“That “self-defense” angle may have backing/”
There are a lot of problems with the situation. Rittenhouse’s home is a little over 20 miles from the incident, so he had to make a concerted effort to go there. In Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun. Rittenhouse was seventeen and the person that bought the weapon for him should be arrested also as an accessory.
The video the defense is producing Joseph Rosenbaum seen chasing Rittenhouse across the pavement as a shot rings out in the background. Rittenhouse then turns, and as Rosenbaum moves quickly toward him, fires four times. There is nothing to indicate Rosenbaum was armed so the shots “in the background” did not come from him.
So, if you add this up, you have an illegally carrying kid, saying earlier he was a medic, which he isn’t, traveling over 20 miles to enter an area that is having criminal action, to be a self acting vigilante, shot two to death, at least one unarmed, and wounding a third. He shouldn’t have been there, he shouldn’t have been packing, and he shouldn’t have shot an unarmed man. This is why they don’t let underaged kids own or bear arms.
wy69
you’re on the wrong site, Kyle is innocent.
How long have you been related to the Soros paid prosecutor?
Just think about this on constitutional grounds …
On the one hand, Wisconsin law prohibits the carrying of firearms by “minors” — which are defined to include anyone under the age of 18. And yet another statute treats a 17 year-old as an ADULT for prosecution in the circumstances of this incident.
If I was on this jury I would find the defendant not guilty simply on the basis of this blatant inconsistency of the law — regardless of the facts of the case.
Try to keep up.
“Rittenhouse’s home is a little over 20 miles from the incident, so he had to make a concerted effort to go there.”
He worked there, daily. He was there that day working as a lifeguard. He had friends there. He was close to business owners there.
Many of us think nothing of driving 20 miles to the place much of our current lifestyle takes place.
“In Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun.”
For all legal purposes, the rifle was owned and kept by a friend in-state.
Regarding age, the law in question is poorly worded, the action could be construed as covered by the “hunting” clause (funny/outrageous as that may seem, legal definitions are very precise and often do not apply as normal colloquial use would (such as under NY law, a rifle is not a firearm)). At one extreme the violation would be nothing more than a misdemeanor, and at the other the law is completely invalidated because, under the “doctrine of competing harms”, his possession of the rifle was obviously justified by his need to use it to defend his life.
“There is nothing to indicate Rosenbaum was armed”
Trial just examined the FBI infrared surveillance video, demonstrating that 3 people threatened, chased, and attacked Kyle.
A shirtless man screaming threats and throwing things in assault is not to be ignored.
When cornered by said man, a shot WAS fired, in close range, at Kyle.
Unclear as to whether Rosenbaum was armed, with Rosenbaum closing distance (toward a clearly armed intended victim), with gunshots indicating a violent attack was under way focused on him, and having been cornered with no other option - Kyle fired at an assailant.
Members of an attacking mob are responsible for the actions of the mob.
Kyle had reason to believe he was under lethal attack, and that stopping Rosenbaum would stop the attack.
Upon being shot, Rosenbaum ceased his assault (yes, legal definition of assault), the lethal threat ceased (shooter stopped shooting), and Kyle was able to exit the situation.
“shot two to death, at least one unarmed, and wounding a third”
First: a chronic child rapist, having just left a mental hospital he was in for a suicide attempt, and having been thrown out of his baby’s mother’s home due to a restraining order for beating her bloody; a violent person looking for trouble by wandering thru a criminal arson-inclined mob screaming “SHOOT ME N*****” repeatedly at random people, and running after and assaulting a complete stranger who was carrying a rifle. One may be a lethal threat despite being “unarmed”.
Second: attempted to repeatedly bludgeon Kyle, as he lay on asphalt, with a large heavy blunt object. Far more people are beaten to death with blunt objects than are killed with rifles.
Third: attempted to kill Kyle with a handgun, and while recovering in the hospital clearly stated his wish that he had succeeded in killing Kyle.
Not correct. Judge Schroeder even alluded to this in the initial jury instructions.
People 16 and 17 years old have never been forbidden from possessing and using rifles and shotguns in Wisconsin law.
The defense has moved to dismiss the weapons charge. Judge Schroeder has not made a ruling on it yet.
People under 18 are forbidden from possessing "dangerous weapons" which is a very specific definition under Wisconsin law. Rifles and Shotguns are exempted from the law.
Worst take on this case I’ve seen, including all the haters in the media.
>>Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun.
The WI laws on the latter are muddled at best.
You vile liar. Rot.
Your mistaken beliefs are an example of why the prosecution put in a fake charge regarding possession of a rifle by someone under the age of 18. Wisconsin law is clear that a 17 year old can possess a rifle or shotgun as long as it is not a short barreled rifle or shotgun. You can read the statutes for yourself and not be misinformed.
The rest of your opinions about Mr. Rittenhouse are also detached from reality, but your statements about Wisconsin law are inconsistent with the actual published laws.
There are a lot of problems with the situation. Rittenhouse’s home is a little over 20 miles from the incident, so he had to make a concerted effort to go there. In Wisconsin, no one under 18 is allowed to purchase or bear a non concealed gun. Rittenhouse was seventeen and the person that bought the weapon for him should be arrested also as an accessory.
None of your assertions imply it was anything but self defense. It is legal for a 17 year old kid to be 20 miles from his house. Whether he shot his assailants or just found a brick and crushed the skulls of his assailants, it is still self defense. The legality of carrying a weapon has nothing to do with self defense. And to go after him for something petty like illegally carrying a weapon openly, looks stupid when the person being charged would be dead or beaten to a pulp had he not had the weapon. This is why the leftwingnuts really need to convict him on a homicide charge, and not a technicality that he was a few months shy of carrying legally there.
Such utter BS! Newbie BS’er … You had to include the 69 in your screen name you vile b-turd! Do not understand why crap like you spread is not automatically zotted on FR!