Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped

[AZrailwhale]

That is silly.
It is much easier to know where warning shots go, into the ground or up into the air, than to shoot directly at someone, with everyone else being behind them.
Anyone who does not shoot into the ground or up in the air, shows a deliberate intent to kill.
A ricochet from pavement or a bullet falling down has a very remote possibility of doing any significant harm.

The fact Kyle could have been effected by adrenaline is why it is illegal for a minor to be in possession, why he should not have brought a AR, and why he should not have had a 30 round magazine installed.
You are acting like these bad choices were not his fault.
They were.
All of it was due to Kyle's bad choices.

Assuming Grosskreutz was pointing his pistol at Kyle, how long do you think that was?
Grosskreutz had a full Medtech uniform, with lettering all over it.
So then Kyle SHOULD have been relieved.
What Kyle SHOULD have done is raised his hands, in order to surrender to Grosskreutz, just as he later did to police.
Clearly Grosskreutz had the pistol out and ready due to the shots already fired.
But he clearly was not an imminent threat because then he would have immediately shot Kyle, and he easily could have, at that close range.
But Grosskreutz was the one holding back and not firing.
So then there was zero reason for Kyle to rerack and then pull the trigger a second time.
That then was deliberate attempted murder.

Your ignorance is appalling. If you shoot into the ground the round is likely to ricochet and hit someone. If you fire into the air, the bullet is going to come down somewhere and hurt someone or damage property. I have personal experience with that fact. One Fourth of July, a bullet that an idiot like you fired up in the air came down and but a hole in the roof of my car.
And we are not “ASSUMING” that Grosskreutz pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse, he testified to it under oath, to go further, he admitted rhat Kyle stopped targeting him when he raised his hands and only reacquired him as a target when he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse. You have been told these facts many times, why do you continue to spout transparent lies? Have you no self-respect?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your ignorance is appalling. If you shoot into the ground the round is likely to ricochet and hit someone. If you fire into the air, the bullet is going to come down somewhere and hurt someone or damage property. I have personal experience with that fact. One Fourth of July, a bullet that an idiot like you fired up in the air came down and but a hole in the roof of my car.
And we are not “ASSUMING” that Grosskreutz pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse, he testified to it under oath, to go further, he admitted rhat Kyle stopped targeting him when he raised his hands and only reacquired him as a target when he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse. You have been told these facts many times, why do you continue to spout transparent lies? Have you no self-respect?

I'm still waiting for him to post the law that requires warning shots be fired first.

 

[Rigby5]

Your ignorance is appalling. If you shoot into the ground the round is likely to ricochet and hit someone. If you fire into the air, the bullet is going to come down somewhere and hurt someone or damage property. I have personal experience with that fact. One Fourth of July, a bullet that an idiot like you fired up in the air came down and but a hole in the roof of my car.
And we are not “ASSUMING” that Grosskreutz pointed his Glock at Rittenhouse, he testified to it under oath, to go further, he admitted rhat Kyle stopped targeting him when he raised his hands and only reacquired him as a target when he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse. You have been told these facts many times, why do you continue to spout transparent lies? Have you no self-respect?

No its not.
The only way a shot into the ground could ricochet is if it hit a very large and flat rock, and even then, a ricochet has about 1/10 the energy.
Bullets shot into the air have so much area they can fall in, that the odds are essentially nil, and the speed of a bullet simply from gravity is about 1/10 that of an actual gunshot.

The testimony was deliberately made to sound contradictory, but the explanation to the press later made it clear.
Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.
Kyle never had time to "reacquire" as you claim.
It all happened much too fast for that.
The point is that Grosskreutz was confused by what the lawyer was asking him, and his answer was not correct.
The proof is that the Rittenhouse shot was perpendicular to the arm, so the arm had to be pointed up, NOT at Rittenhouse.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm still waiting for him to post the law that requires warning shots be fired first.

I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone, so if one does not fire off a warning shot, they can not claim they were forced to kill and had no alternative.
Clearly a warning shot is an alternative.
So anyone deliberately not firing a warning shot when it would have been possible, is guilty of deliberate attempted murder.

