrong.
Which has zero to do with this case, that's for another court to decide.
QuoteHe is stupid and he is immature and childish. He fucked up BAD.
He's decades more mature than most people his age, watch the video and think again.
QuoteYou still won't answer my question. What happens to you if you get caught with an unmodified AR15 in your state? Where is the 2nd amendment then?
"Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights."
Quote from: American Loving Norwegian on September 26, 2020, 11:48:48 AM
He came there to protect the city when the police and cities politicians failed to. Thats why he is a hero. He broke a law that shouldnt really be a law according to 2a as far as I understand it? Either way its a misdemeanor. Rioting should be a felony, so cant compare him to them anyway. He was trying to protect the city from the anarchy these rioting thugs created
BINGO!!!
Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 01:12:50 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do you hear yourself? This is not an emotional issue and you're caught up in looking at this from a lib POV, emotional and guns are bad.
That is not the case, he didn't look for trouble, he was there to prevent it and these morons attacked this kid and paid the ultimate price for their stupidity!
Again, do you hear yourself? Dangerous? It's a fuckin tool, that's all, there is NOTHING D"Dangerous" about an inanimate object! Not a single one of my guns has done anything "Dangerous on its own!
Wrong!!! He can't be indicted for law that only pertains to an adult.
I did answer it, you just didn't like facing the fact this is a Constitutional issue and not the emotional one you're arguing. Here's the answer I posted!
"Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights."
Seriously? Are you even listening to the shit you're saying?
Sure he will, the first go around, but on appeal he'll be cleared of all charges. Also he will win a defamation suit when all is said and done, just like the Covington kid.
Which has zero to do with this case, that's for another court to decide.He's decades more mature than most people his age, watch the video and think again.
"Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights."
I meant to say I know a misdemeanor is not a felony. My mistake.
He went there illegally carrying a firearm. He knew there would be trouble and was expecting it. He should have avoided it .
By the law in Minnesota it is classified as a dangerous weapon. A firearm in the wrong hands is definitely a dangerous weapon. Rittenhouse proved that.
Since when do felonies only pertain to adults? A minor can definitely be an accomplice to a felony and Rittenhouse was. That is correct.
Again there is not a state in the US that allows minors to carry firearms in public. Constitutional or not.
There is no defamation of Rittenhouse. He will be convicted of a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly other more severe charges. He's a criminal.
There is nothing emotional about that. It is the fact of the matter.
You know damn good and well I'm not a fucking liberal. Far from it. I have said many times I don't agree with most of the BS firearm laws. It doesn't change the fact that they are laws that have been held up by a corrupt Supreme Court. It also doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse broke those laws. He will be convicted. He will do time. He won't be able to ever legally own a firearm without having his rights restored.
Those are undeniable facts. There is no defamation there. He has no case for defamation. He's in jail now with a $2 million bail last I have read. That possibly has changed. His whole case and everyone involved is far from over.
You're wrong and we'll have to see how this plays out.
I'll ask you the same question. Is it okay for a minor to shoplift to feed themselves? Are they a hero or a criminal? Isn't that a crime? If they knock down an old lady when they are trying to get away and the old lady dies isn't that a crime or does it not apply because it's a minor and shoplifting is just a misdemeanor?
You don't get it. Rittenhouse had no legal authority to carry the rifle he used to kill 2 people and injure 1 person in the first place.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 02:01:47 PM
I meant to say I know a misdemeanor is not a felony. My mistake.
He went there illegally carrying a firearm. He knew there would be trouble and was expecting it. He should have avoided it .
By the law in Minnesota it is classified as a dangerous weapon. A firearm in the wrong hands is definitely a dangerous weapon. Rittenhouse proved that.
Since when do felonies only pertain to adults? A minor can definitely be an accomplice to a felony and Rittenhouse was. That is correct.
Again there is not a state in the US that allows minors to carry firearms in public. Constitutional or not.
There is no defamation of Rittenhouse. He will be convicted of a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly other more severe charges. He's a criminal.
There is nothing emotional about that. It is the fact of the matter.
You know damn good and well I'm not a fucking liberal. Far from it. I have said many times I don't agree with most of the BS firearm laws. It doesn't change the fact that they are laws that have been held up by a corrupt Supreme Court. It also doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse broke those laws. He will be convicted. He will do time. He won't be able to ever legally own a firearm without having his rights restored.
Those are undeniable facts. There is no defamation there. He has no case for defamation. He's in jail now with a $2 million bail last I have read. That possibly has changed. His whole case and everyone involved is far from over.
You're wrong and we'll have to see how this plays out.
I'll ask you the same question. Is it okay for a minor to shoplift to feed themselves? Are they a hero or a criminal? Isn't that a crime? If they knock down an old lady when they are trying to get away and the old lady dies isn't that a crime or does it not apply because it's a minor and shoplifting is just a misdemeanor?
You don't get it. Rittenhouse had no legal authority to carry the rifle he used to kill 2 people and injure 1 person in the first place.
Would the real criminals in this case, the now deceased, still be alive had they not tried to kill Rittenhouse? You keep referring to Rittenhouse as a criminal, what has he been found guilty of? If the jury does not convict Rittenhouse on anything, which will probably happen, is he still a criminal?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 02:01:47 PM
I meant to say I know a misdemeanor is not a felony. My mistake.
