OPINION: Criminal Law 101 - Self-Defense (Rittenhouse versus McMichaels)

Good thing he brought that gun? Better thing would have been had he kept his underage ass at home.

I can tell you what would have happened to him. Not a damn thing because boys like him without their piece, stay in the background and would never even consider attempting to confront anyone without a deadly weapon.



Better even more would have been for your pedo pal and his asshole friends to stay home.
 
Nope. Black bought it for Kyle with Kyle’s money for Kyle’s use.

That’s illegal.

The “loan” arrangement makes no sense. It wasn’t a loan. Kyle already paid for the gun. The sale would be just for appearances.
Isn't that what the ATF considers a "straw purchase? When someone makes a purchase for someone else who cannot legally make the purchase themself?
 
Rittenhouse traveled to another state with the intent of killing those engaged in peaceful, lawful protest.
Oh STFU! You are so full of shit.

Setting fires, threatening to cut people's hearts out, spraying people in the face with pepper spray, bashing cars with bats (seen in court videos), chasing people, hitting them with skateboards, stomping them, attempting to kill people...and you call these pieces of violent fecal matter people 'involved in peaceful, lawful protest'?

And you have no way of knowing what Kyle was thinking, what his intent was, etc...
 
The reason you are wrong is that the police were the original guilty party.
What policeman or policemen was guilty of doing what, exactly?

And how would that justify damaging or burning down homes and businesses that are not even owned by those policemen?

You're a fucking nutjob :cuckoo:
 
Kyle was doing that neighborhood a favor. Doing something the town wouldnt. The pedos and pinkos didnt like that.
Good thing he brought that gun or no telling what would have happened to him.
I am glad he killed those Rioters. Should get a Bernie Goetz Award.
 
I don't know how it can be any more clear-cut than this. Kyle could not lawfully possess a weapon in the state of Illinois where he lived and his journey to Wisconsin originated, nor could he lawfully possess a weapon at his destination.

None of the exceptions regarding "under adult supervision" apply because he was not in training, target practice, etc.

1636711334941.png
 
He knew he would be in danger because those people were fucking psychos burning shit down and no telling what else.
He defended that town from those fuckers. I can appreciate that.
Plus he killed a kid fucker. Win win

He also knew the Kenosha police shot an unarmed black man in the back 7 times in broad daylight.
 
The reason you are wrong is that the police were the original guilty party.
The continual abuse of rights by the police made the arson and looting NECESSARY.
So then Kyle's motives were confused at best, since he seems to have been siding with those who guilty of abusing rights.

And you seem to have forgotten the 1967 riots about the very same thing, police abuse of rights.
The riots were right then and they are still right now.

What is a shame is when there were no riots over the illegal invasion of Iraq, unlike the riots over the illegal invasion of Vietnam.
You are blaming the cops for the antifa and BLM being violent druggy criminal animals attacking, burning, and looting? I agree the cops should have been the ones on the front line shooting the criminals burning and looting, but what Kyle did wasn't wrong either.
 
I don't know how it can be any more clear-cut than this. Kyle could not lawfully possess a weapon in the state of Illinois where he lived and his journey to Wisconsin originated, nor could he lawfully possess a weapon at his destination.

None of the exceptions regarding "under adult supervision" apply because he was not in training, target practice, etc.

View attachment 563117
So give him a misdemeanor citation for having a gun while 17 if that is the case, and drop the rest of these stupid charges. He had every right to defend himself and shoot the damn criminals that he did.
 
I don't understand why "people" don't understand that being 17 years old does not mean that the 17 year old can not use a gun to shoot criminals trying to do him harm.

I also don't understand why "people" don't understand that
Arbery was a druggy and convicted criminal------with no job out casing new build and other areas for theft. I don't understand why idiots don't understand that he was on THC but hadn't taken his prescribed medication to control his violence. Arbery was snagged doing what he habitual did which was commit crimes and then savagely attack those trying to stop him from doing his crimes----he was indeed a rat---who btw---ran toward the mcMichaels, tried to steal their gun............
I agree with you except for 1 minor point. It's not true that Arbery didn't have a job. His mother had threatened to boot him out of her house if he didn't get a job, so he started washing trucks at his father's truck wash business.

Like Rosenbaum, Arbery was a mentally ill habitual criminal who was off his meds and violently attacked a witness to his crime in a desperate attempt to avoid going back to jail.

What I wonder is why lately so many of these LWNJ criminal moronic moonbat gun-grabbers think they can just attack good men and steal a gun right out of their hands without getting shot.

Is it a common Hollywood movie fantasy thing? Or perhaps a video game theme or something? :dunno:

Who knows? Perhaps Rosenbaum wanted to be shot dead. After all, he had recently attempted suicide at a local McDonalds. The mental hospital booted him out, his fiancee booted him out, he was homeless, had an arrest warrant on him and is seen on video repeatedly screaming "Shoot me, N!gger!"
 
Last edited:
Isn't that what the ATF considers a "straw purchase? When someone makes a purchase for someone else who cannot legally make the purchase themself?
Not among family or friends...
A straw purchaser is someone who goes to Virginia to buy a bunch of guns and then takes them to Manhattan to sell them out of his trunk to those who know he is selling guns.
 
I don't know how it can be any more clear-cut than this. Kyle could not lawfully possess a weapon in the state of Illinois where he lived and his journey to Wisconsin originated, nor could he lawfully possess a weapon at his destination.

None of the exceptions regarding "under adult supervision" apply because he was not in training, target practice, etc.

View attachment 563117
Last section actually applies...he was 17...he could possess the gun he had. Couldn't buy it but he can possess it.

He frequented a commercial gun range and that was what the gun range rules more clearly stated...and the police officers who frequented the place said.
 
The OPTICS of the GA case is what will make the difference. 3 white men in a truck chasing down a black man.

That's not what the video shows. The video shows Arbery chasing down Travis and trying to steal his shotgun.

That's why Travis was not arrested at the scene. The police watched the video evidence and saw that it was an open and shut case of self-defense.

Those guys were arrested much later and prosecuted, not because they committed any actual crime, but because the corrupt prosecutor thought he could get some personal political gain by taking them prisoner.

They are clearly not actual criminals, they are political prisoners.
 
That's not what the video shows. The video shows Arbery chasing down Travis and trying to steal his shotgun.

That's why Travis was not arrested at the scene. The police watched the video evidence and saw that it was an open and shut case of self-defense.

Those guys were arrested much later and prosecuted, not because they committed any actual crime, but because the corrupt prosecutor thought he could get some personal political gain by taking them prisoner.

They are clearly not actual criminals, they are political prisoners.

You obviously haven't seen the video.. They rode him down and caught him between vehicles.

 

Forum List

Back
Top