Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked "after" he had already shot someone in the head

[JusticeHammer]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

In the eyes of the law the weapon in the car is still in his possession.

 

[Faun]

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

He went across state lines. I believe the Never said he was guilty and I was kidding anyway. I forgot That you’re a moron that takes everything literally

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

It was a joke. Christ, you’re stupid.

Poor, ShortBus, so farklemt, he responds twice in one post. Moron, crossing a state line isn't a federal crime. Impeached Trump can't pardon him.

It's like this, lil faun, the perv, I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property and I would be armed to the hilt. Once they are on private property and do need heed the warning? I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their sorry asses and that goes double if I was being threatened by a cowardly mob like ANTIFA and BLM. They will not be marching down the street of my suburb because in Texas, we don't put up with that shit and we believe in the right to protect ourselves and our property. Commie ***** like yourself are learning the hard way that we have tired of their shit and have lost the patience that those of your ilk viewed as weakness.

If these commie ***** are so ******* outraged and so ******* tough, why aren't they taking their angst out on "da gubermint" instead of destroying private property and attacking people that had nothing to do with the death of their heroes like George "light up a blunt" Floyd? Could it be because the police are armed? Rittenhouse isn't going to do any hard time and you can bank on that one.

(snicker)

Do that in Wisconsin, dickless delusional dale, and you will [go to] prison. Using lethal force in that state to protect someone else's property is illegal.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

 

[Dale Smith]

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

He went across state lines. I believe the Never said he was guilty and I was kidding anyway. I forgot That you’re a moron that takes everything literally

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

It was a joke. Christ, you’re stupid.

Poor, ShortBus, so farklemt, he responds twice in one post. Moron, crossing a state line isn't a federal crime. Impeached Trump can't pardon him.

It's like this, lil faun, the perv, I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property and I would be armed to the hilt. Once they are on private property and do need heed the warning? I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their sorry asses and that goes double if I was being threatened by a cowardly mob like ANTIFA and BLM. They will not be marching down the street of my suburb because in Texas, we don't put up with that shit and we believe in the right to protect ourselves and our property. Commie ***** like yourself are learning the hard way that we have tired of their shit and have lost the patience that those of your ilk viewed as weakness.

If these commie ***** are so ******* outraged and so ******* tough, why aren't they taking their angst out on "da gubermint" instead of destroying private property and attacking people that had nothing to do with the death of their heroes like George "light up a blunt" Floyd? Could it be because the police are armed? Rittenhouse isn't going to do any hard time and you can bank on that one.

(snicker)

Do that in Wisconsin, dickless delusional dale, and you will prison. Using lethal force in that state to protect someone else's property is illegal.

I don't give a shit what state it is....you come on my property with the intent of destroying it after having been warned? You are going to get shot. I'll take my chances with a jury of my peers. I could just see you and some equally gutless commie cowards marching onto someone's property and claim "You can't touch us because it's against the law!" When the police are given "stand down orders" then the onus is on the citizen to protect himself AND his property by any means necessary.

Get it, faun, the lil perv???

 

[Dale Smith]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

 

[Faun]

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

He went across state lines. I believe the Never said he was guilty and I was kidding anyway. I forgot That you’re a moron that takes everything literally

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

It was a joke. Christ, you’re stupid.

Poor, ShortBus, so farklemt, he responds twice in one post. Moron, crossing a state line isn't a federal crime. Impeached Trump can't pardon him.

It's like this, lil faun, the perv, I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property and I would be armed to the hilt. Once they are on private property and do need heed the warning? I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their sorry asses and that goes double if I was being threatened by a cowardly mob like ANTIFA and BLM. They will not be marching down the street of my suburb because in Texas, we don't put up with that shit and we believe in the right to protect ourselves and our property. Commie ***** like yourself are learning the hard way that we have tired of their shit and have lost the patience that those of your ilk viewed as weakness.