He went there illegally carrying a firearm. He knew there would be trouble and was expecting it. He should have avoided it .
By the law in Minnesota it is classified as a dangerous weapon. A firearm in the wrong hands is definitely a dangerous weapon. Rittenhouse proved that.
Since when do felonies only pertain to adults? A minor can definitely be an accomplice to a felony and Rittenhouse was. That is correct.
Again there is not a state in the US that allows minors to carry firearms in public. Constitutional or not.
There is no defamation of Rittenhouse. He will be convicted of a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly other more severe charges. He's a criminal.
There is nothing emotional about that. It is the fact of the matter.
You know damn good and well I'm not a fucking liberal. Far from it. I have said many times I don't agree with most of the BS firearm laws. It doesn't change the fact that they are laws that have been held up by a corrupt Supreme Court. It also doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse broke those laws. He will be convicted. He will do time. He won't be able to ever legally own a firearm without having his rights restored.
Those are undeniable facts. There is no defamation there. He has no case for defamation. He's in jail now with a $2 million bail last I have read. That possibly has changed. His whole case and everyone involved is far from over.
You're wrong and we'll have to see how this plays out.
I'll ask you the same question. Is it okay for a minor to shoplift to feed themselves? Are they a hero or a criminal? Isn't that a crime? If they knock down an old lady when they are trying to get away and the old lady dies isn't that a crime or does it not apply because it's a minor and shoplifting is just a misdemeanor?
You don't get it. Rittenhouse had no legal authority to carry the rifle he used to kill 2 people and injure 1 person in the first place.
Do not see the apples to apples here. What I can see is if Rittenhouse had run across the street to tackle a bank robber, you would want charges of jaywalking filed?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 02:01:47 PM
I meant to say I know a misdemeanor is not a felony. My mistake.
He went there illegally carrying a firearm. He knew there would be trouble and was expecting it. He should have avoided it .
By the law in Minnesota it is classified as a dangerous weapon. A firearm in the wrong hands is definitely a dangerous weapon. Rittenhouse proved that.
Since when do felonies only pertain to adults? A minor can definitely be an accomplice to a felony and Rittenhouse was. That is correct.
Again there is not a state in the US that allows minors to carry firearms in public. Constitutional or not.
There is no defamation of Rittenhouse. He will be convicted of a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon and possibly other more severe charges. He's a criminal.
There is nothing emotional about that. It is the fact of the matter.
You know damn good and well I'm not a fucking liberal. Far from it. I have said many times I don't agree with most of the BS firearm laws. It doesn't change the fact that they are laws that have been held up by a corrupt Supreme Court. It also doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse broke those laws. He will be convicted. He will do time. He won't be able to ever legally own a firearm without having his rights restored.
Those are undeniable facts. There is no defamation there. He has no case for defamation. He's in jail now with a $2 million bail last I have read. That possibly has changed. His whole case and everyone involved is far from over.
You're wrong and we'll have to see how this plays out.
I'll ask you the same question. Is it okay for a minor to shoplift to feed themselves? Are they a hero or a criminal? Isn't that a crime? If they knock down an old lady when they are trying to get away and the old lady dies isn't that a crime or does it not apply because it's a minor and shoplifting is just a misdemeanor?
You don't get it. Rittenhouse had no legal authority to carry the rifle he used to kill 2 people and injure 1 person in the first place.
I'll ignore your emotional pleas, you really don't want to go down that road.
How is it you keep missing one important part of the law? And C does not apply to him, only the person who supplied the weapon.
"a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony."Bottom line here, Rittenhouse was well within his right of self defense, regardless of what he used to protect himself..
You are hung up on the fact that he used a gun, but what if he'd have used a bat and beat the crap out of them, with the same results?
Point being, he was well within his Right to self defense, and the only broken was one classified as a misdemeanor.
Quote from: Possum on September 26, 2020, 03:10:21 PM
Do not see the apples to apples here. What I can see is if Rittenhouse had run across the street to tackle a bank robber, you would want charges of jaywalking filed?
No but that isn't the same thing either. My example was because Solar is saying Rittenhouse can't be charged with a felony because he is a minor. That is absolutely not true. He's also saying Rittenhouse can't be charged as an accomplice to a felony because he's a minor which is also not true. Again the point being according to the law in Minnesota Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon which is a misdemeanor. When Rittenhouse took possession of said dangerous weapon he was an accomplice to a felony. When Rittenhouse injured and killed someone with said dangerous weapon the friend that gave him the weapon is guilty of a class H felony. When the person gave Rittenhouse said dangerous before Rittenhouse used the weapon was guilty of a class I felony. By Rittenhouse taking possession he is an accomplice to the felony. The fact that Rittenhouse is a minor is what makes it a fel9ny to begin with. Rittenhouse should never have had the rifle to begin with. You also can't say Rittenhouse didn't expect any trouble or else he would not have any reason to illegally borrow a rifle. Rittenhouse is a minor and is a criminal.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 04:06:59 PM
No but that isn't the same thing either. My example was because Solar is saying Rittenhouse can't be charged with a felony because he is a minor. That is absolutely not true. He's also saying Rittenhouse can't be charged as an accomplice to a felony because he's a minor which is also not true. Again the point being according to the law in Minnesota Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon which is a misdemeanor. When Rittenhouse took possession of said dangerous weapon he was an accomplice to a felony. When Rittenhouse injured and killed someone with said dangerous weapon the friend that gave him the weapon is guilty of a class H felony. When the person gave Rittenhouse said dangerous before Rittenhouse used the weapon was guilty of a class I felony. By Rittenhouse taking possession he is an accomplice to the felony. The fact that Rittenhouse is a minor is what makes it a fel9ny to begin with. Rittenhouse should never have had the rifle to begin with. You also can't say Rittenhouse didn't expect any trouble or else he would not have any reason to illegally borrow a rifle. Rittenhouse is a minor and is a criminal.
