• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Rittenhouse Trial

Mr. Rittenhouse's is going to be destroyed to scare the rest of us into keeping our heads down and letting Progressives do what they want. This country's future is that incident in Detroit a week or so ago where an entire subway car full of people let a woman be raped rather than help out because they were afraid to get involved.

We are all headed to a dark place, hopefully I'll be dead before we get there...
So much truth here......I have thought about that rape deal several times. Im getting off on the next stop, unless family or friend.

Look at the Jan 6 guys.....even conservative talking heads have thrown them under the bus.

There will be a breaking point for us all though....Its in the near future too. A lot of wrongs are going to be made right. Most people here know where to stand when the time comes.
 
Is a cop a citizen? I didn't differentiate between civilians on purpose.
If you think laws regarding forcefully disarming a cop and forcefully disarming a rando are the same, well, I don't know what to tell you.
 
dont you know....if someone is beating you to death with a pipe, you are not allowed to use a gun, because that would be "unfair"....your attacker deserves to be fought fairly.
that's not correct, at least in many states.
 
I think the biggest factor he faces is the gun, his age, and the fact that he was breaking the law by being in that area at that time. Yes from a self defense standpoint i think he was totally justified and if he was an adult law enforcement officer or someone who was permitted to be out past the curfew it would be an easy walk. But he is fighting an uphill battle not coming into this case with "clean hands" Kind of like if a drug dealer is getting robbed by force and defends himself he has the right to do so, but he is still getting his charges for being the dealer.
So possession of a fire arm type charges

That I could see justly happening, IDK the areas fire arms laws, which I believe he traveled arcoss state lines with. You bring up a valid point.

But the homicide and attempted homicide. Imo he is not guilty.

I believe he has been charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide and minor in possession of a firearm

The guilty are the law enforcement and firefighters that weren’t there. If they are not going to handle shit, don’t punish the people who do.
 
For me, The bottom line on this case is one thing...the video shows him RUNNING AWAY from protestor #1 before he turns and shoots. On top of this, protestors 2 and 3 are on video attacking Kyle after he trips.

What laws did he break by being there? Genuinely curious.
crossed state lines with a gun he isn't allowed to be in ownership of.
But the biggest issue though is they were out past curfew and breaking the law, So my point of if he was a cop enforcing that law he would have been in compliance. But he wasn't. If a BLM protester holding a gun stood there refusing to leave after they were ordered off the street and ended up getting smoked no one here would have any issue with him getting shot. Kyle was breaking the law by continuing to patrol protect whatever after the armed motorcade said they were to leave.
 
If you think laws regarding forcefully disarming a cop and forcefully disarming a rando are the same, well, I don't know what to tell you.

arent prosecutors always trying to say that cops should be held to a higher standard, with their training, etc etc, they may not need deadly force? but when they use it in that instance its justified.

just like it would be in the Rittenhouse case.


you keep making my points for me, Choid. well done.
 
arent prosecutors always trying to say that cops should be held to a higher standard, with their training, etc etc, they may not need deadly force? but when they use it in that instance its justified.

just like it would be in the Rittenhouse case.


you keep making my points for me, Choid. well done.
Only if your point is to show you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Downzero
GXYNb4LN.jpeg
 
crossed state lines with a gun he isn't allowed to be in ownership of.
But the biggest issue though is they were out past curfew and breaking the law, So my point of if he was a cop enforcing that law he would have been in compliance. But he wasn't. If a BLM protester holding a gun stood there refusing to leave after they were ordered off the street and ended up getting smoked no one here would have any issue with him getting shot. Kyle was breaking the law by continuing to patrol protect whatever after the armed motorcade said they were to leave.
Wrong on both counts. Kyle didn't cross state lines with a firearm, and the curfew doesn't apply to private property. He only entered the public after being chased.
 
The big thing that will be raised over and over is that Kyle didn‘t have to be there that night. This was not Kyle’s neighborhood. They will say Kyle was looking for trouble.

Any competent defense attorney can and should crush that argument. It's going to take more than just that "he shouldn't have been there" to establish mens rea.

If they get the jury to bite on that angle, they will point out that self defense stops being self defense if you had reasonable knowledge that there would be trouble where you were going.
Easily rebuttable too, with I'm sure plenty of case law.

Defense gets to rebut all of the prosecution's arguments.

But IANAL
 
Mr. Rittenhouse's is going to be destroyed to scare the rest of us into keeping our heads down and letting Progressives do what they want. This country's future is that incident in Detroit a week or so ago where an entire subway car full of people let a woman be raped rather than help out because they were afraid to get involved.