 

[Faun]

No its not.
The only way a shot into the ground could ricochet is if it hit a very large and flat rock, and even then, a ricochet has about 1/10 the energy.
Bullets shot into the air have so much area they can fall in, that the odds are essentially nil, and the speed of a bullet simply from gravity is about 1/10 that of an actual gunshot.

The testimony was deliberately made to sound contradictory, but the explanation to the press later made it clear.
Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.
Kyle never had time to "reacquire" as you claim.
It all happened much too fast for that.
The point is that Grosskreutz was confused by what the lawyer was asking him, and his answer was not correct.
The proof is that the Rittenhouse shot was perpendicular to the arm, so the arm had to be pointed up, NOT at Rittenhouse.

Holyfuckingshit!

Aside from the reality a shot will ricochet off of concrete, not just rocks -- this case is done. Rittenhouse prevailed. Deal with it, Loser.

 

[maybelooking]

He probably wouldn't have ran down the road to stop those looters if he was unarmed.

2 people would still be alive.

and of course, HE would be dead....which you would be fine with.

idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No its not.
The only way a shot into the ground could ricochet is if it hit a very large and flat rock, and even then, a ricochet has about 1/10 the energy.
Bullets shot into the air have so much area they can fall in, that the odds are essentially nil, and the speed of a bullet simply from gravity is about 1/10 that of an actual gunshot.

The testimony was deliberately made to sound contradictory, but the explanation to the press later made it clear.
Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.
Kyle never had time to "reacquire" as you claim.
It all happened much too fast for that.
The point is that Grosskreutz was confused by what the lawyer was asking him, and his answer was not correct.
The proof is that the Rittenhouse shot was perpendicular to the arm, so the arm had to be pointed up, NOT at Rittenhouse.

Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.

Show the moment of the shot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone, so if one does not fire off a warning shot, they can not claim they were forced to kill and had no alternative.
Clearly a warning shot is an alternative.
So anyone deliberately not firing a warning shot when it would have been possible, is guilty of deliberate attempted murder.

I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone

By putting innocent people in danger. Stupid idea.

so if one does not fire off a warning shot, they can not claim they were forced to kill and had no alternative.

You're lying.

Clearly a warning shot is an alternative.

A bad alternative. In some jurisdictions, an illegal alternative.

So anyone deliberately not firing a warning shot when it would have been possible, is guilty of deliberate attempted murder.

Liar.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not Guilty x5
/ Thread

 

[Faun]

I never said there was a law requiring it...

LOL

You're such a dumbfuck.

Warning shots are required by law...

​

 

[Rigby5]

KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped. Again, Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied the motion, and the charge remains.

The charge in question on Tuesday was possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, connected to Rittenhouse's possession of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle during the shootings. Rittenhouse, who is now 18, was 17 at the time.

According to Wisconsin Statute 948.60(2)(a): "These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations."

An AR-15 is classified as a rifle.



The defense has disputed this charge since early in the case, including right out of the gate when nationally recognized and controversial attorney John Pierce made himself available to defend Rittenhouse. A Second Amendment argument was raised, arguing that the law itself banning minors from carrying rifles is unconstitutional, but that argument has thus far been unsuccessful.

Kyle Rittenhouse defense again tries, fails to get gun possession charge dropped

Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team has tried again, unsuccessfully, to get a charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor dropped.

www.kenoshanews.com

Do you think the law banning minors from carrying weapons violates the Second Amendment?

6 year olds with AR15s?

Incorrect in that a short barrel is not necessary for the violation.
The law is clear and Rittenhouse was in violation.
Short barrels are not the intent or even mentioned in the ordnance.
Short barrels only are mentioned in that they make the 3 exceptions void.
The 3 exceptions where a juvenile is allowed to be armed is at a range, with a hunting license, or in the military.
These 3 exceptions are void if the weapon is short barreled.
Here is the actual ordnance.

{...
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)

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

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

(3)

(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

And he would not of been there at all if there wasn't a riot that threatened his friends store....while cops were told to stand down....

