Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
LOLOLRunning up behind him, pointing a gun in Rittenhouse's general direction.....almost fatally stupid.
Make your point.I think I'm allowed. What do you think?
LOLOL
I like how you switched your position from he was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse to he was pointing a gun in his general direction. Which, by the way, you haven't even shown that. One of the few images I saw where it was discernable where his gun was aimed -- it was pointing away from Rittenhouse.
Which brings us back to... if Grosskreutz's intention was to kill Rittenhouse, he would have taken a shot at him instead of trying to rush him.
Make your point.
In all cases? No I didn't. I was clear. Because I have to be clear, due to time-wasting trolls.You said you can't claim self-defense if you're committing a crime.
In all cases? No I didn't.
But in the initial coverage I was to understand that widdle Kyle was given the weapon by a local friend...so it wasn't even his personal weapon or that of a local relative. Looks like his lawyers are getting desperate.
Hunting laws allowed Kyle Rittenhouse to carry weapon, lawyers say
Prosecutor Thomas Binger dismissed the defense argument, saying Rittenhouse's attorneys should tell a jury he was "hunting on the streets" in Kenosha.www.nbcnews.com
"Attorneys for Kyle Rittenhouse, who is charged with fatally shooting two people during a protest in Wisconsin last year, argued that hunting laws allowed him to carry the assault-style weapon used during the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under age 18 from being armed, but Rittenhouse’s attorneys argued that state laws only forbid minors to carry short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger responded that if the defense wants to tell a jury that Rittenhouse was only hunting, it should do so. “They can submit evidence that the defendant had a certificate to hunt and he was engaged in legal hunting on the streets of Kenosha that night,” Binger said Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder denied a defense motion to drop the weapons possession charge."
It is quite possible the defense team is just trolling the prosecutors and if so, that is pretty brilliant...this would also give potential jurors a nice laugh to lighten the mood...This also shows that the defense team is pretty confident that Rittenhouse will be found innocent...
The defense claim is that Kyle was allowed to carry an AR-15 styled rifle across state lines to protect businesses there from rioters; because all he was really doing was just hunting....and according to Wisconsin law; this is allowed..although Kyle is not a resident of Wisconsin nor has a hunting license there; however as long as he believed he was hunting, he should be ok...That will help clear him from any weapons possession charge the prosecutors charged him with.
No, I believe right thinking folk are looking forward to the prosecution and sentencing of another alt right POS with delusions of living a live version of The Turner Diaries. Makes law enforcement's job that much easier.You looking forward to looting and burning a black-owned store after the verdict?
Please show the reading audience the legal statute where home owners in a gated community have the right to brandish fire arms at protesters MARCHING THROUGH THE STREET WHILE NOT CROSSING THEIR PROPERTY LINE. We'll wait.They were trespassers into a gated community. They were screaming threats. They were activists. Not a single one should have left alive but they were lucky.
How can anyone agree since that's not seen at any point despite the entire event being caught on camera?I didn't want you to keep whining.
I think he definitely pointed his gun at Rittenhouse.
You don't have to agree.
How can anyone agree since that's not seen at any point despite the entire event being caught on camera?
It was Rittenhouse's weapon. He paid a friend to purchase it for him since he couldn't legally purchase it himself.But in the initial coverage I was to understand that widdle Kyle was given the weapon by a local friend...so it wasn't even his personal weapon or that of a local relative. Looks like his lawyers are getting desperate.
Well it matters that you said he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse yet you have no proof of that.Swinging a gun toward him.....doesn't matter if he completed the motion.
Well it matters that you said he pointed a gun at Rittenhouse yet you have no proof of that.
They might be but again, we were actually discussing Grosskreutz's intent which appears was not to kill Rittenhouse as evidenced by him not taking a shot when he had the chance; but instead, rushing at him.Pointed at him, started to point it at him, swung it toward him.
Any or all of them are good reasons to shoot the "medic".
They might be but again, we were actually discussing Grosskreutz's intent which appears was not to kill Rittenhouse as evidenced by him not taking a shot when he had the chance; but instead, rushing at him.
Aren't you a nice piece of arrogant shit. As if you're an expert on anything.Refute a single thing I said or shut THE ENTIRE FUCK UP
He was probably high and armed AGAIN...unable to think and move as fast as he wanted as he attempted to pull out his gun (that wasn't supposed to have after already being arrested once for being under the influence and armed.)LOLOL
I like how you switched your position from he was pointing a gun at Rittenhouse to he was pointing a gun in his general direction. Which, by the way, you haven't even shown that. One of the few images I saw where it was discernable where his gun was aimed -- it was pointing away from Rittenhouse.
Which brings us back to... if Grosskreutz's intention was to kill Rittenhouse, he would have taken a shot at him instead of trying to rush him.
www.wisconsinrightnow.com
He traveled from another state with a gun to get involved in a protest.