If these commie ***** are so ******* outraged and so ******* tough, why aren't they taking their angst out on "da gubermint" instead of destroying private property and attacking people that had nothing to do with the death of their heroes like George "light up a blunt" Floyd? Could it be because the police are armed? Rittenhouse isn't going to do any hard time and you can bank on that one.

(snicker)

Do that in Wisconsin, dickless delusional dale, and you will prison. Using lethal force in that state to protect someone else's property is illegal.

I don't give a shit what state it is....you come on my property with the intent of destroying it after having been warned? You are going to get shot. I'll take my chances with a jury of my peers. I could just see you and some equally gutless commie cowards marching onto someone's property and claim "You can't touch us because it's against the law!" When the police are given "stand down orders" then the onus is on the citizen to protect himself AND his property by any means necessary.

Get it, faun, the lil perv???

"you come on my property..."

LOLOL

You're such an idiot, dickless delusional dale.

You didn't say you would defend your own property, which is legal. You moronically said you would defend someone else's property with lethal force, which is illegal.

"I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property"​

You literally changed what you said because you're an imbecile who doesn't know what the **** you're talking about.
Now put another chemtrail in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

 

[Dale Smith]

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

He went across state lines. I believe the Never said he was guilty and I was kidding anyway. I forgot That you’re a moron that takes everything literally

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

It was a joke. Christ, you’re stupid.

Poor, ShortBus, so farklemt, he responds twice in one post. Moron, crossing a state line isn't a federal crime. Impeached Trump can't pardon him.

It's like this, lil faun, the perv, I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property and I would be armed to the hilt. Once they are on private property and do need heed the warning? I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their sorry asses and that goes double if I was being threatened by a cowardly mob like ANTIFA and BLM. They will not be marching down the street of my suburb because in Texas, we don't put up with that shit and we believe in the right to protect ourselves and our property. Commie ***** like yourself are learning the hard way that we have tired of their shit and have lost the patience that those of your ilk viewed as weakness.

If these commie ***** are so ******* outraged and so ******* tough, why aren't they taking their angst out on "da gubermint" instead of destroying private property and attacking people that had nothing to do with the death of their heroes like George "light up a blunt" Floyd? Could it be because the police are armed? Rittenhouse isn't going to do any hard time and you can bank on that one.

(snicker)

Do that in Wisconsin, dickless delusional dale, and you will prison. Using lethal force in that state to protect someone else's property is illegal.

I don't give a shit what state it is....you come on my property with the intent of destroying it after having been warned? You are going to get shot. I'll take my chances with a jury of my peers. I could just see you and some equally gutless commie cowards marching onto someone's property and claim "You can't touch us because it's against the law!" When the police are given "stand down orders" then the onus is on the citizen to protect himself AND his property by any means necessary.

Get it, faun, the lil perv???

"you come on my property..."

LOLOL

You're such an idiot, dickless delusional dale.

You didn't say you would defend your own property, which is legal. You moronically said you would defend someone else's property with lethal force, which is illegal.

"I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property"​

You literally changed what you said because you're an imbecile who doesn't know what the **** you're talking about.

Yes, I would use any means necessary to defend the property of a neighbor or a friend that had a business, you *****. I know a gutless coward like yourself would curl up in the fetal position at the thought of conflict unless you were in a mob, faun, the lil perv.

 

[Dale Smith]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

Care to make a wager on that, lil faun, the perv????

 

[Faun]

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

He went across state lines. I believe the Never said he was guilty and I was kidding anyway. I forgot That you’re a moron that takes everything literally

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

It was a joke. Christ, you’re stupid.

Poor, ShortBus, so farklemt, he responds twice in one post. Moron, crossing a state line isn't a federal crime. Impeached Trump can't pardon him.

It's like this, lil faun, the perv, I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property and I would be armed to the hilt. Once they are on private property and do need heed the warning? I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their sorry asses and that goes double if I was being threatened by a cowardly mob like ANTIFA and BLM. They will not be marching down the street of my suburb because in Texas, we don't put up with that shit and we believe in the right to protect ourselves and our property. Commie ***** like yourself are learning the hard way that we have tired of their shit and have lost the patience that those of your ilk viewed as weakness.

