Kenosha: Trump declines to condemn violence from his supporters

[Dogmaphobe]

My OP is aimed principally at Donald Trump, not at the 17 year old kid.

The wannabe cop / vigilante clearly was acting as he thought he should, as his mother and his President encouraged him to. There is no denying that he was illegally roaming about three hours after curfew, acting as a fully armed vigilante 22 miles from home, and whatever his intentions his presence led to the unnecessary killing of two unarmed white guys who apparently rather foolishly (if heroically) tried to disarm him — because they perceived him as a threat or a fleeing shooter. They also had families and friends and loved ones and also thought they were there doing the right thing. One was a young father. Apparently one had medical training and brought a medical kit to treat others. Whatever the facts, the violence and deaths would never have occurred if the child vigilante and his mother did not think they were supported by our President. Many more will die unnecessarily if our President continues to encourage vigilante activities, and encourages the fantasy that our cities are filled with murderous BLM/Antifa rioters out to take over the country. This is part of his electoral strategy, which he believes — and may in fact — get him re-elected.

Your op was designed as a polemic clearly intended to show your support for domestic terrorism.

The fact that you are trying to rationalize that your child rapist and his accomplice who attempted to murder the boy were "doing the right thing" belies any possible protest you might offer that this is actually an attempt at a clean debate and not the sleazy attempt at pro-terrorist propaganda.

 

[White 6]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie ***** and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. ****'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.

Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.

No. I do not. Your understanding would work equally well, regarding a criminal shooting cops to keep the cops from shooting them. That is a non-starter.

 

[WTF19]

My OP is aimed principally at Donald Trump, not at the 17 year old kid.

The wannabe cop / actual vigilante clearly was acting as he thought he should, as his mother and his President encouraged him to. There is no denying that he was illegally roaming about three hours after curfew, acting as a fully armed vigilante 22 miles from home, and whatever his intentions his presence led to the unnecessary killing of two unarmed white guys who apparently rather foolishly (if heroically) tried to disarm him — because they perceived him as a threat or a fleeing shooter. They also had families and friends and loved ones and also thought they were there doing the right thing. One was a young father. Apparently one had medical training and brought a medical kit to treat others. Whatever the facts, the violence and deaths would never have occurred if the child vigilante and his mother did not think they were supported by our President. Many more will die unnecessarily if our President continues to encourage vigilante activities, and encourages the fantasy that our cities are filled with murderous BLM/Antifa rioters out to take over the country. This is part of his electoral strategy, which he believes — and may in fact — get him re-elected.

that sounds like a conspiracy to me---or wait...nice fantasy

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie ***** and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. ****'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.

Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.

No. I do not. Your understanding would work equally well, regarding a criminal shooting cops to keep the cops from shooting them. That is a non-starter.

Cops shooting violent criminals is not the subject of this thread.

That you support domestic terrorism BECAUSE cops end up shooting violent criminals is the issue here.

That a cop shoots a violent criminal resisting arrest DOES NOT justify your terrorist friends attacking the businesses of innocent people.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie ***** and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. ****'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.

Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.

No. I do not. Your understanding would work equally well, regarding a criminal shooting cops to keep the cops from shooting them. That is a non-starter.

Cops shooting violent criminals is not the subject of this thread.

That you support domestic terrorism BECAUSE cops end up shooting violent criminals is the issue here.

That a cop shoots a violent criminal resisting arrest DOES NOT justify your terrorist friends attacking the businesses of innocent people.

In America we hold individuals accountable for their actions not the general public.. Democrats use fear and intimidation to get their way... And that is what we are fighting.. Time to hold each of them accountable with real consequences for their actions.

 

[White 6]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie ***** and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. ****'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.

Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.

No. I do not. Your understanding would work equally well, regarding a criminal shooting cops to keep the cops from shooting them. That is a non-starter.

Cops shooting violent criminals is not the subject of this thread.

That you support domestic terrorism BECAUSE cops end up shooting violent criminals is the issue here.

That a cop shoots a violent criminal resisting arrest DOES NOT justify your terrorist friends attacking the businesses of innocent people.

Wasn't talking about the subject of the thread. Was talking to your statement of having an inalienable right to their own life. Your saying I support domestic terrorism is untrue, a useless slur, and I have no terrorist friends. Get a grip on you emotions, as they overwhelm your logic.

 

[Chuz Life]

OK. Here goes. 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.[1]
It gives me the right (which I exercise) to keep and bear arms for my own defense, particularly my home, as well as if needed to act as part of a regulated force in defense of the common good. That "well regulated" part has always been a sticky wicket. It gives me the right to possess and use, but not necessarily the right to define "regulated" or necessarily to engage in defining defensive or offensive operation with weapons, totally on my own volition.
What does it mean to you?