What has he been convicted of?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 04:06:59 PM
No but that isn't the same thing either. My example was because Solar is saying Rittenhouse can't be charged with a felony because he is a minor. That is absolutely not true. He's also saying Rittenhouse can't be charged as an accomplice to a felony because he's a minor which is also not true. Again the point being according to the law in Minnesota Rittenhouse was a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon which is a misdemeanor. When Rittenhouse took possession of said dangerous weapon he was an accomplice to a felony. When Rittenhouse injured and killed someone with said dangerous weapon the friend that gave him the weapon is guilty of a class H felony. When the person gave Rittenhouse said dangerous before Rittenhouse used the weapon was guilty of a class I felony. By Rittenhouse taking possession he is an accomplice to the felony. The fact that Rittenhouse is a minor is what makes it a fel9ny to begin with. Rittenhouse should never have had the rifle to begin with. You also can't say Rittenhouse didn't expect any trouble or else he would not have any reason to illegally borrow a rifle. Rittenhouse is a minor and is a criminal.
No, I never said that. They can charge him with anything they like, but that doesn't make it Constitutional.
In the end he will walk free, no jury in the land would convict after seeing the video.
Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 04:10:54 PM
No, I never said that. They can charge him with anything they like, but that doesn't make it Constitutional.
In the end he will walk free, no jury in the land would convict after seeing the video.
They can and they will. Rittenhouse is guilty. He never should have been there to begin with armed as he was. He is a criminal.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 04:12:52 PM
They can and they will. Rittenhouse is guilty. He never should have been there to begin with armed as he was. He is a criminal.
What has he been convicted of?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 04:12:52 PM
They can and they will. Rittenhouse is guilty. He never should have been there to begin with armed as he was. He is a criminal.
Wow, judge, jury and hangman, all in one?
Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 06:02:53 PM
Wow, judge, jury and hangman, all in one?
Just like you my friend.
With the facts that are out in the public domain on Rittenhouse right now and If I was on a jury, I would not be able to convict on on 1st degree murder or 1st degree attempted murder. Possibly on wreckless endangerment and definitely on minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 06:28:02 PM
Just like you my friend.
With the facts that are out in the public domain on Rittenhouse right now and If I was on a jury, I would not be able to convict on on 1st degree murder or 1st degree attempted murder. Possibly on wreckless endangerment and definitely on minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.
Clear self defense! If he wasn't attacked no one would have been hurt! Why hasn't the guy that he shot in the arm been charged? He was a felon in possession of a hand gun? That is a felony! What about his attempted assault? :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 01:12:50 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Do you hear yourself? This is not an emotional issue and you're caught up in looking at this from a lib POV, emotional and guns are bad.
That is not the case, he didn't look for trouble, he was there to prevent it and these morons attacked this kid and paid the ultimate price for their stupidity!
Again, do you hear yourself? Dangerous? It's a fuckin tool, that's all, there is NOTHING D"Dangerous" about an inanimate object! Not a single one of my guns has done anything "Dangerous on its own!
Wrong!!! He can't be indicted for law that only pertains to an adult.
I did answer it, you just didn't like facing the fact this is a Constitutional issue and not the emotional one you're arguing. Here's the answer I posted!
"Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights."
Seriously? Are you even listening to the shit you're saying?
Sure he will, the first go around, but on appeal he'll be cleared of all charges. Also he will win a defamation suit when all is said and done, just like the Covington kid.
Which has zero to do with this case, that's for another court to decide.He's decades more mature than most people his age, watch the video and think again.
"Are you talking Illinois, or Idaho? Point being, many states have bastardized the Bill of Rights, while other states protected our Rights."
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: redbeard on September 26, 2020, 06:36:32 PM
Clear self defense! If he wasn't attacked no one would have been hurt! Why hasn't the guy that he shot in the arm been charged? He was a felon in possession of a hand gun? That is a felony! What about his attempted assault? :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
I agree that he should be charged too. The felon that got wounded should be charged with felon in possession of a firearm which is a felony. He should also be charged with 2nd degree attempted murder that he admitted to.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 06:43:20 PM
I agree that he should be charged too. The felon that got wounded should be charged with felon in possession of a firearm which is a felony. He should also be charged with 2nd degree attempted murder that he admitted to.
1st deg. assault and felon in possession of a handgun what i would charge him with, but with that the boy had every right to use deadly force to defend himself! :blink:
Quote from: Solar on September 26, 2020, 06:02:53 PM
Wow, judge, jury and hangman, all in one?
That describes the lefties.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 26, 2020, 06:28:02 PM
Just like you my friend.
