Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Devils_Advocate]

Yeah, because to conservatives, shooting someone in the back is self-defense.

Are you on some sort of drugs?

You must be!

 

[Devils_Advocate]

[ separate incidents where he shot people?
If he was threatened by 3 armed people, he would have been dead.
Only one person he killed was armed, and no weapon was ever drawn on him.

You are so full of shit your breath stinks.

So are you!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not being 18 is a misdeamor ...............and shouldn't matter. The boy needed a gun to protect himself from violent convicted felons (aka dems) trying to kill him....................right to self defense covers his shooting of the violent criminals and should also cover the gun that was necessary to protect himself. Sad that our country has come down to our kids needing to be armed in order to proetect themselves from violent dems burning down our cities.

Turn him loose, lock up the POS prosecutor for malicious prosecutor and abuse of office.

Wisconsin actually has an EXPLICIT exemption for 16-18 year olds (he is) openly carrying (he was) long guns (it is).

It's been a while since I looked at the relevant law, but I thought the exemptions were for specific circumstances that didn't apply in Rittenhouse's case...things like going hunting, with a trainer, somethings along those lines?

EDIT: I see Cecilie posted the law in post #300. Target practice, instruction, hunting, and armed forces exceptions. It certainly does seem as if Rittenhouse was in violation (unless he had a hunting certificate), as well as the friend that gave/loaned him the gun. It would be a more serious crime for the friend.

You should have read the bolded part.

 

[Rigby5]

(2) Kenosha Shooter TALKS w/ His Victim - Kyle Rittenhouse Video | LNOD - YouTube

Watch the video. It's a clear case of self-defense.

The prosecutor should be arrested for treason and punished to the full extent of the law. Capital punishment. The people demand it.

All 3 separate incidents where he shot people?
If he was threatened by 3 armed people, he would have been dead.
Only one person he killed was armed, and no weapon was ever drawn on him.

If he was threatened by armed people, he would be dead? Why is that? What kind of assumption is that? I think a safer assumption would be if he wasn’t armed himself, he may have been dead.

If by “armed” you mean in possession of a firearm... he didn’t kill the guy with the gun. He wounded him. what do you mean “no weapon was drawn on him”?? The guy had it in his hand as he came running up on rittenhouse as he was knocked to the ground. He is creeping up on him with it DRAWN in his hand as rittenhouse turns and blasts him (wounding him).
If by “armed” you meant in the traditional sense of the word... in possession of a weapon, then the guy hitting him with a skateboard who attempted to bash his head in would be considered “armed” as well. So there were 2 armed people.

You seem to be implying he wasn’t in danger in “all 3 seperate incidents where he shot people”.
Did you actually watch the videos??

Makes no sense.
if anyone one wanted to harm Rittenhouse, they could just have shot him in the head while his back was turned.
Obviously that was not the intent of anyone.
Instead they were just trying to get him to take his open carry, and leave.
He was the only one threatening anyone.
He was the clear and present danger to everyone.
He was never in danger.
A skateboard is not arm because it is not capable of being deadly.

 

[Rigby5]

It's been a while since I looked at the relevant law, but I thought the exemptions were for specific circumstances that didn't apply in Rittenhouse's case...things like going hunting, with a trainer, somethings along those lines?

EDIT: I see Cecilie posted the law in post #300. Target practice, instruction, hunting, and armed forces exceptions. It certainly does seem as if Rittenhouse was in violation (unless he had a hunting certificate), as well as the friend that gave/loaned him the gun. It would be a more serious crime for the friend.

The law is intended for hunting, but this is not actually a requirement. (This was directly from a Wisconsin-licensed criminal lawyer.) Kyle does have the required certificates.

Wrong.
He was not being supervised by an adult while in possession, so was in violation of the law.

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However, the exception is: "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult." [8] Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."[9]
...}

Gun laws in Wisconsin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Ferro]

Doesn't the length of the rifle play a role in its legality? Or would I be wrong?

 

[Rigby5]

Doesn't the length of the rifle play a role in its legality? Or would I be wrong?

Most states consider open carry laws only for pistols, but apparently WI puts rifles of any length in the same category.
But I suppose it makes sense that a juvenile should be supervised when armed with any sort of firearm.

 

[JoeB131]

We need to lock up what will be a good man rittenhouse for killing convicted felons to keep other people from what ? Killing other convicted felons?

Actually, he's a little punk, and if it sends a message to people who need big guns to compensate for tiny peckers, I'm all for it.