"Not Necessarily"

You hedged.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie ***** and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. ****'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.

Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.

No. I do not. Your understanding would work equally well, regarding a criminal shooting cops to keep the cops from shooting them. That is a non-starter.

Cops shooting violent criminals is not the subject of this thread.

That you support domestic terrorism BECAUSE cops end up shooting violent criminals is the issue here.

That a cop shoots a violent criminal resisting arrest DOES NOT justify your terrorist friends attacking the businesses of innocent people.

Wasn't talking about the subject of the thread. Was talking to your statement of having an inalienable right to their own life. Your saying I support domestic terrorism is untrue, a useless slur, and I have no terrorist friends. Get a grip on you emotions, as they overwhelm your logic.

you side with those who have been engaging in terrorism when you try to characterise a boy engaging in self defense against them the way you have been doing .

I am simply yelling the truth about what you support, so if you think that is a slur, perhaps your time would be better spent analyzing why you consider truth to be a slur.

 

[White 6]

OK. Here goes. 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.[1]
It gives me the right (which I exercise) to keep and bear arms for my own defense, particularly my home, as well as if needed to act as part of a regulated force in defense of the common good. That "well regulated" part has always been a sticky wicket. It gives me the right to possess and use, but not necessarily the right to define "regulated" or necessarily to engage in defining defensive or offensive operation with weapons, totally on my own volition.
What does it mean to you?

"Not Necessarily"

You hedged.

How so? Which detail of the 2nd amendment did you want did you want more depth of explanation on?

 

[2aguy]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

What violence from his supporters? Do you even try to post the truth?

The hispanic teenager with the rifle was attacked by a mob, in particular 3 different felons...convicted felons, who were in the mob....all shots fired by the hispanic teenager were in response to violence from the joe biden voters.......he was attacked......

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Your op was designed as a polemic clearly intended to show your support for domestic terrorism.

According to some “law & order” rightwingers, everyone against vigilantism is advocating “domestic terrorism.” Right here on USMB we read that “Democrats are Communists” — and “Communists should all be hung.” Others say Democrats or non-Democrats like me who warn against vigilantism are “looters,” “racists,“ even “fascists”! At the very least we all supposedly support them and ... “domestic terrorists.” This is what much of the Trump base believes. This is the nuttiness his rhetoric encourages ...

Millions actually believe there is a revolution brewing in the streets that must be put down now. In fact, under present U.S. conditions, where party-partisan and cultural differences are extreme, it is the right that is armed to the teeth. Of course the police are also overwhelmingly pro-Trump. Feeling this wind at their backs, but feeling hamstrung by the law and the courts, rightwing crazies build up their own internet world of paranoia and hysteria. But paranoia and deep anger, and even deadly vigilantism, can flow in both directions.

Of course in certain places and at times, especially after police shootings, there are riots, just as there are always criminals, and would be looters, looking to take advantage of bad situations. But so what?

None of that constitutes even remotely a genuine threat that is leading to civil war or “revolution.” The scope of any “riots” we experience today are tiny compared to that of the 1960s. Crime also is far lower today than in the 1970s. The difference is that the right today is more insane and emboldened and parts of it are looking to rumble with guns. Those on the right who urge extra-legal vigilantism now are playing with fire.

It seems the right under Trump is just itching to take guns out and “stand their ground” .... even way outside of their own neighborhoods. That way lies madness. It is not “self defense” but political hysteria.

 

[DrLove]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

I think you're correct Tom. Representative democracy dies if we're stupid enough to give Rump four more years.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

What violence from his supporters? Do you even try to post the truth?

The hispanic teenager with the rifle was attacked by a mob, in particular 3 different felons...convicted felons, who were in the mob....all shots fired by the hispanic teenager were in response to violence from the joe biden voters.......he was attacked......

When the aim is to disseminate yerrorist propaganda rather than engage in clean debate, the truth NEVER matters.

Innocent people are having their businesses burned down These terrorist supporters oppose any and all efforts to stop that from happening.

When they try to claim that they aren't supporting what they so clearly support, do they think people are too stupid to see right through them?

 

[DrLove]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

I watched the press briefing and Trump did not, I repeat, did not defend the shooter. He said he was looking into it and it looked like the kid was being attacked and his action was self defense. Your comments are a fabrication and a damn lie. Reuters as well is lying and played word games. It's no wonder that Democraps are fucked up in the head from believing fake news all the time.