With the facts that are out in the public domain on Rittenhouse right now and If I was on a jury, I would not be able to convict on on 1st degree murder or 1st degree attempted murder. Possibly on wreckless endangerment and definitely on minor in possession of a dangerous weapon.
I'm not the one judging him emotionally, you are! I'm standing behind the Right to bear arms, the Right to self Defense.
You are the one ready to hang the kid without trial.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on September 26, 2020, 07:10:03 PM
That describes the lefties.
Yep, very sad that one allows emotion to be their guide.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 03:47:45 AM
I'm not the one judging him emotionally, you are! I'm standing behind the Right to bear arms, the Right to self Defense.
You are the one ready to hang the kid without trial.
You're full of shit and lying your ass off. Nothing I've said has anything to do with emotions. I've stated facts and the law. Now whose acting like a lefty accusing someone of doing what they are doing? That would be you. When have I said he didn't have a right to self defense? All I have said all along is he broke the law by having the gun. You keep saying he was legal to have it and that is a lie. How's it feel to be a lying lefty piece of shit that you are?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 24, 2020, 09:40:39 AM
I did answer your question. 2a say a minor open carrying a deadly weapon is a misdemeanor. Violations in 3c make the misdemeanor in 2a a felony.
No sorry, thats not my question at all. Im asking that in the quote,
Quote"(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."
What is the phrase "This section"(bolded) refering too? Which section is C refering too when it says THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY....?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 07:02:14 AM
You're full of shit and lying your ass off. Nothing I've said has anything to do with emotions. I've stated facts and the law. Now whose acting like a lefty accusing someone of doing what they are doing? That would be you. When have I said he didn't have a right to self defense? All I have said all along is he broke the law by having the gun. You keep saying he was legal to have it and that is a lie. How's it feel to be a lying lefty piece of shit that you are?
Except the part that says innocent until proven guilty. You have called this kid a criminal when he has yet to go to trail. There is a good chance charges will be dropped. If so, will you still call him a criminal? Well, you have made your point, you have stated this kid is a criminal and is guilty. What should his punishment be?, after all two, what upstanding? individuals are dead all because Rittenhouse dared to go and help others? Life imprisonment good enough for you? Death? I think it is a sad day in hell when a kid who is doing the right thing, (just imagine if there were 500 more just like Rittenhouse at the riots, no more riots), gets blasted by someone on what are minor issues. The issue here is there are a couple of bad guys dead because of their actions, not because Rittenhouse was carrying a gun.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 27, 2020, 08:02:54 AM
No sorry, thats not my question at all. Im asking that in the quote,
What is the phrase "This section"(bolded) refering too? Which section is C refering too when it says THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY....?
Rittenhouse was not in c9mpliance with 29.593. I have also explained that the difference between 2a and 3c is 2a is a misdemeanor and 3c is a felony. Rittenhuose was a minor in possession of an illegally aquired dangerous weapon. There is no state in the US that allows minors to open carry a firearm in public.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 08:26:13 AM
Rittenhouse was not in c9mpliance with 29.593. I have also explained that the difference between 2a and 3c is 2a is a misdemeanor and 3c is a felony. Rittenhuose was a minor in possession of an illegally aquired dangerous weapon. There is no state in the US that allows minors to open carry a firearm in public.
You still did not answer the question. Is that because you realized it blows all your silly claims out of the water?
And you are wrong again, many states allow kids to own and shoot weapons.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 07:02:14 AM
You're full of shit and lying your ass off. Nothing I've said has anything to do with emotions. I've stated facts and the law. Now whose acting like a lefty accusing someone of doing what they are doing? That would be you.
You see, herein lies the problem. There is no leftist that over rides the Constitution. I have lied about nothing and exposing your emotional attachment to your claim he broke the law exposes your ignorance of our Bill of Rights.
QuoteWhen have I said he didn't have a right to self defense?
Oh Jeez. When you played Judge Jury and Hangman! Damn son, are you even paying to the emotional Bull Shit you're spewing?
QuoteAll I have said all along is he broke the law by having the gun. You keep saying he was legal to have it and that is a lie.
Yes, a misdemeanor! Your claim is it was a felony, which you have failed to prove!
QuoteHow's it feel to be a lying lefty piece of shit that you are?
I'll just leave this here for when Rittenhouse walks and you are proven a fool. Not to worry. I won't say "I Told You So", it won't be necessary as you finish off a 8 course crow dinner.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 08:57:24 AM
You still did not answer the question. Is that because you realized it blows all your silly claims out of the water?
And you are wrong again, many states allow kids to own and shoot weapons.
.I did answsr the question many times. There are states that allow minors to own firearms and to shoot firearms. There are no states that allow minors to open carry a firearm in public. You have no argument. You know you're wrong and then call me a lefty. The facts are the facts. Rittenhouse was in possession of a rifle that was illegally aquired. He was carrying that weapon illegally. He shot 3 people with that weapon in self defense. He was not in compliance of Minnesota state law.
You still haven't answered the question I posed to you either. Again I'll answer the question. 3c makes 2a a felony instead of a misdemeanor. One more time
3c MAKES 2a A FELONY INSTEAD OF A MISDEMEANOR.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 09:32:55 AM
.I did answsr the question many times. There are states that allow minors to own firearms and to shoot firearms. There are no states that allow minors to open carry a firearm in public. You have no argument. You know you're wrong and then call me a lefty. The facts are the facts. Rittenhouse was in possession of a rifle that was illegally aquired. He was carrying that weapon illegally. He shot 3 people with that weapon in self defense. He was not in compliance of Minnesota state law.