 

[2aguy]

Looks like Kyle is going to stand trial for his alleged crimes:

Kyle Rittenhouse, teen charged with killings at Jacob Blake protest, ordered to stand trial

Kyle Rittenhouse — the 17-year-old charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the shooting of Jacob Blake — will stand trial on charges of felony homicide and other crimes, a court commissioner ruled Thursday.
During a preliminary hearing at Kenosha County Circuit Court, which was held via video link, commissioner Loren Keating ruled that there was enough evidence to send Rittenhouse to trial over the Aug. 25 killings of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26.
Rittenhouse also faces charges of possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18 and felony attempted homicide for injuring a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz.
Lawyers for Rittenhouse argued that the teen, who has been praised by right-wing commentators and viewed sympathetically by the Trump administration, had acted in self-defense when he opened fire.
But Keating said those arguments were issues for trial — not a preliminary hearing. The teen’s lawyers also asked Keating to dismiss two charges, including possession of a dangerous weapon, but the commissioner declined, saying that was also an issue for trial.
Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was released on $2 million bond last month, money mostly raised by conservatives through a legal defense fund.

And in related news..the 19yo who posed as a straw buyer for Kyle's gun has been charged:

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse

The friend of Rittenhouse, 17, purchased the gun later used to allegedly fatally shoot two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, prosecutors say.

www.nbcnews.com

Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.
According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.

Hey, dumb shit....how is he a homicidal maniac?...each shot he fired was in self defense against a raging joe biden voter out to do him harm......that isn't the definition of a homicidal maniac...you dumb ass...

 

[2aguy]

We need to lock up what will be a good man rittenhouse for killing convicted felons to keep other people from what ? Killing other convicted felons?

Actually, he's a little punk, and if it sends a message to people who need big guns to compensate for tiny peckers, I'm all for it.

There you go again......someone says "gun" and you start to get hot and sweaty and you start rubbing yourself.........you really need to get psychological help before you hurt yourself...

 

[2aguy]

(2) Kenosha Shooter TALKS w/ His Victim - Kyle Rittenhouse Video | LNOD - YouTube

Watch the video. It's a clear case of self-defense.

The prosecutor should be arrested for treason and punished to the full extent of the law. Capital punishment. The people demand it.

All 3 separate incidents where he shot people?
If he was threatened by 3 armed people, he would have been dead.
Only one person he killed was armed, and no weapon was ever drawn on him.

If he was threatened by armed people, he would be dead? Why is that? What kind of assumption is that? I think a safer assumption would be if he wasn’t armed himself, he may have been dead.

If by “armed” you mean in possession of a firearm... he didn’t kill the guy with the gun. He wounded him. what do you mean “no weapon was drawn on him”?? The guy had it in his hand as he came running up on rittenhouse as he was knocked to the ground. He is creeping up on him with it DRAWN in his hand as rittenhouse turns and blasts him (wounding him).
If by “armed” you meant in the traditional sense of the word... in possession of a weapon, then the guy hitting him with a skateboard who attempted to bash his head in would be considered “armed” as well. So there were 2 armed people.

You seem to be implying he wasn’t in danger in “all 3 seperate incidents where he shot people”.
Did you actually watch the videos??

Makes no sense.
if anyone one wanted to harm Rittenhouse, they could just have shot him in the head while his back was turned.
Obviously that was not the intent of anyone.
Instead they were just trying to get him to take his open carry, and leave.
He was the only one threatening anyone.
He was the clear and present danger to everyone.
He was never in danger.
A skateboard is not arm because it is not capable of being deadly.

You are stupid.....you can kill with a skateboard since it is a piece of hardened material with a blunt edge, you doofus...and the 3rd guy he shot had a pistol.

 

[JoeB131]

It’s so cool the way you and others cheer for this kid to go to jail because of political alignment of those involved.

If the story was “black teen shoots and kills 2 felons and wounds a 3rd felon as they chased and attacked him while wearing klan robes” your reaction would be completely different.

Um, yeah, wearing Klan Robes would be an entirely different circumstance.

Now, if it was "Shot three white people at a MAGA rally", there wouldn't be an issue here. That guy would be convicted already. He probably wouldn't have made it off the street alive.

But I would argue that he is a free man, an American, and he is free to go wherever he chooses regardless of what law breaking assholes are doing. And he was there doing good (cleaning graffiti, not participating in rioting).

Actually, no. he was in violation of a curfew order... So he wasn't "Free to go there'. The problem, of course, was the Kenosha PD allowed the Militia Thugs to be there. Even gave them water.

However, the actual shootings are open and shut. He was attacked by “shoot me nigga” pedophile, and he retreated. He ran u til he was cornered, at which time he fired. That’s self defense, and he even tried to flee first. He then left and was pursued by the next group of rocket scientists. He was chased and was hit, knocked to the ground, hit again, and was facing multiple attackers. He then defended himself. He fired at only those who were still an immediate threat, and didn’t turn and fire on the guy who InitialIy chased and kicked him who had moved away. That’s self defense, and a perfect example of appropriate force and restraint. There should be no “murder” charges.

Yeah, you tell yourself that.