If these commie ***** are so ******* outraged and so ******* tough, why aren't they taking their angst out on "da gubermint" instead of destroying private property and attacking people that had nothing to do with the death of their heroes like George "light up a blunt" Floyd? Could it be because the police are armed? Rittenhouse isn't going to do any hard time and you can bank on that one.

(snicker)

Do that in Wisconsin, dickless delusional dale, and you will prison. Using lethal force in that state to protect someone else's property is illegal.

I don't give a shit what state it is....you come on my property with the intent of destroying it after having been warned? You are going to get shot. I'll take my chances with a jury of my peers. I could just see you and some equally gutless commie cowards marching onto someone's property and claim "You can't touch us because it's against the law!" When the police are given "stand down orders" then the onus is on the citizen to protect himself AND his property by any means necessary.

Get it, faun, the lil perv???

"you come on my property..."

LOLOL

You're such an idiot, dickless delusional dale.

You didn't say you would defend your own property, which is legal. You moronically said you would defend someone else's property with lethal force, which is illegal.

"I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property"​

You literally changed what you said because you're an imbecile who doesn't know what the **** you're talking about.

Yes, I would use any means necessary to defend the property of a neighbor or a friend that had a business, you *****. I know a gutless coward like yourself would curl up in the fetal position at the thought of conflict unless you were in a mob, faun, the lil perv.

And in Wisconsin, you would go to prison for murder if you restored to lethal force to protect your neighbor's property. You really are a ******* moron, dickless delusional dale.

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

Care to make a wager on that, lil faun, the perv????

I don't bet with conservatives because I've seen them refuse to pay up when the lose 100% of the time. Even worse, you're a crazed, maniacal lunatic who would absolutely not pay up. Shit, you even bailed on starting a thread in the bullring on a topic of my choosing after challenging me on exactly that. Sadly for you, you're dickless.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.

He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.

And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.

 

[westwall]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

But the one that had the Glock pistol that later proclaimed that he regretted that he couldn't empty his clip into Rittenhouse that didn't even live in that city is in the clear? The dumb ass even claimed that he wanted to kill Rittenhouse. Commie pussies like yourself ALWAYS play the victim card and excuse the behavior of the bottom feeding, angry commie mobs and then blame Trump for it. Enough is enough and those of your ilk only got a thimble size taste of what is coming if they don't stop the shit. Ripping off people's hats, assaulting them in public because you suspect them of being a Trump supporter is gonna stop and if it means stacking up leftard corpses like cord wood? So be it.....

Your little hero is going to prison. He committed murder and now can't claim self defense because he not only used excessive force, but he himself was in the commission of a crime.

No, he isn't. He is going to walk. And your infantile fantasies are going to be for naught.

 

[airplanemechanic]

All liberals have are false narratives.

I guess they figure if you lie about him carrying the gun over state lines enough, someone might believe it.

 

[katsteve2012]

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Yeah man, how could you possibly know what black people are encouraged by? No one knows a thing about these strange alien creatures.

Unless one is claiming to be psychic, how would they know what "encourages" an entire demographic of people about anything?

The majority of black men that I know don't give a damn about Rittenhouse.

And certainly would not put themselves in harms way over what others think of him being guilty or innocent.
Either way, he is in custody and will be tried.

Democrats claim to know what black people want every election. Are you really this stupid? Black people are no more of a mystery than any other group you ******* racist.

As if EVERY politician doesn't claim to know what EVERYONE wants?

How long have you been voting, you ******* retard?
I didn't say black people are a "mystery" but when someone makes a statement regarding what would "encourage" an entire group of people to "get themselves killed", that is an ignorant generalization, you dumbass.

At no point did he say anything about an "entire group". You are dumb and racist. You think black people are somehow different from every other group and that no one could possibly know anything about them. Its absurd.