You still haven't answered the question I posed to you either.
First off, it was a misdemeanor!!! Secondly, I never called you a lefty, I simply pointed out how libs debate based on emotion.
And yes, I answered it 3 times, you just don't like the answer!
QuoteAgain I'll answer the question. 3c makes 2a a felony instead of a misdemeanor. One more time 3c MAKES 2a A FELONY INSTEAD OF A MISDEMEANOR.
See, that's not an answer, you need to show how it suddenly becomes a felony. Can you do that?
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 10:12:00 AM
First off, it was a misdemeanor!!! Secondly, I never called you a lefty, I simply pointed out how libs debate based on emotion.
And yes, I answered it 3 times, you just don't like the answer!
See, that's not an answer, you need to show how it suddenly becomes a felony. Can you do that?
The violations in 3c are felonies. That's how it becomes a felony. You haven't answered my question so I will simplify it and pose it again. If you walk down the street in the town you live in in the state you live in open carrying an unloaded single shot 22lr rifle what would you be charged with? How would your 2nd amendment rights apply then? The answer is you'd be charged with a misdemeanor and your 2nd amendment rights wouldn't mean shit.
And so what if Rittenhouse only committed a misdemeanor. He still broke the law. Are you saying a misdemeanor isn't a crime? Shoplifting is a misdemeanor and is a crime.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 10:34:39 AM
The violations in 3c are felonies. That's how it becomes a felony. You haven't answered my question so I will simplify it and pose it again. If you walk down the street in the town you live in in the state you live in open carrying an unloaded single shot 22lr rifle what would you be charged with? How would your 2nd amendment rights apply then? The answer is you'd be charged with a misdemeanor and your 2nd amendment rights wouldn't mean shit.
And so what if Rittenhouse only committed a misdemeanor. He still broke the law. Are you saying a misdemeanor isn't a crime? Shoplifting is a misdemeanor and is a crime.
Cut the bull shit and explain how you've made the connection to felony. Show me the law that makes this a felony!
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 11:28:22 AM
Cut the bull shit and explain how you've made the connection to felony. Show me the law that makes this a felony!
You cut the bulletin and prove me wrong.
Here are the facts about Rittenhouse I think we agree on.
1) He is 17 years old.
2) He is a resident of Illinois.
3) He was in possession of a firearm.
4) The firearm did not belong to him.
Can we agree on those facts not withstanding what else happened?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 11:47:29 AM
You cut the bulletin and prove me wrong.
Here are the facts about Rittenhouse I think we agree on.
1) He is 17 years old.
2) He is a resident of Illinois.
3) He was in possession of a firearm.
4) The firearm did not belong to him.
Can we agree on those facts not withstanding what else happened?
You still haven't shown the connection of how the law says he's a felon. Show us the law he broke that makes this a felony, connect the dots.
I know once you figure his out, you won't be happy, or is it you already know you made a mistake and don't ant to connect the dots?
The law is a funny animal, and because we always extenuating circumstances, the law makes provisions for that as well, which is why your claim of his being a felon is ludicrous beyond belief.
And it's Wisconsin, by the way.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case,
the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant
unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.I hope you read that carefully, because assuming as you claim, he was breaking the law, he is still entitled to use deadly force.
If you watch the video again, you'll note he was on the ground and exhausted all chance of escape...
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 01:09:59 PM
You still haven't shown the connection of how the law says he's a felon. Show us the law he broke that makes this a felony, connect the dots.
I know once you figure his out, you won't be happy, or is it you already know you made a mistake and don't ant to connect the dots?
The law is a funny animal, and because we always extenuating circumstances, the law makes provisions for that as well, which is why your claim of his being a felon is ludicrous beyond belief.
And it's Wisconsin, by the way.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
I hope you read that carefully, because assuming as you claim, he was breaking the law, he is still entitled to use deadly force.
If you watch the video again, you'll note he was on the ground and exhausted all chance of escape...
. Can we agree on the points I made or not?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
. Can we agree on the points I made or not?
Not until you show us how you came to your conclusions. Don't just post the subsection of the law, post the law and how it makes him out to be a felon.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 01:32:27 PM
Not until you show us how you came to your conclusions. Don't just post the subsection of the law, post the law and how it makes him out to be a felon.
Answer my question and I will show you. Can we agree on those facts or not?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Answer my question and I will show you. Can we agree on those facts or not?
Your question has been answered three times, and now you want to broaden the spectrum in hopes of saving face?
I have no interest in entertaining "What If's", so cut the crap and build your case, or just admit you were wrong and that other laws come into play, that no issue is cut and dried, no matter how emotionally one gets involved.
You forget, I was once law enforcement and had to understand the law, and that no matter what your first impression is, there is always extenuating factors to consider, and that's why I stayed out of this discussion for as long as I did. Never get emotional over any given issue, it will always cloud your decision making process.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 02:54:43 PM
Your question has been answered three times, and now you want to broaden the spectrum in hopes of saving face?
I have no interest in entertaining "What If's", so cut the crap and build your case, or just admit you were wrong and that other laws come into play, that no issue is cut and dried, no matter how emotionally one gets involved.