Yea, the old "we're looking into it"? Pure nonsense ^ He defended the lil butthole

Trump Defends 17-Year-Old Vigilante Charged With Murder of 2 Kenosha Protesters

"He was in very big trouble. He probably would've been killed, but it's under investigation," Trump said

www.thewrap.com

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Your op was designed as a polemic clearly intended to show your support for domestic terrorism.

According to some “law & order” rightwingers, everyone against vigilantism is advocating “domestic terrorism.” Right here on USMB we read that “Democrats are Communists — and Communists should all be hung.” Others say Democrats or non-Democrats like me who warn against vigilantism are “looters,” “racists,“ even “fascists”! At the very least we supposedly support them. This is what much of the Trump base believes, what his somewhat more guarded rhetoric encourages ...

Millions actually believe there is a revolution brewing in the streets that must be put down now. In fact, under present U.S. conditions, where party-partisan and cultural differences are extreme, it is the right that is armed to the teeth. Of course the police are also overwhelmingly pro-Trump. Feeling this wind at their backs, but feeling hamstrung by the law and the courts, rightwing crazies build up their own internet world of paranoia and hysteria. But paranoia and deep anger even killing vigilantism can flow in both directions.

Of course in certain places and at times, especially after police shootings, there are riots, just as there are always criminals, and would be looters, looking to take advantage of bad situations. But so what?

None of that constitutes even remotely a genuine threat that is leading to civil war or “revolution.” The scope of any “riots” we experience today are tiny compared to that of the 1960s. Crime also is far lower today than in the 1970s. The difference is that the right today is more insane and emboldened and parts of it are looking to rumble with guns. Those on the right who urge extra-legal vigilantism now are playing with fire.

It seems the right under Trump is just itching to take guns out and “stand their ground” .... even way outside of their own neighborhoods. That way lies madness. It is not “self defense” but political hysteria.

So, trying to prevent the inherent vigilantism involved in mobs burning down people's businesses is the actual viginaltism, now, is it?

Nazi propagandists had a word for this technique of theirs which was later adopted by Stasi. It is called turnspeak.

 

[DrLove]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Why is this in the CDZ? It sounds like you do not believe there is anything debatable at all here. According to your speech, the 17 year old is guilty of murder and you believe Trump is responsible. And of course the hardened criminals chasing him down the street attacking are innocent angels. Yep sounds like you have it all figured out.

No, the 17 year old is guilty of severe poor judgement. He got too close and he was visibly armed with an AR. Nothing good was going to come out of this.

Rump is guilty for both not speaking out against the Rump Private Army traveling to the Protests to backup law enforcement and actually supporting it. I will say this, any Rump Supporter that does go in with that in mind is a complete idiot and deserves to be beaten or worse. I don't support the violence of the Rioters either but that is for the locals to deal with. Sending in the Rump Brown Shirts or his secret Private Army, nothing good will ever come from it and it will just make it more difficult for the locals to get a handle on thingss.

Called a slew of assholes shooting paintballs and spraying demonstrators with mace "Great Patriots". This tells us precisely who Donald Trump is. VERY sad.

 

[2aguy]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Why is this in the CDZ? It sounds like you do not believe there is anything debatable at all here. According to your speech, the 17 year old is guilty of murder and you believe Trump is responsible. And of course the hardened criminals chasing him down the street attacking are innocent angels. Yep sounds like you have it all figured out.

No, the 17 year old is guilty of severe poor judgement. He got too close and he was visibly armed with an AR. Nothing good was going to come out of this.

Rump is guilty for both not speaking out against the Rump Private Army traveling to the Protests to backup law enforcement and actually supporting it. I will say this, any Rump Supporter that does go in with that in mind is a complete idiot and deserves to be beaten or worse. I don't support the violence of the Rioters either but that is for the locals to deal with. Sending in the Rump Brown Shirts or his secret Private Army, nothing good will ever come from it and it will just make it more difficult for the locals to get a handle on thingss.

Called a slew of assholes shooting paintballs and spraying demonstrators with mace "Great Patriots". This tells us precisely who Donald Trump is. VERY sad.

You post this knowing that joe biden voters have burned, looted, beat and even murdered Americans over the last 5 months.......actual violence and murder...non stop............not paintballs, if that is even happening, but actual burning, looting, beating and murder...........you have no shame.

 

[White 6]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

Let's be clear. You are posting a pile of BULLSHIT. Yes, Trump defends Kyle Rittenhouse. So do I. That's because he was not doing anything wrong or illegal, and is now being politically railroaded by a staunchly Democrat city, accusing him of first degree murder, which is preposterous.

