Bare-ya-cuda
Well-Known Member
What an alternative reality you live in. I guess all the biased news sources you drool over never ran the video of this kid defending himself.
The Rittenhouse Incident
- Thread starter kom526
- Start date
He defended himself, handily, against some of your fellow scum buddies.
FWIW, the 1 guy did have one good working arm. The other arm, not so useful.
You are so pathetic you'll do literally anything for attention.
"Look at me! Look at meeeeee!
"
Amazing he didn't drop the pistol once his bicep was vaporized. Now that is some solid gun control.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
He went there to armed to engage with unarmed people. He wasnt legally allowed to posses the firearm he had as he was underage.
He murdered two people and shot another.
That's your hero?
All the video tape, cell phone cameras and court evidence and testimony and you still can’t get it right.
Corrections to your lies - he killed two of your rioter friends. No, he went there to guard local businesses against armed rioters. Yes, he was 17 years old but he was legally allowed to possess the rifle in Wisconsin. He killed two people in self defense (decided in a court of law by a jury of his peers) and shot a third in the arm as that scum was trying to kill him with a handgun. Yes, he is my hero.
After Trump wins in 2024 and returns to the White House he can make Kyle Director of homeland security.
That would be awesome!
What do you think, St.Mary’s/Sappy?
Director Rittenhouse would be in charge of looking into all you folks.
Liar
In Wisconsin, minors cannot possess short-barreled rifles under Section 941.28. Putting aside the failure to put evidence into the record to claim such a short length, it does not appear to be the case here. Rittenhouse used a Smith & Wesson MP-15 with an advertised barrel length of 16 inches and the overall length is 36.9 inches. That is not a short barrel.
Then there is the rest of the statute and ultimately the word “and.” Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”), “[a]ny person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.” That makes Rittenhouse guilty, right?
Well, you then have to look at the subsection (c), which states that “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.”
Since there is no evidence that Rittenhouse violated Section 941.28, he presumably must be in violation of both sections 29.304 and 29.593.. The defense conceded Rittenhouse was in violation of Section 29.593, which requires certification for weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.” As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time and the prosecution has not challenged that fact.
Was Rittenhouse’s Possession of the AR-15 Unlawful?
In covering the motions hearing last week in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, I noted a surprising comment from Judge Bruce Schroeder that he had “spent hours” with the Wisconsin gun law …
jonathanturley.org
Schroeder dismissed the charge last week, siding with the defense's claim that the law would only be applicable to Rittenhouse's case if he had been carrying a Short Barrel Rifle. The prosecution admitted that the gun did not qualify as a Short Barrel Rifle.
Politifact defends its claim that Rittenhouse’s possession of an AR-15 was not ‘perfectly legal’ despite dismissed gun charge
“These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being ‘perfectly legal.’ Our fact-check remains unchanged,” wrote Politifact.
thepostmillennial.com
STOP getting your legal analysis from Poltifact
Liar
Rittenhouse fired IN SELF DEFENSE .. and was cleared by a JURY of ALL charges
Kyle Rittenhouse Shooting Video & Photos [GRAPHIC]
See Kyle Rittenhouse shooting scene videos and photos. Be forewarned that some are graphic.
heavy.com
He killed some troublemaking scum that made a poor decision to attack him.
Fuk around and find out, as the saying goes.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
You need to get better heros if a 17 year old murderer is someone you admire.
Then you criticize a capitol police officer for shooting a domestic terrorist attacking our own government.
Trump and the GOP have really screwed up your brain, morals and identity.
I have nothing but respect for anyone who, like Rittenhouse, successfuly defended themselves with their firearm. We need to see FAR more examples just like that. Might give you lefty rioting scum pause before you decide to attack your next person on the street or set fire to another business.
And why do you lie so much in all of your posts? You've had zero credibility for a long time because of that nasty character trait.
A Capitol Police Officer who blindly reached over a pile of people to fire into a crowd, killing an unarmed women. Yeah, that is a criminal.
StmarysCity79
Well-Known Member
When did that happen? Who told you that? The video clearly doesnt show any of that.
He repeatedly told her to stand down as she kicked through a glass window.
Let's break this down in to short easy to understand points.
1. Murder is a legal term. The unlawful, premeditated taking of a human life
a. he was found not guilty
b. it was lawful
c. as he was running away at the time, there was no premeditation
d. they were sub human (this is a personal opinion)
2. By the laws of Wisconsin he was legally allowed to own the rifle, the unlawful part was the straw purchase
3. He shot 3 "people"
4. I wouldn't call him a hero, I'd say someone who fought against being a victim.