We are all headed to a dark place, hopefully I'll be dead before we get there...

Some of us won't be so quick to abandon our country to tyranny, whatever the cost may be.
 
I do believe he will be charged with something but I don't think they can pin murder on him.

I think he will get charged for being out after curfew.

Should he be charged with having a rifle in his hands? I'll say no but they will go after the guy who gave it to him!

But as has been pointed out...he got separated from his group. The rioters went after him and chased him down. He was running from the rioters and not charging at them and shooting. He was trying to make it to the police roadblocks to get to safety. He couldn't make and had to defend himself.

Why are the rioters not being charged? From what I remember and understand the guy who he blew a hole in his arm...that guy isn't even from WI and was a felon who was carrying a Glock pistol. Why isn't he being charged with anything if that is all correct?

Why are we not looking for the people responsible for driving the dump trucks to deliver busted up chunks of concrete at intersections so the rioters had stuff to throw at cops and break windows etc...with? They have videos showing the dump trucks showing this happening!
 
The two "victims" were a white male sexual predator and a white male burglar. Nobody is going to riot over that...
why not? that is the democrat base.
 
Wrong on both counts. Kyle didn't cross state lines with a firearm, and the curfew doesn't apply to private property. He only entered the public after being chased.
I was under the impression he brought the rifle across state lines, but even then at 17 he isn't allowed to be in possession of a fire arm without adult supervision unless he is hunting. So that makes his actions illegal to be patrolling the streets with a firearm.
And he was standing in the streets when the police spoke to him (In his defense and a mark against the police) They didn't personally tell him to leave when they should have. This whole thing is a shit show
 
why not? that is the democrat base.
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party hates whites and white men in particular. It's going to be real hard for Progressive leadership to motivate the protesters to get out and fight in the streets for people they hate. And BLM really couldn't give a shit about those two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TACC
My guess He's acquitted on the three shootings. So it boils down to does hew have the right to be there with his ar-15?
I'd say he has the right to be there (anywhere, it's America). He has a right to defend himself (regardless of age). Bad judgement going there (maybe, but certainly not criminal). Certainly special circumstances. I'd let a 14yo defend himself with an AR, this kid was certainly competent and composed. The lack of "control" by authorities allows individuals the freedom to act responsibly (which this kid did).
 
I do believe he will be charged with something but I don't think they can pin murder on him.

I think he will get charged for being out after curfew.

Should he be charged with having a rifle in his hands? I'll say no but they will go after the guy who gave it to him!

But as has been pointed out...he got separated from his group. The rioters went after him and chased him down. He was running from the rioters and not charging at them and shooting. He was trying to make it to the police roadblocks to get to safety. He couldn't make and had to defend himself.

Why are the rioters not being charged? From what I remember and understand the guy who he blew a hole in his arm...that guy isn't even from WI and was a felon who was carrying a Glock pistol. Why isn't he being charged with anything if that is all correct?

Why are we not looking for the people responsible for driving the dump trucks to deliver busted up chunks of concrete at intersections so the rioters had stuff to throw at cops and break windows etc...with? They have videos showing the dump trucks showing this happening!

He's already been charged. That's why he's on trial.

100% agree with the rest
 
The progressive wing of the Democratic Party hates whites and white men in particular. It's going to be real hard for Progressive leadership to motivate the protesters to get out and fight in the streets for people they hate. And BLM really couldn't give a shit about those two.
aren't 2 of the 3 jewish? liberals don't lump jewish folks into the "white" group that they hate and are trying to destroy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MtnCreek and JakeM
The two "victims" were a white male sexual predator and a white male burglar. Nobody is going to riot over that...
George Floyd was a convicted drug user who had a passion for assaulting pregnant women who overdosed on fentanyl......and we all see how that turned out.


The truth doesn't matter....the story matters....MSM will tell everyone they people Kyle shot were volunteers with the Red Cross who saved puppies and helped the poor.....

....and the mindless fucking retards will show up in droves.....
 
I was under the impression he brought the rifle across state lines, but even then at 17 he isn't allowed to be in possession of a fire arm without adult supervision unless he is hunting. So that makes his actions illegal to be patrolling the streets with a firearm.
And he was standing in the streets when the police spoke to him (In his defense and a mark against the police) They didn't personally tell him to leave when they should have. This whole thing is a shit show
The shooting and gun possession are 2 separate issues.

You can have a 100% clean self defense shooting with a 100% illegal gun.