ROFLMAO!
Now I have to define what he actually stated in order to educate you?

He very clearly stated that " telling black men that Rittenhouse is innocent is encouraging them to get themselves killed".

That is a generalization that is not factual. Calling it out is not racist, you fool.

I have some rocks in my backyard that are more intelligent than you are.

At what point did he say all black men? Quit acting like black people are aliens that no one knows anything about. Its racist and ******* stupid.

Being logical is not racist, you moron.

No, he did not say "ALL"....and he did not "SOME" either.

Did he?

Stating what encourages black men(in general) to get themselves killed is an ignorant assumption.


Every black man that I know would only get themselves killed in defense of their family. Certainly not over the innocence or guilt of some gun toting underage vigilante.

I did not claim that every black man would be swayed by her encouragement.

The ones that are, will be putting themselves in danger and some of them will be dying.


You know, someone convinced that actual rioters that attacked rittenhouse of the same stupid shit. And two of them died for it. The people that encouraged them, did the same thing, except "white".

YOu do realize that, don't you?

What I "realize" is that I

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Yeah man, how could you possibly know what black people are encouraged by? No one knows a thing about these strange alien creatures.

Unless one is claiming to be psychic, how would they know what "encourages" an entire demographic of people about anything?

The majority of black men that I know don't give a damn about Rittenhouse.

And certainly would not put themselves in harms way over what others think of him being guilty or innocent.
Either way, he is in custody and will be tried.

Democrats claim to know what black people want every election. Are you really this stupid? Black people are no more of a mystery than any other group you ******* racist.

As if EVERY politician doesn't claim to know what EVERYONE wants?

How long have you been voting, you ******* retard?
I didn't say black people are a "mystery" but when someone makes a statement regarding what would "encourage" an entire group of people to "get themselves killed", that is an ignorant generalization, you dumbass.

At no point did he say anything about an "entire group". You are dumb and racist. You think black people are somehow different from every other group and that no one could possibly know anything about them. Its absurd.

ROFLMAO!
Now I have to define what he actually stated in order to educate you?

He very clearly stated that " telling black men that Rittenhouse is innocent is encouraging them to get themselves killed".

That is a generalization that is not factual. Calling it out is not racist, you fool.

I have some rocks in my backyard that are more intelligent than you are.

At what point did he say all black men? Quit acting like black people are aliens that no one knows anything about. Its racist and ******* stupid.

Being logical is not racist, you moron.

No, he did not say "ALL"....and he did not "SOME" either.

Did he?

Stating what encourages black men(in general) to get themselves killed is an ignorant assumption.


Every black man that I know would only get themselves killed in defense of their family. Certainly not over the innocence or guilt of some gun toting underage vigilante.

I did not claim that every black man would be swayed by her encouragement.

The ones that are, will be putting themselves in danger and some of them will be dying.


You know, someone convinced that actual rioters that attacked rittenhouse of the same stupid shit. And two of them died for it. The people that encouraged them, did the same thing, except "white".

YOu do realize that, don't you?

What I "realize" is that it appears that none of the vigilantes victims were black. And what I also "realize" is that all of the facts so far is that there is nothing that supports the notion that black men in general would be put in a position of "getting themselves killed" over the g

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Yeah man, how could you possibly know what black people are encouraged by? No one knows a thing about these strange alien creatures.

Unless one is claiming to be psychic, how would they know what "encourages" an entire demographic of people about anything?

The majority of black men that I know don't give a damn about Rittenhouse.

And certainly would not put themselves in harms way over what others think of him being guilty or innocent.
Either way, he is in custody and will be tried.

Democrats claim to know what black people want every election. Are you really this stupid? Black people are no more of a mystery than any other group you ******* racist.

As if EVERY politician doesn't claim to know what EVERYONE wants?

How long have you been voting, you ******* retard?
I didn't say black people are a "mystery" but when someone makes a statement regarding what would "encourage" an entire group of people to "get themselves killed", that is an ignorant generalization, you dumbass.

