Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[EvilCat Breath]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.

The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.

Ohhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?

Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.

 

[K9Buck]

Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".

Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.

Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.

Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.

1) the kid lives in Illinois.​

2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;​

3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;​

4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;​

5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.​

He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.

My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?

And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.

I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.

1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree

None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.

Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.

C'mon man.

You go get an assault gun --- which you don't have to do.
You take it, on purpose, to a site of civil unrest --- which again, is a place you didn't have to go.
I mean do the friggin' math. If I don a baseball cap and glove and walk toward the stadium an hour before game time, is it not a logical assumption that I'm going to the game? This kid went to another state. With an illegal gun. To a place known to be in chaos -- which serves as opportunity to get away with it. As I said it's far more credible to suggest that James Fields did not go to Charlottesville with the specific intent of running people down in the street.

I don't know anything about epinephrine (sp?) but again firearms have one and only one purpose. What would be the point of walking around with one without that purpose in mind? It would be extra baggage. Extra weight too. Let alone an illegal one.

I carry for instance my wallet everywhere, not just to have the documentation to drive but because I know I'll use it in myriad ways. On the other hand I rarely carry my phone unless I'm specifically going to need to call somebody.

In other words, only violent leftists should be on the streets and conservatives must stay home, right?

 

[K9Buck]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered anyone.

So he was obligated to allow himself to beaten to death, right?

There's no evidence he was going to be beaten to death had he not shot anyone.

You mean besides the three guys that all assaulted him or tried to assault him. How about this? If you don't want to get shot, don't assault others. Is that fair?

 

[Faun]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.

The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.

Ohhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?

Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.

LOL

What the fuck were you watching?

Rittenhouse never fell down when shooting Rosenbaum.

There were not "shots fired" by Ziminski just before Rittenhouse fired his gun. There was one shot fired and it was fired into the air.

It was not caught on surveillance video; but by onlookers with phones or cameras.

Rosenbaum did not try to kick Rittenhouse.

If you've watched the videos and that ^^^ is what you saw, you're delirious.

And again, Rosenbaum fell face down after being shot. The 4th shot hit him in the back. That's not self-defense.

 

[Faun]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered anyone.

So he was obligated to allow himself to beaten to death, right?

There's no evidence he was going to be beaten to death had he not shot anyone.

You mean besides the three guys that all assaulted him or tried to assault him. How about this? If you don't want to get shot, don't assault others. Is that fair?

They went after him only because he had already shot someone. There is no evidence they would have tried to disarm him had he not shot Rosenbaum.

 

[Turtlesoup]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

His inability to control his weapon is not an excuse.

You are clueless


That boy controlled his weapon perfectly------something that most adult men and women couldn't even come close to doing. His shots all hit their target----he was able to keep his cool as the horde of violent dems tried to kill him one after another----and he was able to successful stop the violent dems from killing him. AND was still able to not shoot the one would be attacker who backed off after having the gun pointed at him. He is the perfect self defense survival story and I guarantee that an assortment of law enforcement and military groups would be very very happy to have him. The boy did what very few people ever could--------------

 

[Turtlesoup]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.

The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.

Ohhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?

Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.

LOL

What the fuck were you watching?

Rittenhouse never fell down when shooting Rosenbaum.

There were not "shots fired" by Ziminski just before Rittenhouse fired his gun. There was one shot fired and it was fired into the air.

It was not caught on surveillance video; but by onlookers with phones or cameras.

Rosenbaum did not try to kick Rittenhouse.

If you've watched the videos and that ^^^ is what you saw, you're delirious.

And again, Rosenbaum fell face down after being shot. The 4th shot hit him in the back. That's not self-defense.

Actually MULTIPLE SHOTS were recorded being fired before Rittenhouse fired his weapon pumpkin--just an fyi. Doesn't matter btw, as the boy was being chased by the mob of violent dem felons who were firing shots so he knew they were armed and out to kill him. He did as any sane person would have.....

 

[Faun]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

His inability to control his weapon is not an excuse.

You are clueless


That boy controlled his weapon perfectly------something that most adult men and women couldn't even come close to doing. His shots all hit their target----he was able to keep his cool as the horde of violent dems tried to kill him one after another----and he was able to successful stop the violent dems from killing him. AND was still able to not shoot the one would be attacker who backed off after having the gun pointed at him. He is the perfect self defense survival story and I guarantee that an assortment of law enforcement and military groups would be very very happy to have him. The boy did what very few people ever could--------------

You make yourself sound batshit insane. First you claim he controlled his weapon perfectly, but then you claim his shots all hit their targets.

Well that's provably false. He fired 2 shots that missed his targets and who knows what they did hit. You only serve to prove yourself wrong when you post such obvious lies. And you also claim he shot Rosenbaum in the back because of adrenaline. Well that is not controlling his gun.

 

[Faun]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

Rosenbaum was holding the rifle trying get it away from Rittenhouse. I really don't see any way that rifle shot him in the back.

The first shot caused Rosenbaum to begin falling. The next two shots hit him. He fell face down and was shot in the back with a fourth shot. That's how.