If my house is broken into, and people try to kill me, and I grab my illegal machine gun and shoot them.....my use of force is not any less legitimate because I used a gun I shouldn't legally have.
 
I was under the impression he brought the rifle across state lines, but even then at 17 he isn't allowed to be in possession of a fire arm without adult supervision unless he is hunting. So that makes his actions illegal to be patrolling the streets with a firearm.
And he was standing in the streets when the police spoke to him (In his defense and a mark against the police) They didn't personally tell him to leave when they should have. This whole thing is a shit show
I'm not aware of a federal law that prohibits a 17 y/o from possessing a rifle. Are you?
 
The shooting and gun possession are 2 separate issues.

You can have a 100% clean self defense shooting with a 100% illegal gun.

If my house is broken into, and people try to kill me, and I grab my illegal machine gun and shoot them.....my use of force is not any less legitimate because I used a gun I shouldn't legally have.
You might want to check Wisconsin law on this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dragman
George Floyd was a convicted drug user who had a passion for assaulting pregnant women who overdosed on fentanyl......and we all see how that turned out.


The truth doesn't matter....the story matters....MSM will tell everyone they people Kyle shot were volunteers with the Red Cross who saved puppies and helped the poor.....

....and the mindless fucking retards will show up in droves.....
Yeah, but the video footage for George Floyd was shocking and he was the right skin tone for the narrative that Progressives, Democratic politicians, BLM, and the media wanted to push before the 2020 election. How many progressives and BLM folks do you think will risk losing their day jobs (now that that sweet sweet enhanced unemployment benefits money has run out) to protest in the streets over two dead white scumbags?

I think that a lot of people underestimate just how much those enhanced unemployment benefits contributed to people being willing to get out and protest George Floyd's death.
 
George Floyd was a convicted drug user who had a passion for assaulting pregnant women who overdosed on fentanyl......and we all see how that turned out.


The truth doesn't matter....the story matters....MSM will tell everyone they people Kyle shot were volunteers with the Red Cross who saved puppies and helped the poor.....

....and the mindless fucking retards will show up in droves.....

Puppies don't matter anymore that Fauci is torturing them in California.
 
I'm not aware of a federal law that prohibits a 17 y/o from possessing a rifle. Are you?
Did this happen in DC???
he was in a STATE that doesn't allow anyone under 18 to purchase a firearm, And they only may possess a firearm under special circumstances like hunting or taking a training course etc.
 
I'm not aware of a federal law that prohibits a 17 y/o from possessing a rifle. Are you?
Its a well known fact that you are allowed to hunt alone in WI without an adult once your are 14 if you have passed hunter safety. Thats all over the DNR website, and other places. But I've also found where the law says its a misdemeanor for a minor to possess a weapon without an adult. Unless I missed a cutout in the law somewhere else if the purpose is for hunting? I am no lawyer.

Honestly, I've lived here my whole life and never heard of a minor not being able to possess a weapon. NO ONE here thinks its not legal for a minor to have a gun. Its an everyday occurrence starting in Oct when duck season opens. I suspect this is one of those catch-all misdemeanors that never gets enforced until the state is looking to crucify someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kalthoff
If you think laws regarding forcefully disarming a cop and forcefully disarming a rando are the same, well, I don't know what to tell you.
Forceably disarming anyone is a robbery, which is still a violent felony anywhere. For an officer, it may be a more specific peace officer crime, but a robbery is still a robbery.

I do believe he will be charged with something but I don't think they can pin murder on him.

I think he will get charged for being out after curfew.

Should he be charged with having a rifle in his hands? I'll say no but they will go after the guy who gave it to him!

But as has been pointed out...he got separated from his group. The rioters went after him and chased him down. He was running from the rioters and not charging at them and shooting. He was trying to make it to the police roadblocks to get to safety. He couldn't make and had to defend himself.

Why are the rioters not being charged? From what I remember and understand the guy who he blew a hole in his arm...that guy isn't even from WI and was a felon who was carrying a Glock pistol. Why isn't he being charged with anything if that is all correct?

Why are we not looking for the people responsible for driving the dump trucks to deliver busted up chunks of concrete at intersections so the rioters had stuff to throw at cops and break windows etc...with? They have videos showing the dump trucks showing this happening!

It seems like you are very confused about the difference between charging and conviction. Rittenhouse is charged with all sorts of offenses.
 
Its a well known fact that you are allowed to hunt alone in WI without an adult once your are 14 if you have passed hunter safety. Thats all over the DNR website, and other places. But I've also found where the law says its a misdemeanor for a minor to possess a weapon without an adult. Unless I missed a cutout in the law somewhere else if the purpose is for hunting? I am no lawyer.