At no point did he say anything about an "entire group". You are dumb and racist. You think black people are somehow different from every other group and that no one could possibly know anything about them. Its absurd.

ROFLMAO!
Now I have to define what he actually stated in order to educate you?

He very clearly stated that " telling black men that Rittenhouse is innocent is encouraging them to get themselves killed".

That is a generalization that is not factual. Calling it out is not racist, you fool.

I have some rocks in my backyard that are more intelligent than you are.

At what point did he say all black men? Quit acting like black people are aliens that no one knows anything about. Its racist and ******* stupid.

Being logical is not racist, you moron.

No, he did not say "ALL"....and he did not "SOME" either.

Did he?

Stating what encourages black men(in general) to get themselves killed is an ignorant assumption.


Every black man that I know would only get themselves killed in defense of their family. Certainly not over the innocence or guilt of some gun toting underage vigilante.

I did not claim that every black man would be swayed by her encouragement.

The ones that are, will be putting themselves in danger and some of them will be dying.


You know, someone convinced that actual rioters that attacked rittenhouse of the same stupid shit. And two of them died for it. The people that encouraged them, did the same thing, except "white".

YOu do realize that, don't you?

What I "realize" is that apparently the shooter did not kill any black people.

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Yeah man, how could you possibly know what black people are encouraged by? No one knows a thing about these strange alien creatures.

Unless one is claiming to be psychic, how would they know what "encourages" an entire demographic of people about anything?

The majority of black men that I know don't give a damn about Rittenhouse.

And certainly would not put themselves in harms way over what others think of him being guilty or innocent.
Either way, he is in custody and will be tried.

Democrats claim to know what black people want every election. Are you really this stupid? Black people are no more of a mystery than any other group you ******* racist.

As if EVERY politician doesn't claim to know what EVERYONE wants?

How long have you been voting, you ******* retard?
I didn't say black people are a "mystery" but when someone makes a statement regarding what would "encourage" an entire group of people to "get themselves killed", that is an ignorant generalization, you dumbass.

At no point did he say anything about an "entire group". You are dumb and racist. You think black people are somehow different from every other group and that no one could possibly know anything about them. Its absurd.

ROFLMAO!
Now I have to define what he actually stated in order to educate you?

He very clearly stated that " telling black men that Rittenhouse is innocent is encouraging them to get themselves killed".

That is a generalization that is not factual. Calling it out is not racist, you fool.

I have some rocks in my backyard that are more intelligent than you are.

At what point did he say all black men? Quit acting like black people are aliens that no one knows anything about. Its racist and ******* stupid.

Being logical is not racist, you moron.

No, he did not say "ALL"....and he did not "SOME" either.

Did he?

Stating what encourages black men(in general) to get themselves killed is an ignorant assumption.


Every black man that I know would only get themselves killed in defense of their family. Certainly not over the innocence or guilt of some gun toting underage vigilante.

I did not claim that every black man would be swayed by her encouragement.

The ones that are, will be putting themselves in danger and some of them will be dying.


You know, someone convinced that actual rioters that attacked rittenhouse of the same stupid shit. And two of them died for it. The people that encouraged them, did the same thing, except "white".

YOu do realize that, don't you?

What I "realize", is that you "generallybased on reports so far, the shooter did not kill any black people.

What I also "realize" is that I dont know a single black person who is vested in this incident to the degree that they would put themselves in harms way over it.

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You do realize that, r

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Rittenhouse was a self-styled vigilante who murdered two unarmed protesters. That's what matters legally. Rittenhouse crossed state lines with an illegal weapon.

You are retarded. IT was clearly self defense.


When you tell black men that rittenhouse was in the wrong, you are encouraging them to get themselves killed.

You do realize that, right?

Just out of curiosity, How would you know what black men are "encouraged by"?

Yeah man, how could you possibly know what black people are encouraged by? No one knows a thing about these strange alien creatures.