You forget, I was once law enforcement and had to understand the law, and that no matter what your first impression is, there is always extenuating factors to consider, and that's why I stayed out of this discussion for as long as I did. Never get emotional over any given issue, it will always cloud your decision making process.
I don't give a flying fuck what you did. You're wrong. When Rittenhouse borrowed that rifle he was an accomplice to a felony both state and federal. He illegally aquired a weapon he had no right to have. That is fact. His possesion of the rifle was a fel9ny because of that. Before Rittenhouse shot anyone it was a class I felony. After he shot someone it was a class H felony. Rittenhouse is a minor from Illinois. He had no legal authority to have the rifle. He also had no authority to protect anything with that rifle.
18 USC 922 (a) (5)
948.60
ss.29.593
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 03:09:59 PM
I don't give a flying fuck what you did. You're wrong. When Rittenhouse borrowed that rifle he was an accomplice to a felony both state and federal.
Read the damned law, he is not the one who will be charged, the adult will!!!
He illegally aquired a weapon he had no right to have. That is fact. His possesion of the rifle was a fel9ny because of that. Before Rittenhouse shot anyone it was a class I felony.
Quote
Jeeezus, it's a damned misdemeanor! I posted the law stating so!
QuoteAfter he shot someone it was a class H felony. Rittenhouse is a minor from Illinois. He had no legal authority to have the rifle. He also had no authority to protect anything with that rifle.
AS I proved by law, it matters not, it was self defense, plain and simple!!
Quote18 USC 922 (a) (5)
948.60
ss.29.593
Cut the bull shit and quote the damn sentences you claim he's guilty under!
I don't know why you're being so damn thick headed about this, I proved he acted in self defense, go back and read it again!
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 03:09:59 PM
ss.29.593
For the 100000th time, he wasn't hunting. That's what your entire BS hangs on?
Quote from: taxed on September 27, 2020, 04:09:21 PM
For the 100000th time, he wasn't hunting. That's what your entire BS hangs on?
That's why I want him to post the actual law, I want him to see where he screwed up. This is getting fuckin ridiculous!
Quote from: taxed on September 27, 2020, 04:09:21 PM
For the 100000th time, he wasn't hunting. That's what your entire BS hangs on?
It doesn't matter whether or not he was hunting. Also he aquired the rifle illegally. The guy that gave him the rifke committed a state and federal felony. Rittenhouse is not a resident of Wisconsin and didn't own the gun. He was an accomplice to a felony when he took possession of the gun. You can't loan a gun to a minor from out of state especially for use not in target practice or not for lawful sporting use. Loaning the rifle to Rittenhouse is a felony. The rifle was aquired illegally which is a felony. Covered in 948.60 and 18 USC (5)(a)
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 08:26:13 AM
Rittenhouse was not in c9mpliance with 29.593.
How so? Are you saying he never completed a hunter safety course? Cuz here in nebraska most farmers kids complete the hunter safety course before high school.
QuoteI have also explained that the difference between 2a and 3c is 2a is a misdemeanor and 3c is a felony.
Yes 2a has misdemeanor as a punishment and 3c has felony as a punishment.
Yet when 3 says "This SECTION shall apply only if...." It is referring to the entire section of 948.6, not just to 3.
You can see that in the law right after where it clearly uses the phrase 'section' to refer to the entire law not just a part of it.
QuoteRittenhuose was a minor in possession of an illegally aquired dangerous weapon. There is no state in the US that allows minors to open carry a firearm in public.
Here in Nebraska, farmers kids will often be carrying their guns with them, especially before and after hunting.
Quote from: T Hunt on September 27, 2020, 04:23:48 PM
How so? Are you saying he never completed a hunter safety course? Cuz here in nebraska most farmers kids complete the hunter safety course before high school.
Yes 2a has misdemeanor as a punishment and 3c has felony as a punishment.
Yet when 3 says "This SECTION shall apply only if...." It is referring to the entire section of 948.6, not just to 3.
You can see that in the law right after where it clearly uses the phrase 'section' to refer to the entire law not just a part of it.
Here in Nebraska farmers kids will often be carrying their guns with them, especially before and after hunting.
This is why I wanted him to post it, so I could bold the most important part he was missing.
But it really doesn't matter, he is emotionally involved and refuses to acknowledge the truth.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 04:29:28 PM
This is why I wanted him to post it, so I could bold the most important part he was missing.
But it really doesn't matter, he is emotionally involved and refuses to acknowledge the truth.
Let me just make my point abundantly clear....
This is the very next law and one can clearly see at the beginning where it uses the phrase "in this section" that it is clearly referring to the entire law of 948.605,
NOT just to subsection 1.
Quote948.605 Gun-free school zones.
(1) Definitions. In this section:
(a) "Encased" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) "Firearm" does not include any beebee or pellet-firing gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter pistol.
(ag) "Former officer" has the meaning given in s. 941.23 (1) (c).
(am) "Motor vehicle" has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(ar) "Qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer" has the meaning given in s. 941.23 (1) (g).
(b) "School" has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
(c) "School zone" means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
(2) Possession of firearm in school zone.
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is in or on the grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony. Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following:
1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).
1r. Except if the person is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).