Ohhh so you are saying that Rittenhouse got up from where he had fallen, circled around and shot Rosenbaum in the back. Why doesn't the surveillance film that shows the whole thing show that part?

Did you see the film? Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum is chasing him. Gunshots ring out. Now we know that those shots were fired by Ziminski. No one knew that at the time. Rittenhouse turns and sees Rosenbaum who throws something. It turns out to be an empty plastic bag. Rittenhouse stumbles and falls. Rosenbaum goes to kick him and misses. Rittenhouse is now on his back. Rosenbaum grabs the rifle and tries to wrest it away. Rittenhouse pulls the trigger. Dead Rosenbaum. I have seen that video 20 times and can't see how he was shot in the back. I sure would like to see the forensics and the ballistics. There was a lot of gunfire that night.

LOL

What the fuck were you watching?

Rittenhouse never fell down when shooting Rosenbaum.

There were not "shots fired" by Ziminski just before Rittenhouse fired his gun. There was one shot fired and it was fired into the air.

It was not caught on surveillance video; but by onlookers with phones or cameras.

Rosenbaum did not try to kick Rittenhouse.

If you've watched the videos and that ^^^ is what you saw, you're delirious.

And again, Rosenbaum fell face down after being shot. The 4th shot hit him in the back. That's not self-defense.

Actually MULTIPLE SHOTS were recorded being fired before Rittenhouse fired his weapon pumpkin--just an fyi. Doesn't matter btw, as the boy was being chased by the mob of violent dem felons who were firing shots so he knew they were armed and out to kill him. He did as any sane person would have.....

Nope, only one shot is seen and heard prior to Rittenhouse opening fire in the video where Rosenbaum is chasing him. Of course, I'm telling this to the person who doesn't know some of Rittenhouse’s shots missed his targets.

 

[Muhammed]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

He was under adult supervision.

 

[Faun]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

 

[Turtlesoup]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

His inability to control his weapon is not an excuse.

You are clueless


That boy controlled his weapon perfectly------something that most adult men and women couldn't even come close to doing. His shots all hit their target----he was able to keep his cool as the horde of violent dems tried to kill him one after another----and he was able to successful stop the violent dems from killing him. AND was still able to not shoot the one would be attacker who backed off after having the gun pointed at him. He is the perfect self defense survival story and I guarantee that an assortment of law enforcement and military groups would be very very happy to have him. The boy did what very few people ever could--------------

You make yourself sound batshit insane. First you claim he controlled his weapon perfectly, but then you claim his shots all hit their targets.

Well that's provably false. He fired 2 shots that missed his targets and who knows what they did hit. You only serve to prove yourself wrong when you post such obvious lies. And you also claim he shot Rosenbaum in the back because of adrenaline. Well that is not controlling his gun.

ThaT is controlling your gun fool. Adrenaline takes over causing humans (non-psychopaths anyways) to press on the trigger a bit longer than is necessary...Humans are not machines---so being able to control the trigger down to a nanosecond especially under threat of violence and fear which causes adrenaline is impossible. Kyle shot the pedophile who evidently turned only after Kyles first bullets hit him (if the fourth bullet was kyles--I havent seen the ballistic reports for this weapons so I have some question but I digress)... Kyle did perfectly for a humane-----and he even did perfectly for a machine since.......

If you shoot someone----it is best to kill them as per my boyfriend cops from way back when I was young and single. It prevents them from attacking again which they often do especially when doped up on drugs and/or crazy like these attacking felons are. The RULE is that you shoot till the attacker is completely immobilized which is usually when DEAD. This also has the added benefit from keeping such violent criminals like the pedophile and the others from attacking others saving society and their would be other victims. Kyle killing just the pedo---likely saved several other younger boys from his attacks. But yet immoral dipshit foreign trolls and dem communists would condemn kyle for saving himself and others. Kyle deserves a medal-----

Kyle did not hit anyone that wasn't attacking him----he was able to shoot all three of his targets to stop the mob of dozens of violent dems from killing him. He had enough controll---to not shoot the would be 4th attacker who backed off when kyle pointed his gun at him. This is damn fine shooting-----------He couldn't have and nobody else could have done a better job of defending themselves than Kyle did that night.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.

 

[Faun]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

You have never fired an automatic weapon, or been in a life or death situation...........


Kyle fired his weapon at the crazy pedo trying to kill him with the pedo turning away only after being shot which landed the last bullet more toward his back. Automatic weapons fire QUICKLY.......and you ADRENLINE takes over causing the shooter/victim to keep pressing the weapons.........that and cops have said for years that if shoot someone keep shooting till they are completely down. The pedo should have ended his attack before being shot.

His inability to control his weapon is not an excuse.

You are clueless


That boy controlled his weapon perfectly------something that most adult men and women couldn't even come close to doing. His shots all hit their target----he was able to keep his cool as the horde of violent dems tried to kill him one after another----and he was able to successful stop the violent dems from killing him. AND was still able to not shoot the one would be attacker who backed off after having the gun pointed at him. He is the perfect self defense survival story and I guarantee that an assortment of law enforcement and military groups would be very very happy to have him. The boy did what very few people ever could--------------

You make yourself sound batshit insane. First you claim he controlled his weapon perfectly, but then you claim his shots all hit their targets.

