Kyle will be judged, as not guilty, thoughts.

[bodecea]

1) Kyle will walk. I probably AGREE (Now on 11/11). In My Opinion from watching the Trial.

2) Not enough evidence, and I truly NOW (11/11) believe Kyle was stupid to go to Kenosha, but he did, he found himself in that 3am spot (not really 3am) and reacted, and reactions have consequences.

3) The young man put himself in a position he could have easily avoided. (by not going)
But he didn't, and that has consequences.

4) I truly believe he was scared, but, he put himself in that position.

5) He killed a man, FACT, at the gas station. FACT. Self defense, Sure (Maybe) . But, he DID kill a man.

6) True or Not? On # 5. (not on Self Defense, but on the FACT that a man was Killed by Kyle.)

7) Then, he got chased for killing that man.
Why was there a chase down the street, because he previously killed a man, Self Defense or not.
Because he killed a man at the gas station.

My Conclusion: I think Kyle will be Acquitted, or some type of Mistrial.
I Don't think this (upcoming acquittal) will be incorrect, I truly NOW believe that he went there for ONE PURPOSE, and it ENDED DIFFERENTLY.

Putting all Politics aside, can you discuss ANY of the 7 talking points.

I loved the crocodile tears yesterday.

 

[2aguy]

He was running around with a gun. If he was running away from some people, he was running towards others. Should the ones he was running towards taken him out? He was an active shooter.

Nope, he was not an active shooter...he was not randomly shooting innocent people...you moron.

 

[Lesh]

He had a friend buy a gun for him. He didn't transport the gun there.

Isn't a straw purchase?

And oh by the wat it's illegal for anyone in Wisconsin to have a firearm if they are under 18 unless hunting or with a licened hunter

 

[westwall]

Not leaving Illinois.

How about you hold your pedo and other rioters to the same standard. Kyle traveled the shortest distance, and actually worked there.

ALL of your hero's had NO ties to the town, and were there soley to cause destruction.

 

[Slade3200]

1) Kyle will walk. I probably AGREE (Now on 11/11). In My Opinion from watching the Trial.

2) Not enough evidence, and I truly NOW (11/11) believe Kyle was stupid to go to Kenosha, but he did, he found himself in that 3am spot (not really 3am) and reacted, and reactions have consequences.

3) The young man put himself in a position he could have easily avoided. (by not going)
But he didn't, and that has consequences.

4) I truly believe he was scared, but, he put himself in that position.

5) He killed a man, FACT, at the gas station. FACT. Self defense, Sure (Maybe) . But, he DID kill a man.

6) True or Not? On # 5. (not on Self Defense, but on the FACT that a man was Killed by Kyle.)

7) Then, he got chased for killing that man.
Why was there a chase down the street, because he previously killed a man, Self Defense or not.
Because he killed a man at the gas station.

My Conclusion: I think Kyle will be Acquitted, or some type of Mistrial.
I Don't think this (upcoming acquittal) will be incorrect, I truly NOW believe that he went there for ONE PURPOSE, and it ENDED DIFFERENTLY.

Putting all Politics aside, can you discuss ANY of the 7 talking points.

I agree with much of what you said…. don’t think he is guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder… perhaps some form of negligent manslaughter as he went into a race riot with a loaded rifle and ended up killing people. I do believe he was trying to defend himself but I also believe he owns some responsibility for provoking and inflaming the situation

 

[2aguy]

Isn't a straw purchase?

And oh by the wat it's illegal for anyone in Wisconsin to have a firearm if they are under 18 unless hunting or with a licened hunter

Not so fast....

The Wisconsin law is messed up...and contradicts itself......

Andrew Branca over at Legal Insurrection used his Law of Self Defense Podcast to explain why the gun possession charge against Rittenhouse needs to be dismissed...

He goes through it in detail.......

The first part of the law states you are in violation if you are under 18, possess an object, and that object is a weapon...

However,

The rest of the law states that for the above to actually apply, the following two parts must also exist..

1) you have to be hunting

2) you have to be under 16....

Rittenhouse did not meet either one of those, so as the law states..without those, the first part doesn't count......he wasn't hunting, and he is 17.....

This is why the law is a mess and is likely unConstitutionally vague.....and why the gun charge needs to be dismissed.

He goes through this in about 17 minutes

Here is the post at Law of Self Defense....

Ambiguous Gun Charge & Treacherous Jury Instructions​

That still leaves Kyle, however, with one remaining charge: Count 6, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person-under-18 charge, under §948.60(a)(2). This is a mere misdemeanor charge, and if convicted Kyle is punishable by up to 9 months in jail (presumably lessened by any time served prior to trial).

This gun charge has, indeed, become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting that statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in this case.

Also, because Kyle’s claim of self-defense, compelling against the felony charges against him, is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge. There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law. (Some of you may be thinking that an excuse defense of necessity or lesser harms might apply here—it would not, for reasons I’ll explain below.)

