Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[Soupnazi630]

Riot or demonstration makes no difference.
The point is no one should ever take a weapon openly to a location where it is know there is going to be physical but non-lethal violence.

Has anyone else ever done that without getting arrested?

A riot is not non lethal so yes it does make a difference.

 

[JohnDB]

The guy with the hand gun was not brandishing it, so it was risky but legal until he drew it.
At that point, it became equal to Rittenhouse's rifle.
Openly displaying a firearm at a demonstration is a very provocative and deliberately intimidating thing to do.
The problem is the Rittenhouse did it first, so then the guy drawing the handgun was justified in defense.
Rittenhouse has no such defense, because he brandished first, without provocation.

Carrying is not brandishing.
Grosskreutz was brandishing but Kyle didn't shoot him for that...he shot Grosskreutz for trying to shoot him.

 

[progressive hunter]

The guy with the hand gun was not brandishing it, so it was risky but legal until he drew it.
At that point, it became equal to Rittenhouse's rifle.
Openly displaying a firearm at a demonstration is a very provocative and deliberately intimidating thing to do.
The problem is the Rittenhouse did it first, so then the guy drawing the handgun was justified in defense.
Rittenhouse has no such defense, because he brandished first, without provocation.

imagine that,, you got it wrong again,,

 

[Leo123]

The guy with the hand gun was not brandishing it, so it was risky but legal until he drew it.
At that point, it became equal to Rittenhouse's rifle.
Openly displaying a firearm at a demonstration is a very provocative and deliberately intimidating thing to do.
The problem is the Rittenhouse did it first, so then the guy drawing the handgun was justified in defense.
Rittenhouse has no such defense, because he brandished first, without provocation.

As far as I know, there is no law against open carrying a rifle. Rittenhouse was not brandishing. He did not wave it, did not threaten to shoot anyone with it, etc.

 

[jc456]

I understand law and the fact that real law is higher abstractions than mere legislation.
For example, the War on Drugs is completely and totally illegal.
The authority for law comes from the delegates rights of those the laws defend, but drug laws defend no one and instead are arbitrary abuses of power.

You still haven’t responded? Why? Chicken shorten?

 

[jc456]

Nope.
Since Rittenhouse irresponsibly brought a rifle to a demonstration, then clearly any responsible person would they want to take it from him before he harmed someone.
Taking a weapon from an irresponsible person is not a lethal threat in any way.

He didn’t, man you look foolish

 

[jc456]

The guy with the hand gun was not brandishing it, so it was risky but legal until he drew it.
At that point, it became equal to Rittenhouse's rifle.
Openly displaying a firearm at a demonstration is a very provocative and deliberately intimidating thing to do.
The problem is the Rittenhouse did it first, so then the guy drawing the handgun was justified in defense.
Rittenhouse has no such defense, because he brandished first, without provocation.

Actually grosskruetz was illegally concealing a weapon and targeting a person.

now we know he’s a huge liar, perjured himself

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Riot or demonstration makes no difference.
The point is no one should ever take a weapon openly to a location where it is know there is going to be physical but non-lethal violence.

Has anyone else ever done that without getting arrested?

There shouldn't be violence, to begin with.

 

[jc456]

There shouldn't be violence, to begin with.

I want to know why a white guy was so angry at a blm riot?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Nope.
Since Rittenhouse irresponsibly brought a rifle to a demonstration, then clearly any responsible person would they want to take it from him before he harmed someone.
Taking a weapon from an irresponsible person is not a lethal threat in any way.

That's no excuse for people to try to kill him.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I want to know why a white guy was so angry at a blm riot?

Because BLM is a communist group, hell bent on wiping out our freedoms.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Nope.
Since Rittenhouse irresponsibly brought a rifle to a demonstration, then clearly any responsible person would they want to take it from him before he harmed someone.
Taking a weapon from an irresponsible person is not a lethal threat in any way.

In other words he brought a weapon for self defense and it became necessary to use it for that purpose. Deciding someone is irresponsible and deciding you are the qualified person to take that weapon away from them comes with some risks.

 

[2aguy]

Once Rittenhouse caused the situation to occur, by bringing the deliberately provocative open carry, then he no longer had any self defense rights.
Legally anyone could have killed him in self defense, at any time.

How many demonstrations have you ever seen?
Has anyone ever brought a rifle to one?
The answer is no one has ever done this before.
That is because it is inherently illegal to bring an open carry to a demonstration.

Here, an actual legal expert gives all the reasons what you just posted is completely wrong.

Provocation and Wisconsin law....

Possible Rittenhouse Trial Prosecution 'Hail Mary': Kyle Provoked the Attacks

Based on the evidence thus far, the state should not be allowed to argue 'provocation,' but that doesn't mean it won't try as the rest of its case collapses.

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The person who initiates a provocative confrontation is not eligible for a self defense plea.

How did he initiate it by running away?

 

[2aguy]

What facts are you relying on to support your "provocation" claim?

Every witness who has testified so far said that Rittenhouse never acted aggressively or threatened anyone.

Andrew Branca, a legal expert who specializes in self defense explains every aspect of the "provocation" angle.....

Possible Rittenhouse Trial Prosecution 'Hail Mary': Kyle Provoked the Attacks

Based on the evidence thus far, the state should not be allowed to argue 'provocation,' but that doesn't mean it won't try as the rest of its case collapses.

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I want to know why a white guy was so angry at a blm riot?

Well, there was the whole looting and arson thing going on.

 

[2aguy]

Actually grosskruetz was illegally concealing a weapon and targeting a person.

now we know he’s a huge liar, perjured himself

Yep.....he didnt have a concealed carry permit, he was actually breaking the law

 

[2aguy]

As far as I know, there is no law against open carrying a rifle. Rittenhouse was not brandishing. He did not wave it, did not threaten to shoot anyone with it, etc.

Andrew Branca at legal insurrecton said the weapons charge is likely crap.... the laws about this are so muddled in Wisconsin that it is possible the judge will throw it out

 

[Flash]

The rifle was illegal because Rittenhouse was under age.
But that is irrelevant.
What was the most illegal was the provocative intimidation of bringing it to a demonstration he was against.

How about the shithead who was illegally carrying and would have shot Kyle had not Kyle shot him first?

 

[jc456]

Yep.....he didnt have a concealed carry permit, he was actually breaking the law

Felony