The only individuals that Kyle Rittenhouse shot, were three individuals that were attacking him, and putting him at risk of serious bodily harm or death. He shot in self-defense which is perfectly legal and correct.

What is not perfectly legal and correct, is the tolerance of massive illegal mob violence by airhead idiots who are rioting over absolutely NOTHING. The people who are accusing Rittenhouse of murder, should themselves be in jail at this moment, for they are just as guilty as the mindless baboons running wild in the streets.

Kenosha mayor John Antaramian also fueled the rioting by calling the shooting of Jason Blake "unacceptable". FALSE! The shooting was ACCEPTABLE, and 100% JUSTIFIABLE, and a mirror image of the shooting of Terrence Crutcher in 2016, in which the police officer shooter, Betty Shelby, was cleared of all charges.

The kid crossed state lines specifically to committ an offense under Wisconsin law, as anyone under 18 is not allow to carry a a weapon without supervision and the illinois militia members do not have standing. It was against Wisconsin law for him to be there on the streets armed in the first place and he traveled interstate to commit the offense.

Interesting. You know Rittenhouse's intent, White? How exactly?
As for Wisconsin law? There was a curfew in place. Both Rittenhouse and the men who attacked him were in violation of that curfew. You charge one side then you need to charge the other as well. That isn't being done by the political leaders.

If he intended to be armed in Wisconsin and below age of 18 he intended to commit an offense under Wisconsin law whether he knew it or not. Anytime I carry across state lines I familiarize myself with the weapons laws of the state I travel to before I go, even though I am licensed, just as instructed in the class I took. Not as critical for me as I am covered by a lot of reciprocal agreements between states, but there is no reciprocal agreement covering the kid in this case.

Do you understand what "intent" means, White? It doesn't sound like you do...

Yes. Are you saying he just happened across and AR after he got there? I suspect he took it with him, demonstrating he intended to have it with him when he got there. That is intent, in this situation. Intent itself is not the crime though. I could not even find intent to go armed in Illinois law. Still on the books in TN, but that is immaterial. That intent to go armed thing is in fact under debate in our state, now. Wisconsin law forbid unsupervised minors from going armed. I don't think they have a separate intent law either.

No, he got it from a friend of his who lives in Kenosha. Instead of being proven a fool how about you do some basic research on the subject first.

Mmmmkay?

No. That will have to be proven or dis proven. Have read now what his lawyer said and doubt it will escape scrutiny in court. No matte how you slice it, he is forbidden by Wisconsin law to have the weapon unsupervised. It also begs the non legal question, what kind of idiot gives and out of state kid an AR to carry to a riot?

Why is there so much focus on a 17 year old kid but not on the THREE adult males that were chasing and and threatening him (one of which had a gun and wanted to shoot the kid) as they were in the commission of committing felonies by looting and pillaging? How many innocent people have been beaten by a mob of commie thugs because they wandered into the wrong place at the wrong time and were ASSUMED to be Trump supporters? How many MAGA hat wearers have been blindsided by a gang of ANTIFA thugs? Should I"key" the car of someone with a Biden/Harris bumper sticker (should I ever see one? Should I try and ram their car off the road because I don't like their commie views? That the very sight of a Biden/Harris support sign or sticker "triggers" me thus justifying my use of violence against them and then whine if they try and fight back?

It makes about the same amount of sense if one would actually stand back and observe with an unbiased eye. I guess I was just raised better than to randomly seek out strangers that express opinions that offend my sense of decorum. I will say this much, I will inflict as much physical damage as humanly possible if someone approaches me that took umbrage with what I have to say about these commie ***** and wants to attempt to "bully" me into silence. ****'em and the horse they rode in on.

Focus is on the dumb kid, because the 3 dumb adults are dead. They cannot be questioned. They cannot be held or prosecuted or be held accountable for their actions, intents or anything else as that judgement has already been made mute, as they can no longer speak for themselves due to the actions of the kid. In a civilized society (not present in the area where lawless uncaring violence occurs) the living must speak for the dead, without passing summary judgement on accounts, the laws of society have not passed judgement on already, certainly not holding their lives worthless over offenses, unproven and or/less than judged to be death penalty offenses, no matter what those offenses are portrayed to be, rightly or wrongly. The right to self defense requires the one using it is not responsible by their own actions, for having substantial responsibility in the situation and escalating it to the level where the ultimate self defense is required as the only way out.
right to self defense is not without limits. No non-law enforcement citizen is assumed to have the right to travel away from their home, and take up an unregulated law enforcement position on their own volition, validly calling it support of law enforcement, thereby gaining that bit of societal acceptance (granted law enforcement officer's as may be required for them to execute their duties) for their actions. Volunteerism does not make the citizen a valid law enforcement officer no matter their intent.