The relevant part of §948.60 reads:

(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it’s pretty much an open and shut conviction. He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon (“dangerous weapon” means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, §948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to §948.60(a)(2)—2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child—and specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:

1. The defendant possessed an object.
2. The object was a dangerous weapon.
3. The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle’s would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute §948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(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. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

So, what are §29.304 and §29.593?

The second of those, §29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions—and therefore, they argue, Kyle is “not in compliance” with §29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that §29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore §29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of §948.60(3)(c) says it applies only “if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.” It does not read “ss. 29.304 or29.593.”

So, even if Kyle can be said to be “not in compliance” with §29.593, was he also “not in compliance” with §29.304?

If we take a closer look at §29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minute—how can Kyle be “not in compliance” with a statute that applies only to “persons under 16 years of age”? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that’s precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of §29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute’s age range. And if he’s exempt, he can’t be “not in compliance.”

And if he can’t be “not in compliance with ss. 29.304,” he is exempt from §948.60(a)(2) “unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph §948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with §29.304.

The State’s counter-argument to this plain reading of the statutory language is that, well, the legislature titled §948.60“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18,” so they must have meant some application to “persons under 18.” After all, Kyle was admittedly under 18 at the time of these events

We may not understand exactly what the legislature was trying to get at, the State is arguing, but surely they were getting at something—and therefore we should ignore the plain statutory language, and subject Kyle to criminal sanction under this statute.

In effect, the State’s argument here is, pay no attention to the plain reading of the statutory language behind the curtain, because I am the great and powerful ADA Oz! Really, it’s ridiculous—and ridiculous ought have no role in a court of law where criminal sanctions and personal liberty are at stake.

The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse & Why No Necessity Defense – Law of Self Defense​

lawofselfdefense.com

 

[SavannahMann]

The problem with you position is that you are ignoring that the BLM/ANTIFA mob was there to do destruction.

By not holding them accountable for the damage that resulted from their actions is disengenous.

They had guns, other weapons and a record of destruction and the shitheads were looking for trouble and they got it.

Analogy:

I am sitting in my house minding my own business.

Shithead Negroes march down the street burning houses and attacking my neighbors because the assholes are butthurt over something or another.

The local police decide they aren't going to do a damn thing to stop the destruction of the Negroes.

I go out in the yard to protect my property. I take a firearm because I know the Negroes are dangerous by their previous actions and I know they also have weapons.

They start a fire on the street in front of my home. I get an extinguisher to put out the fire. The asshole Negroes get pissed because I had the audacity to stop their destruction. They attack me. I defend against the attack with the weapon I have. I only engage the one that attack me.

That is self defense.

I could have just stayed in my house and nothing would have ever happen.

The Negroes could have stayed home and nothing would have ever happen.

However, it was the Negroes that started the shit.

Let’s go with a better analogy. Blacks are rioting in the next state. You go there and buy a weapon illegally. Then you go where you were ordered not to. Then you shoot someone and scream self defense.

You see. In your home, I wouldn’t object. How often have I posted the video of the woman in Georgia shooting people in her home and said she was fine. No problem.

Let’s say you go to buy narcotics. You feel the seller is cheating you. He pulls a gun and you kill him. Is that self defense? You are committing a crime aren’t you?

That is why I reject the argument made by Rittenhouse. Oh make no mistake. I think he’s going to walk. But I also think he is wrong.

We have a term for what he did. It is called vigilante Justice. Long on the vigilante, short on the justice.

Every state has laws to prevent it. And if you support the Second you should be worried about it. Because the push for universal background checks is going to pick up. They’re going to use Rittenhouse as a poster child. Without universal background checks a boy was able to buy a weapon illegally and kill two people.

What will be your answer? He was justified? Thank god he broke the law and killed two left wing idiots? Expect the measure to pass if you do.

 

[2aguy]

I agree with much of what you said…. don’t think he is guilty of 1st or 2nd degree murder… perhaps some form of negligent manslaughter as he went into a race riot with a loaded rifle and ended up killing people. I do believe he was trying to defend himself but I also believe he owns some responsibility for provoking and inflaming the situation

He didn't provoke anything.....they attacked him, in particular, when he was running away......

 

[theHawk]

He was running around with a gun. If he was running away from some people, he was running towards others. Should the ones he was running towards taken him out? He was an active shooter.

Sure sure, whatever you say.

 

[Flash]

Let’s go with a better analogy. Blacks are rioting in the next state. You go there and buy a weapon illegally. Then you go where you were ordered not to. Then you shoot someone and scream self defense.

You see. In your home, I wouldn’t object. How often have I posted the video of the woman in Georgia shooting people in her home and said she was fine. No problem.

Let’s say you go to buy narcotics. You feel the seller is cheating you. He pulls a gun and you kill him. Is that self defense? You are committing a crime aren’t you?