Honestly, I've lived here my whole life and never heard of a minor not being able to possess a weapon. NO ONE here thinks its not legal for a minor to have a gun. Its an everyday occurrence starting in Oct when duck season opens. I suspect this is one of those catch-all misdemeanors that never gets enforced until the state is looking to crucify someone.
Technically kyle had a pistol

Edit- my mistake it actually looks like a 16”. I thought it was a short barrel pistol.
 
Forceably disarming anyone is a robbery, which is still a violent felony anywhere. For an officer, it may be a more specific peace officer crime, but a robbery is still a robbery.
Does this include disarming somebody who is a threat or involved in the commission of a crime?
 
Does this include disarming somebody who is a threat or involved in the commission of a crime?

Self defense negates all criminal liability, but that also means the person has to admit the crime and claim he had an excuse to do what was otherwise illegal. The precise language as to how that plays out in a particular circumstance is more nuanced.

If you take the self defense out of the equation, the next question would be whether the person who attempted to take property by force had to have the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it, which some states may require and others may not. So in that case, it'd depend on which law applied to the situation.

I think the answer to your question that you're looking for is "no, if he acted in self defense," but of course that presupposes a result that typically, only a jury can make.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Choid
You are right, my mistake.
THis is interesting... This is the last portion of the section of the law that makes it a misdemeanor for minors to possess weapons.

(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.

941.28 is the state's SBR laws. Doesn't apply to this firearm. So he was not violating it. The second two references are hunting regulations. Those regulations don't apply to this situation either. This section of the law could be used by the defense to argue that, because it was a long gun, this section doesn't apply to Kyle.

Edit to add: The above explains for me why my understanding was always that it was ok to have guns as a minor. I remember more clearly now that the rule was always that LONG GUNS were ok. "A rifle or a shotgun." So the law prohibits possession of pistols or SBR/sawed offs by minors without adult supervision. This is what I've always understood to be the law.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MtnCreek
So, in a trial, the jury decides if a person is guilty of violating the law. But who decides if that specific law even applies to an individual? The judge?
 
So, in a trial, the jury decides if a person is guilty of violating the law. But who decides if that specific law even applies to an individual? The judge?
The prosecution decides what to charge and then they must prove their case.
 

Lol. The last photo of Kyle by himself "posing with all the people he victimized that night"...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

When you are in front of a jury it IS like throwing dice. Any number can come up, but it does help that this does not seem to be a leftist/woke judge who has decided he is guilty already as happens so often in our FUBAR just-us system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TACC and Tokay444
He's going to spend a good bit of time in jail, in all likelihood. And legally he probably should. But it's a tragedy because all of this could have been avoided had the "adults" in his community cared more about keeping law and order and less about ejecting a President. But I don't think those are mitigating circumstances in a trial, unless he gets a very friendly jury.
Your saying he should go to jail because he protected his own life?
 
Your saying he should go to jail because he protected his own life?
I said that he probably should according to the law and the likelihood of conviction on various charges, not that he should as a matter of me thinking he should go to jail.
 
I said that he probably should according to the law and the likelihood of conviction on various charges...
That seems to be the central theme of this thread and everyone is dialing in on little pieces of it IMO. If it were truly a matter of law as in the Constitution-he walks on all counts.

If it is a matter of locality-he is in trouble. If this all occurred in Bent Elbow, GA or Crooked Knee, TN - it is a non-issue. No charges sought. Because of that pesky Constitution the Communists hate.

But if it occurs in/around a Democratic city, well, now you have Soros funded Commie prosecutors in play. And judges. And the evil sheep they surround themselves with.

Equality under Law is something the Commies cannot abide building their alleged Commie Utopia. So, they try to scare the normal folks into compliance by shit like this. And the McCloskeys, and persecuting political rivals like Jan 6, and so on.

I cannot tell that kid what to do here-but if it were me, or my kid-this shit has got to go to the Supreme's as needed based upon verdict. This kid needs funding.

Ultimately it is a matter of preserving our right and liberties against tyranny. They are trying to tear down our basic fabric of a society built upon that Constitution.

They simply will fail-one way or the other IMO.

So-we can sit here and split hairs, but if you read the Constitution-kid is free as a bird to pack a weapon, free to smoke bad guys perpetrating harm and violence, and this 17 year old stuff?... Uncle Sugar ISSUED me one at 17-so yeah, fuck WI and their un-Constitutional laws.

All just an opinion.