The rest of your first paragraph is pretty well infused with emotional partisan rhetoric, not suited to reasoned debate, or acceptable without objection in a court of law, and a court of law is where this is headed. The dead and indeed the living cannot be tried in the streets, news papers or internet message boards and that judgement be held valid, as we are a country regulated by laws.

Your third paragraph is a plea to look at the situation with an unbiased eye, where you, yourself are not without bias, nor expressing your argument in an unbiased unemotional manner. This completely defeats your argument.

Correction -- the child rapist and other career criminal you support cannot speak because of their OWN actions.

Where you and I differ is that you see attempted murder as some sort of right as long as you support the agenda involved, whereas I see people as having the inalienable right to their own life and so should be able to defend themselves against those trying to murder them.

No. I do not. Your understanding would work equally well, regarding a criminal shooting cops to keep the cops from shooting them. That is a non-starter.

Cops shooting violent criminals is not the subject of this thread.

That you support domestic terrorism BECAUSE cops end up shooting violent criminals is the issue here.

That a cop shoots a violent criminal resisting arrest DOES NOT justify your terrorist friends attacking the businesses of innocent people.

Wasn't talking about the subject of the thread. Was talking to your statement of having an inalienable right to their own life. Your saying I support domestic terrorism is untrue, a useless slur, and I have no terrorist friends. Get a grip on you emotions, as they overwhelm your logic.

you side with those who have been engaging in terrorism when you try to characterise a boy engaging in self defense against them the way you have been doing .

I am simply yelling the truth about what you support, so if you think that is a slur, perhaps your time would be better spent analyzing why you consider truth to be a slur.

Pretty well a slur, saying someone supports domestic terrorism when they do not, never has and in fact ha been a part of an anti- civil disturbance operation, still having a official commendation in my "I love me" file. Analysis complete.
I am characterizing the boy, (while of good intention) was part of the problem, not just and only part of the solution and was misguided in being allowed to be there, in defference to Wisconsin law prohibiting children from being on the streets in possession a firearm, unsupervised. That is not support of terrorism. I made no justification of the rioters or looters. The fact that you are "simply yelling" your misguided idea of truth of what I do or do not support, is nothing more than validation of your own emotional state.

 

[2aguy]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

I watched the press briefing and Trump did not, I repeat, did not defend the shooter. He said he was looking into it and it looked like the kid was being attacked and his action was self defense. Your comments are a fabrication and a damn lie. Reuters as well is lying and played word games. It's no wonder that Democraps are fucked up in the head from believing fake news all the time.

Yea, the old "we're looking into it"? Pure nonsense ^ He defended the lil butthole

Trump Defends 17-Year-Old Vigilante Charged With Murder of 2 Kenosha Protesters

"He was in very big trouble. He probably would've been killed, but it's under investigation," Trump said

www.thewrap.com

The hispanic teenager was the victim...of attacks by 3 different violent, convicted felons who were in the process of breaking even more laws...

 

[DrLove]

Trump is allowing a 17-year-old vigilante gunman to fight illegal battles for him.

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, declines to condemn violence from his supporters

Let us be clear: The President is acting like a retarded juvenile proto-fascist and encouraging law breaking vigilante violence. Civilians shooting other civilians, even children crossing state lines with automatic weapons to play cops, provoke and kill unarmed demonstrators, is what this president now stands for. That child is not nearly so responsible as the president himself. Trump is crossing a line here. If re-elected Trump will quite evidently lead his followers to unleashing serious bloodshed, which will create more violence in response. The ultimate result will quite possibly be a declaration of marshal law and the destruction of representative democracy.

I watched the press briefing and Trump did not, I repeat, did not defend the shooter. He said he was looking into it and it looked like the kid was being attacked and his action was self defense. Your comments are a fabrication and a damn lie. Reuters as well is lying and played word games. It's no wonder that Democraps are fucked up in the head from believing fake news all the time.

Yea, the old "we're looking into it"? Pure nonsense ^ He defended the lil butthole

Trump Defends 17-Year-Old Vigilante Charged With Murder of 2 Kenosha Protesters

"He was in very big trouble. He probably would've been killed, but it's under investigation," Trump said

www.thewrap.com

The hispanic teenager was the victim...of attacks by 3 different violent, convicted felons who were in the process of breaking even more laws...

He'll be spending the rest of his life in prison. Perhaps you could become pen pals?