That is why I reject the argument made by Rittenhouse. Oh make no mistake. I think he’s going to walk. But I also think he is wrong.

We have a term for what he did. It is called vigilante Justice. Long on the vigilante, short on the justice.

Every state has laws to prevent it. And if you support the Second you should be worried about it. Because the push for universal background checks is going to pick up. They’re going to use Rittenhouse as a poster child. Without universal background checks a boy was able to buy a weapon illegally and kill two people.

What will be your answer? He was justified? Thank god he broke the law and killed two left wing idiots? Expect the measure to pass if you do.

Kenosha was Kyle's home for the most part. He lived 20 minutes away and he has extensive friends and family in the city. He went to earlier school in Kenosha before his parents separated.

The BLM/ANTFA scum had weapons they brought from elsewhere. The shithead that tried to tried to shoot Kyle was illegally carrying a weapon. The rioters had used all kinds of weapons during their rioting. The first person to fire a shot that night was one of the ANTIFA assholes.

It is not clear if Kyle did not have a right to carry the rifle or not and that is why the Judge said he would rule on that later. It is very clear that he can't have possession of a pistol or that he can't buy a rifle but he can have possession of a long gun or shotgun.

However, the fact that it was legal or not for him to have the AR has absolutely nothing to do with the self defense case. If he didn't have a weapon he would be dead by now.

The bad guys were the rioters. Kyle was a good guy and all the evidence I saw says he is acted in self defense.

 

[sealybobo]

At that point, anything could have happened and if they would have taken him out, someone else would be on trial, that is the way it works. I think he should never of went to the riots, nor should anyone else for that matter. However he did go, others went and some pursued KR and he shot them in what appears to be self defense.

The whole story is sad and it all could have been avoided but people think they are entitled to riot and this is what can happen.

I think if you take any concealed weapons permit class you'll find he broke many rules/laws. Rules that if you break can get you charged with murder. I don't know if it's different for open carry but I'm sure it is. I know you don't need to take the class to open carry but ignorance of the law is no excuse especially when it comes to murdering someone.

I know we like to root for the vigilante especially when they are being vigil for our side but ultimately they are wrong.

His actions were negligent.

 

[sealybobo]

Nope, he was not an active shooter...he was not randomly shooting innocent people...you moron.

So the 3 people he shot were not innocent? Sounds like you'd like to take your assault rifle to a BLM rally and kill them all as soon as it gets out of hand. Is that your plan? And you'll claim you were innocent and it was justified?

 

[Slade3200]

He didn't provoke anything.....they attacked him, in particular, when he was running away......

White dude walking around the streets with and AR15 during a race riot… sure that’s not provocative at all!

 

[MisterBeale]

and why are you putting things in my post i did not say? seems you have your own agenda here.....

i am a gun owner...do i take my gun into another state looking for trouble...no i dont

I am comparing, "self-defense" in the 2nd, to "privacy" in the 4th.

The Bill of Rights is based on Natural Law, and was a compromise between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, to protect the PEOPLE, from the State.

When you make a statement as ignorant as, "self-defense should not be allowed," I need to use every rhetorical device available, to explain why that is an Anti-American statement, that as been conditioned into you by globalist owned, billionaire run, consortium propaganda.

This is, after all, UNITED STATES MESSAGE BOARD. If you don't believe in the principles of the United States? Just say so. . . and declare yourself someone who openly hates the principles of this nation.

 

[MisterBeale]

White dude walking around the streets with and AR15 during a race riot… sure that’s not provocative at all!

Well. . . I guess by that logic, cops walking around the streets armed during a race riot is provocative.
Are you saying. . . a Black dude can be armed though? That is not provocative?

Shit, they even want the Po-Po unarmed. One of the slogans is de-fund.




This place is getting insane.

Of course folks need to be armed during a riot. It's fucking chaos man.

 

[MisterBeale]

where are the consequences for his mother?

What law did she break?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

He went there with the intention of shooting people with a deadly weapon. He had no means of doing anything other than that

You know it

I know it

We all know it

You know nothing about his intentions.

You know nothing.

I know it.

We all know it.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Isn't a straw purchase?

And oh by the wat it's illegal for anyone in Wisconsin to have a firearm if they are under 18 unless hunting or with a licened hunter

The judge didn't seem to think the law said that. He said he would welcome someone litigating that. The law seems to have a gaping loophole in in regarding someone older than sixteen, but younger than eighteen.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

He was running around with a gun. If he was running away from some people, he was running towards others. Should the ones he was running towards taken him out? He was an active shooter.

Maybe they should have taken the advice that many on this message board are aiming towards Rittenhouse, maybe they should have LEFT THE SCENE and let the actual Police handle it...?

 

[MisterBeale]

No. But Kyle should have been. He went looking for trouble. And found it.

. . . but that doesn't abrogate his right to self-defense.