2d. A person who is employed in this state by a public agency as a law enforcement officer and to whom s. 941.23 (1) (g) 2. to 5. and (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
2f. A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
2h. A former officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
2m. A state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity.
3. A person possessing a gun that is not loaded and is any of the following:
a. Encased.
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle.
3m. A person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the school forest under s. 120.13 (38).
(3) Discharge of firearm in a school zone.
(a) Any individual who knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm at a place the individual knows is a school zone is guilty of a Class G felony.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the discharge of, or the attempt to discharge, a firearm:
1. On private property not part of school grounds.
2. As part of a program approved by a school in the school zone, by an individual who is participating in the program.
3. By an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in a school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual.
4. By a law enforcement officer or state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity.
5. By a person who is employed in this state by a public agency as a law enforcement officer and to whom s. 941.23 (1) (g) 2. to 5. and (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
6. By a qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
7. By a former officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
History: 1991 a. 17; 1993 a. 336; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 290; 2007 a. 27; 2011 a. 35; 2013 a. 166; 2015 a. 23.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55
Quote from: T Hunt on September 27, 2020, 04:23:48 PM
How so? Are you saying he never completed a hunter safety course? Cuz here in nebraska most farmers kids complete the hunter safety course before high school.
Yes 2a has misdemeanor as a punishment and 3c has felony as a punishment.
Yet when 3 says "This SECTION shall apply only if...." It is referring to the entire section of 948.6, not just to 3.
You can see that in the law right after where it clearly uses the phrase 'section' to refer to the entire law not just a part of it.
Here in Nebraska, farmers kids will often be carrying their guns with them, especially before and after hunting.
Rittenhouse was not compliant with ss.29.593. He is also not a resident of Wisconsin. He illegally took possession of a firearm. That is a felony.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 05:15:41 PM
Rittenhouse was not compliant with ss.29.593. He is also not a resident of Wisconsin. He illegally took possession of a firearm. That is a felony.
NO IT IS NOT!!! Read the damn law! The person that gave him the gun is solely responsible.
I suggest you drop this whole thing, you are wrong on every claim you've made.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 27, 2020, 05:15:41 PM
Rittenhouse was not compliant with ss.29.593. He is also not a resident of Wisconsin. He illegally took possession of a firearm. That is a felony.
But my question is HOW was he not compliant with 29.593????
The law also states that hunter education from other states counts for wisconsin, so the fact that he was out of state seems to be a non issue for 29.593 compliance.
Quote(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
Quote from: Solar on September 27, 2020, 06:01:15 PM
NO IT IS NOT!!! Read the damn law! The person that gave him the gun is solely responsible.
I suggest you drop this whole thing, you are wrong on every claim you've made.
You're wrong and as an ex Leo you should know that. He is an accomplice toba felony and illegally had the rifle and that is a felony. I suggest you drop it as you have been wrong with every statement you have made.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 08:42:38 AM
You're wrong and as an ex Leo you should know that. He is an accomplice toba felony and illegally had the rifle and that is a felony. I suggest you drop it as you have been wrong with every statement you have made.
He is a minor, you cannot apply adult charges to a minor!!! I know the God Damned law, quit acting like you know what you're talking about!
With every post, you lose what little credibility you have left, and that's being nice!
Quote from: Solar on September 28, 2020, 08:53:21 AM
He is a minor, you cannot apply adult charges to a minor!!! I know the God Damned law, quit acting like you know what you're talking about!
With every post, you lose what little credibility you have left, and that's being nice!
I what universe can you not apply charges based on age. That's buckshot and you know it. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
You do know he is being charged as an adult right.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 08:55:42 AM
I what universe can you not apply charges based on age. That's buckshot and you know it. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
You do know he is being charged as an adult right.
Which has zero to do with accepting a weapon from an adult. There is no law that applies to him as a "Minor" regardless of what the DA wants to claim.
You'd be better off waiting till this whole thing is over, when Rittenhouse walks free.
There is one factor that plays a huge part in this, the 2nd Amendment. If the left is allowed to win on this, they will find precedent in changing thousands of laws, further whittling down the bill of Rights.
This is one of the reasons he will walk away with the biggest charge being a misdemeanor.
Take off the emotional blinders and look at this for what it is, a political football. Either you side with the left in convicting a hero, or you side with the Constitution in preserving our Right of self defense.
Quote from: Solar on September 28, 2020, 09:21:32 AM
Which has zero to do with accepting a weapon from an adult. There is no law that applies to him as a "Minor" regardless of what the DA wants to claim.
You'd be better off waiting till this whole thing is over, when Rittenhouse walks free.
There is one factor that plays a huge part in this, the 2nd Amendment. If the left is allowed to win on this, they will find precedent in changing thousands of laws, further whittling down the bill of Rights.
This is one of the reasons he will walk away with the biggest charge being a misdemeanor.
Take off the emotional blinders and look at this for what it is, a political football. Either you side with the left in convicting a hero, or you side with the Constitution in preserving our Right of self defense.