He had no friend with a store there.
Rittenhouse had intended to defend a car dealership, but they told him to move on.

 

[Rigby5]

Holyfuckingshit!

Aside from the reality a shot will ricochet off of concrete, not just rocks -- this case is done. Rittenhouse prevailed. Deal with it, Loser.

Nonsense.
I have watched thousands of bullets hit concrete, and ricochets are not only extremely rare, but with so little energy left as to be almost harmless.
If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered. It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.
Rittenhouse did not prevail by the application of law, but by an obviously corrupt judge who deliberately intimidated and limited the prosecution. And the prosecution likely was already prejudiced in his favor as well.
If we had been armed back on the Vietnam protest days, you can bet the police would have gunned us down.

 

[Rigby5]

Which was that his pistol was pointed at the sky when Kyle fired.

Show the moment of the shot.

That is impossible because stop action images could easily be before or after.
But we know Grosskreutz had to be pointing his pistol up into the air because Rittenhouse's bullet went perpendicular to the forearm bone.
Since Rittenhouse was shooting level with the ground, that means Grosskreutz had to be pointing his forearm straight up.
If Grosskreutz had been pointing AT Rittenhouse, then is bullet would have traveled parallel to the forearm bone instead of perpendicular to it.

 

[Rigby5]

I never said there was a law requiring it, but clearly warning shots accomplish the goal of self defense without having to kill anyone

By putting innocent people in danger. Stupid idea.

so if one does not fire off a warning shot, they can not claim they were forced to kill and had no alternative.

You're lying.

Clearly a warning shot is an alternative.

A bad alternative. In some jurisdictions, an illegal alternative.

So anyone deliberately not firing a warning shot when it would have been possible, is guilty of deliberate attempted murder.

Liar.

Warning shots endanger no one.
Deliberately shooting directly at someone is infinitely more dangerous.

And no, warning shots are the historic norm, and are never illegal anywhere, ever.
Anyone who does not fire a warning shot shows an intent of deliberate murder.
The only exception would be if the other person was already shooting and there no longer was time for warning shots.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But we know Grosskreutz had to be pointing his pistol up into the air because Rittenhouse's bullet went perpendicular to the forearm bone.

Up? At what angle?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warning shots endanger no one.
Deliberately shooting directly at someone is infinitely more dangerous.

And no, warning shots are the historic norm, and are never illegal anywhere, ever.
Anyone who does not fire a warning shot shows an intent of deliberate murder.
The only exception would be if the other person was already shooting and there no longer was time for warning shots.

Warning shots endanger no one.

You're lying.

Deliberately shooting directly at someone is infinitely more dangerous.

It was dangerous to the two dead felons. And to Lefty.

And no, warning shots are the historic norm, and are never illegal anywhere, ever.

If only you could post some proof.

Anyone who does not fire a warning shot shows an intent of deliberate murder.

Murder? What about self-defense?

 

[westwall]

Nonsense.
I have watched thousands of bullets hit concrete, and ricochets are not only extremely rare, but with so little energy left as to be almost harmless.
If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered. It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.
Rittenhouse did not prevail by the application of law, but by an obviously corrupt judge who deliberately intimidated and limited the prosecution. And the prosecution likely was already prejudiced in his favor as well.
If we had been armed back on the Vietnam protest days, you can bet the police would have gunned us down.

You are so full of shit. Ricochets happen all of the time, and if you know how to do it, they are controllable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nonsense.
I have watched thousands of bullets hit concrete, and ricochets are not only extremely rare, but with so little energy left as to be almost harmless.
If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered. It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.
Rittenhouse did not prevail by the application of law, but by an obviously corrupt judge who deliberately intimidated and limited the prosecution. And the prosecution likely was already prejudiced in his favor as well.
If we had been armed back on the Vietnam protest days, you can bet the police would have gunned us down.

If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered. It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.

 

[westwall]

If you knew physics, you would know that the energy of a bullet is a vector that can not be altered. It would require the bullet to be elastic for that to happen.

Rigby knows very little about anything. Oh, he DOES love fascism.

Tells you all you need to know