This punk is going to jail. It would help if his lawyers weren't all fighting amongst themselves...

Controversial attorney withdraws from Kyle Rittenhouse criminal case, launches new fundraising appeal

John Pierce will still represent Rittenhouse in any civil defamation lawsuits.

abcnews.go.com

 

[JoeB131]

There you go again......someone says "gun" and you start to get hot and sweaty and you start rubbing yourself.........you really need to get psychological help before you hurt yourself...

Naw, buddy, Rittenhouse is the guy living your dream... which is why we need to turn his life into a nightmare.

 

[Ferro]

Sounds like the law makes a length distinction:

Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Doesn't the length of the rifle play a role in its legality? Or would I be wrong?

Yup. In all sorts of ways, I believe.

 

[JoeB131]

You are stupid.....you can kill with a skateboard since it is a piece of hardened material with a blunt edge, you doofus...and the 3rd guy he shot had a pistol.

Next Dick Tiny will be telling us more people are killed with skateboards than guns.

 

[Ferro]

Yup. In all sorts of ways, I believe.

Somehow everyone is leaving that out part of the law out. I still have a reply waiting approval, but Google 948.60...

 

[Beef_Supreme]

(2) Kenosha Shooter TALKS w/ His Victim - Kyle Rittenhouse Video | LNOD - YouTube

Watch the video. It's a clear case of self-defense.

The prosecutor should be arrested for treason and punished to the full extent of the law. Capital punishment. The people demand it.

All 3 separate incidents where he shot people?
If he was threatened by 3 armed people, he would have been dead.
Only one person he killed was armed, and no weapon was ever drawn on him.

If he was threatened by armed people, he would be dead? Why is that? What kind of assumption is that? I think a safer assumption would be if he wasn’t armed himself, he may have been dead.

If by “armed” you mean in possession of a firearm... he didn’t kill the guy with the gun. He wounded him. what do you mean “no weapon was drawn on him”?? The guy had it in his hand as he came running up on rittenhouse as he was knocked to the ground. He is creeping up on him with it DRAWN in his hand as rittenhouse turns and blasts him (wounding him).
If by “armed” you meant in the traditional sense of the word... in possession of a weapon, then the guy hitting him with a skateboard who attempted to bash his head in would be considered “armed” as well. So there were 2 armed people.

You seem to be implying he wasn’t in danger in “all 3 seperate incidents where he shot people”.
Did you actually watch the videos??

Makes no sense.
if anyone one wanted to harm Rittenhouse, they could just have shot him in the head while his back was turned.
Obviously that was not the intent of anyone.
Instead they were just trying to get him to take his open carry, and leave.
He was the only one threatening anyone.
He was the clear and present danger to everyone.
He was never in danger.
A skateboard is not arm because it is not capable of being deadly.

They didn’t intend to harm him???
did you watch the video?
Please say you didn’t, that way you could be excused as just someone talking out of your ass.
If you did.... wow.
Please allow me to chase you down, drop kick you, hit you with a skateboard over the head, and then maybe circle back with a gun in my hand.
I’d like to see if you still feel I mean you no harm and merely wish you to leave.

 

[Beef_Supreme]

It’s so cool the way you and others cheer for this kid to go to jail because of political alignment of those involved.

If the story was “black teen shoots and kills 2 felons and wounds a 3rd felon as they chased and attacked him while wearing klan robes” your reaction would be completely different.

Um, yeah, wearing Klan Robes would be an entirely different circumstance.

Now, if it was "Shot three white people at a MAGA rally", there wouldn't be an issue here. That guy would be convicted already. He probably wouldn't have made it off the street alive.

But I would argue that he is a free man, an American, and he is free to go wherever he chooses regardless of what law breaking assholes are doing. And he was there doing good (cleaning graffiti, not participating in rioting).

Actually, no. he was in violation of a curfew order... So he wasn't "Free to go there'. The problem, of course, was the Kenosha PD allowed the Militia Thugs to be there. Even gave them water.

However, the actual shootings are open and shut. He was attacked by “shoot me nigga” pedophile, and he retreated. He ran u til he was cornered, at which time he fired. That’s self defense, and he even tried to flee first. He then left and was pursued by the next group of rocket scientists. He was chased and was hit, knocked to the ground, hit again, and was facing multiple attackers. He then defended himself. He fired at only those who were still an immediate threat, and didn’t turn and fire on the guy who InitialIy chased and kicked him who had moved away. That’s self defense, and a perfect example of appropriate force and restraint. There should be no “murder” charges.

Yeah, you tell yourself that.

This punk is going to jail. It would help if his lawyers weren't all fighting amongst themselves...

Controversial attorney withdraws from Kyle Rittenhouse criminal case, launches new fundraising appeal

John Pierce will still represent Rittenhouse in any civil defamation lawsuits.

abcnews.go.com

You’re a sick little man.