He's no hero. He's a stupid kid that made bad decisions that got 2 people killed. He's a felon and deserves to be charged as such. He was involved in a fel9ny to get the rifle he illegally possessed. He had no right to have that firearm by law. He expected trouble and he got it by his own actions. He involved himself 8n a situation that was none of his business. Rittenhouse is not a hero. He did nothing heroic. He's nothing more than another criminal.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 10:13:19 AM
He's no hero. He's a stupid kid that made bad decisions that got 2 people killed. He's a felon and deserves to be charged as such. He was involved in a fel9ny to get the rifle he illegally possessed. He had no right to have that firearm by law. He expected trouble and he got it by his own actions. He involved himself 8n a situation that was none of his business. Rittenhouse is not a hero. He did nothing heroic. He's nothing more than another criminal.
They are not people; they lost that right to be respected. They are scum.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on September 28, 2020, 10:16:49 AM
They are not people; they lost that right to be respected. They are scum.
It's not that I really disagree with that. There are ALOT of people that need to be held accountable for the whole situation. I really don't have any sympathy for the 2 that were killed or the other idiot that was shot. This whole situation is bad on both sides and could have very easily been avoided. There is no doubt the rioter are wrong and have no right or excuse to do what they are doing. I doesn't give vigilantes a right to do anything either.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 10:24:51 AM
It's not that I really disagree with that. There are ALOT of people that need to be held accountable for the whole situation. I really don't have any sympathy for the 2 that were killed or the other idiot that was shot. This whole situation is bad on both sides and could have very easily been avoided. There is no doubt the rioter are wrong and have no right or excuse to do what they are doing. I doesn't give vigilantes a right to do anything either.
But either way isnt carrying a firearm when you are under 18 a misdemeanor, not a felony? Or am I wrong?
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 10:13:19 AM
He's no hero. He's a stupid kid that made bad decisions that got 2 people killed. He's a felon and deserves to be charged as such. He was involved in a fel9ny to get the rifle he illegally possessed. He had no right to have that firearm by law. He expected trouble and he got it by his own actions. He involved himself 8n a situation that was none of his business. Rittenhouse is not a hero. He did nothing heroic. He's nothing more than another criminal.
I have asked this before, had those two, now deceased men, not chased Rittenhouse with the intent to harm, would they still be alive? You see, it was their actions that led to their death, not the fact that Rittenhouse was there. You keep slandering Rittenhouse by calling him a criminal and a felon when he has not been found guilty of anything.
K.C. seems to be focusing on punishing the guy defending himself, and not the three people who had the intent to cause chaos and deadly harm.
I say again:
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on September 23, 2020, 01:50:40 PM
Whose side are you on?
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Possum on September 28, 2020, 10:59:36 AM
I have asked this before, had those two, now deceased men, not chased Rittenhouse with the intent to harm, would they still be alive? You see, it was their actions that led to their death, not the fact that Rittenhouse was there. You keep slandering Rittenhouse by calling him a criminal and a felon when he has not been found guilty of anything.
Well said. That's the point being overlooked, Rittenhouse was simply protecting himself, it was the actions of three rioters that created their own problems.
I'm sure their previous victims are celebrating their deaths.
Quote from: Possum on September 28, 2020, 10:59:36 AM
I have asked this before, had those two, now deceased men, not chased Rittenhouse with the intent to harm, would they still be alive? You see, it was their actions that led to their death, not the fact that Rittenhouse was there. You keep slandering Rittenhouse by calling him a criminal and a felon when he has not been found guilty of anything.
You're right about the attackers. It can also be said they would still be alive if Rittenhouse didn't commit a felony by getting a rifle and going out to somewhere he shouldn't have been. I couldn't care less about the ass holes that got shot. It doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse's life has been drastically changed for the worse and possibly tiuned by his own very stupid decisions. Rittenhouse is not a hero. He is a criminal.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 11:29:13 AM
You're right about the attackers. It can also be said they would still be alive if Rittenhouse didn't commit a felony by getting a rifle and going out to somewhere he shouldn't have been. I couldn't care less about the ass holes that got shot. It doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse's life has been drastically changed for the worse and possibly tiuned by his own very stupid decisions. Rittenhouse is not a hero. He is a criminal.
Again, what has he been convicted of??? Had Rittenhouse been just a few months older would you still be calling him a criminal? Would you still find him guilty? Would you still be blaming him for the deaths of these two thugs? Would you still say the deaths of these two men was the result of someone else having a gun?
Quote from: Possum on September 28, 2020, 12:00:07 PM
Again, what has he been convicted of??? Had Rittenhouse been just a few months older would you still be calling him a criminal? Would you still find him guilty? Would you still be blaming him for the deaths of these two thugs? Would you still say the deaths of these two men was the result of someone else having a gun?
Nothing yet
Yes. Even if he was over 18 he still is an accomplice to a felony.
Yes
Yes
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 12:14:49 PM
Nothing yet
Yes. Even if he was over 18 he still committed a felony.
Yes
Yes
How would he have commited a felony? If he was 18 he would have been legally carrying a firearm?
Quote from: American Loving Norwegian on September 28, 2020, 12:17:43 PM
How would he have commited a felony? If he was 18 he would have been legally carrying a firearm?
He illegally borrowed a firearm. Not the firearm he illegally borrowed.
It doesn't matter anyway because he is not 18yo. He's 17yo.
Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 28, 2020, 12:19:52 PM
He illegally borrowed a firearm. Not the firearm he illegally borrowed.
It doesn't matter anyway because he is not 18yo. He's 17yo.
does a 17 year old have a right to self defense