Unless one is claiming to be psychic, how would they know what "encourages" an entire demographic of people about anything?

The majority of black men that I know don't give a damn about Rittenhouse.

And certainly would not put themselves in harms way over what others think of him being guilty or innocent.
Either way, he is in custody and will be tried.

Democrats claim to know what black people want every election. Are you really this stupid? Black people are no more of a mystery than any other group you ******* racist.

As if EVERY politician doesn't claim to know what EVERYONE wants?

How long have you been voting, you ******* retard?
I didn't say black people are a "mystery" but when someone makes a statement regarding what would "encourage" an entire group of people to "get themselves killed", that is an ignorant generalization, you dumbass.

At no point did he say anything about an "entire group". You are dumb and racist. You think black people are somehow different from every other group and that no one could possibly know anything about them. Its absurd.

ROFLMAO!
Now I have to define what he actually stated in order to educate you?

He very clearly stated that " telling black men that Rittenhouse is innocent is encouraging them to get themselves killed".

That is a generalization that is not factual. Calling it out is not racist, you fool.

I have some rocks in my backyard that are more intelligent than you are.

At what point did he say all black men? Quit acting like black people are aliens that no one knows anything about. Its racist and ******* stupid.

Being logical is not racist, you moron.

No, he did not say "ALL"....and he did not "SOME" either.

Did he?

Stating what encourages black men(in general) to get themselves killed is an ignorant assumption.


Every black man that I know would only get themselves killed in defense of their family. Certainly not over the innocence or guilt of some gun toting underage vigilante.

I did not claim that every black man would be swayed by her encouragement.

The ones that are, will be putting themselves in danger and some of them will be dying.


You know, someone convinced that actual rioters that attacked rittenhouse of the same stupid shit. And two of them died for it. The people that encouraged them, did the same thing, except "white".

YOu do realize that, don't you?

What I "realize" is that all of the facts are not in yet on this case. But indications are that the shooters victims were not black.
And what I also "realize" is that there is not a single black person that I know who is vestedI enough in this incident that they would "get themselves killed over it".

 

[Faun]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

He was not engaged in criminal activity. He was putting out fires that looters had set.

He was able to own the gun, that's been proven. Wisconsin has liberal gun laws when it comes to kids and hunting.

And him simply having that gun does not mean you can beat the shit out of the kid without consequence.

He was not allowed to be in possession of that gun since he wasn't hunting.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

He shot the first guy in the head when that guy crept up behind him and tried to take his rifle. He then called 911. THEN you thug Biden voters started chasing him down the street.

We've been over this many times. You don't know what the **** you are talking about.

Even if true - he should have been disarmed. Civilians should not be packing guns, let alone assault rifles, at protests for racial justice.

he should have been disarmed

Why? No more disarming. It makes people feel too secure in their criminal behavior, but an armed society is a polite one.

Civilians should not be packing guns

So, only the benevolent government should be packing guns?

**** THAT SHIT. If you want me to disarm, government first. Otherwise, machine guns or Valhalla.

let alone assault rifles

An assault rifle is a weapon of medium caliber with selective fire. He did not have a full-auto or burst-fire weapon, therefore NOT an assault rifle. It is currently "illegal" (based on the unconstitutional Hughes Amendment) to purchase an assault rifle manufactured after 1986. Those weapons are now very expensive ($100,000 or higher). It is still legal to own an assault rifle, if you have the money. The bullshit restriction is an unconstitutional abuse of limited federal power and should be struck down.

Now, thank you for admitting that the goal of the left is to DISARM. Kindly take your gun-grabbing ass the **** out of here.

 

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

In the eyes of the law the weapon in the car is still in his possession.

So you are saying if someone else has a gun with them in the car, he should not be in the car ?

So kids can't travel with their dads to the shooting range ?

 

[MadChemist]

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

He went across state lines. I believe the Never said he was guilty and I was kidding anyway. I forgot That you’re a moron that takes everything literally

Citizens were trying to PREVENT the terrorist Rittenhouse from escaping after just blowing off an innocent American's head clean off his shoulders in public. Then he shot a few and killed one more American patriot trying to do their civic duty and keep other Americans safe.