Well that's provably false. He fired 2 shots that missed his targets and who knows what they did hit. You only serve to prove yourself wrong when you post such obvious lies. And you also claim he shot Rosenbaum in the back because of adrenaline. Well that is not controlling his gun.

ThaT is controlling your gun fool. Adrenaline takes over causing humans (non-psychopaths anyways) to press on the trigger a bit longer than is necessary...Humans are not machines---so being able to control the trigger down to a nanosecond especially under threat of violence and fear which causes adrenaline is impossible. Kyle shot the pedophile who evidently turned only after Kyles first bullets hit him (if the fourth bullet was kyles--I havent seen the ballistic reports for this weapons so I have some question but I digress)... Kyle did perfectly for a humane-----and he even did perfectly for a machine since.......

If you shoot someone----it is best to kill them as per my boyfriend cops from way back when I was young and single. It prevents them from attacking again which they often do especially when doped up on drugs and/or crazy like these attacking felons are. The RULE is that you shoot till the attacker is completely immobilized which is usually when DEAD. This also has the added benefit from keeping such violent criminals like the pedophile and the others from attacking others saving society and their would be other victims. Kyle killing just the pedo---likely saved several other younger boys from his attacks. But yet immoral dipshit foreign trolls and dem communists would condemn kyle for saving himself and others. Kyle deserves a medal-----

Kyle did not hit anyone that wasn't attacking him----he was able to shoot all three of his targets to stop the mob of dozens of violent dems from killing him. He had enough controll---to not shoot the would be 4th attacker who backed off when kyle pointed his gun at him. This is damn fine shooting-----------He couldn't have and nobody else could have done a better job of defending themselves than Kyle did that night.

Imbecile, you already said Rittenhouse's shots all hit their targets; when in fact, 2 shots missed. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.

Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.

 

[K9Buck]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered anyone.

So he was obligated to allow himself to beaten to death, right?

There's no evidence he was going to be beaten to death had he not shot anyone.

You mean besides the three guys that all assaulted him or tried to assault him. How about this? If you don't want to get shot, don't assault others. Is that fair?

They went after him only because he had already shot someone. There is no evidence they would have tried to disarm him had he not shot Rosenbaum.

After he shot that guy he said he was going to the police and then they attacked him. He was no threat to them.

 

[Muhammed]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

 

[Muhammed]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.

Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.

Bullshit. Of course you will not cite the Wisconsin law that says you are only allowed to carry a weapon if you are hunting, simply because no such law exists.

You're an idiot.

Furthermore, the video evidence clearly shows that Kyle was the prey being pursued by a pack of aggressive predators. He was the huntee, not the hunter.

The predators separated the calf from the herd and had him cornered. Notice that the child molester and his accomplices didn't attack the large men, they attacked the short teenaged kid. Predators tend to pursue the littlest/weakest prey and Kyle was the littlest guy on the street. But he had an equalizer, and in self-defense, he used it to hand out a couple Darwin awards to the scumbags.

It was clearly self-defense.

 

[Faun]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered anyone.

So he was obligated to allow himself to beaten to death, right?

There's no evidence he was going to be beaten to death had he not shot anyone.

You mean besides the three guys that all assaulted him or tried to assault him. How about this? If you don't want to get shot, don't assault others. Is that fair?

They went after him only because he had already shot someone. There is no evidence they would have tried to disarm him had he not shot Rosenbaum.

After he shot that guy he said he was going to the police and then they attacked him. He was no threat to them.

He only said that to one person. No one else there knew that was his intention. No one else there knew he was not a threat.

 

[Faun]

Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC

Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.

www.bucherlawgroup.com

Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

He breaking WI gun laws.

So why don't you think he should be severely punished?

No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)

Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.

He was under adult supervision.

So he was hunting people then?

Hunting people? He wasn't hunting anyone---he only shot those attacking him.

Well if he wasn’t hunting, then he wasn't legally allowed to carry that weapon.

Bullshit. Of course you will not cite the Wisconsin law that says you are only allowed to carry a weapon if you are hunting, simply because no such law exists.

You're an idiot.

Furthermore, the video evidence clearly shows that Kyle was the prey being pursued by a pack of aggressive predators. He was the huntee, not the hunter.

The predators separated the calf from the herd and had him cornered. Predators pursue the littlest prey. But he had an equalizer.

You're wrong as always. Of course I'll post it...

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

What to know about Wisconsin's open-carry laws, self defense and more in Kenosha protest shootings

Answers to questions like does Wisconsin have a stand-your-ground law and other relevant information on the fatal Kenosha shootings.

www.jsonline.com

But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.

Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted. He said he would argue to apply a rule of law that interprets ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of the defendant.​

And then there's Rittenhouse’s own attorneys who said they're planning on challenging that charge based on federal statutes which allow militia members to carry firearms even at 17 years of age. At no point did he say they would fight that charge because Wisconsin law allowed Rittenhouse to legally be in possession of a gun.