Rittenhouse is TOAST, that little bastard will FRY for this.

LOL


Trump will pardon him and you’re going to lose your racist mind.

LOLOL

^^^ ShortBus thinks Impeached Trump can pardon folks convicted by states.

At least you agree the teen murderer is guilty.

It was a joke. Christ, you’re stupid.

Poor, ShortBus, so farklemt, he responds twice in one post. Moron, crossing a state line isn't a federal crime. Impeached Trump can't pardon him.

It's like this, lil faun, the perv, I would stand in defense of someone that needed protection against leftist thugs that had the intent of destroying or vandalizing property and I would be armed to the hilt. Once they are on private property and do need heed the warning? I wouldn't hesitate to shoot their sorry asses and that goes double if I was being threatened by a cowardly mob like ANTIFA and BLM. They will not be marching down the street of my suburb because in Texas, we don't put up with that shit and we believe in the right to protect ourselves and our property. Commie ***** like yourself are learning the hard way that we have tired of their shit and have lost the patience that those of your ilk viewed as weakness.

If these commie ***** are so ******* outraged and so ******* tough, why aren't they taking their angst out on "da gubermint" instead of destroying private property and attacking people that had nothing to do with the death of their heroes like George "light up a blunt" Floyd? Could it be because the police are armed? Rittenhouse isn't going to do any hard time and you can bank on that one.

(snicker)

Do that in Wisconsin, dickless delusional dale, and you will [go to] prison. Using lethal force in that state to protect someone else's property is illegal.

[Facepalm]

 

[MadChemist]

Did my post not say it was illegal ?

I didn't say it was, I'm simply posing the question.

Was it legal for the Rittenhouse terrorist, to carry arms in public?

Then why repeat the question ?

It was NOT legal for him to have the gun as stated in the artcile.....although some in that article argue it might have been.

The article says it is a class A misdemeansor.

That makes it a crime.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others​

(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

So, for because of a misdemeanor, you think that means he should have let the mob take away his rifle and beat him to death and since he did not, he should spend the rest of his life in prison?

That is a morally indefensible position. YOu are literally evil.

This, btw, is a good reason to oppose gun control shit. Because you end up in a situation where some innocent person is facing life in prison, because of a technicality.


Only a lawyer or a soulless monster could think that is what society should do.


Which are you? NOt that it matters. Either way, you are vile beyond measure.

It's the law. Deal with it.

Currently, the assumption has to be that he was committing a crime by carrying the weapon. A class A misdemeanor.

That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position.

If Kyle was in his car and being attacked, with a gun in the car (that was not "in his possession"). He could utilize it.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Clearly, the guys who got shot were putting themselves in harms way.

He had not attacked anyone and he was being attacked.

"That does not preclude a self defense position. Otherwise his attorney would not be taking that position."

Actually, that does remove a case for self defense.

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others​

(1m)(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:​

1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity...​

And his lawyer hasn't stated otherwise. His lawyer said he's planning on challenging the constitutionality of a law that denies a 17 year old the right to bear arms.

Yes he has.

He has not completely linked his position to the constitutionality of the law.

Rittenhouse’s Lawyer Says 17-Year-Old Acted ‘100 Percent’ in ‘Self-Defense,’ Was Legally Carrying Rifle | National Review

Rittenhouse carried an AR-15-style rifle and was attempting to protect businesses from being looted or set ablaze by demonstrators, his lawyer said.

www.nationalreview.com

“This is 100 percent self-defense,” Rittenhouse’s lawyer John Pierce said on Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tonight. “The only individuals Kyle shot were the three individuals attacking him and putting him at risk. This is a 17-year-old kid, this is amazing what he did.”

The article then goes on to say that the lawyer will challenge the constitutionality of the law.

But there is nothing to indicate that is what his entire case hinges on.