Kyle Rittenhouse

[tvc184]

OK, I just looked up Wisconsin firearm law and it does require a license from Wisconsin or a reciprocal state to carry concealed. If the guy that Rittenhouse shot does not have a concealed carry license, he committed a crime.

I believe in his testimony he said he accidentally pointed at Rittenhouse. That leads me to 3 conclusions. 
1. he probably admitted to a crime while on the witness stand.

2. he lied under oath (which can’t be proven 

3. I am sure he intentionally pointed at Rittenhouse meaning that he likely committed aggravated assault and a felony which is why he said that he accidentally did so while under oath.

Let’s see, you were chasing a guy with a rifle and you see him fall down, you know that you have a pistol in your hand and you run up to this guy who is now laying on his back and you pointed at him… But it was an accident. If that is true, why did you run up on Rittenhouse with a pistol in your hand while Rittenhouse is holding a rifle? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[CardinalBacker]

On 11/9/2021 at 5:23 AM, tvc184 said:

OK, I just looked up Wisconsin firearm law and it does require a license from Wisconsin or a reciprocal state to carry concealed. If the guy that Rittenhouse shot does not have a concealed carry license, he committed a crime.

I believe in his testimony he said he accidentally pointed at Rittenhouse. That leads me to 3 conclusions. 
1. he probably admitted to a crime while on the witness stand.

2. he lied under oath (which can’t be proven 

3. I am sure he intentionally pointed at Rittenhouse meaning that he likely committed aggravated assault and a felony which is why he said that he accidentally did so while under oath.

Let’s see, you were chasing a guy with a rifle and you see him fall down, you know that you have a pistol in your hand and you run up to this guy who is now laying on his back and you pointed at him… But it was an accident. If that is true, why did you run up on Rittenhouse with a pistol in your hand while Rittenhouse is holding a rifle? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Don't quote me on this, but I read (don't judge me) that the guy with the pistol who got shot was actually a felon and illegally carrying HIS firearm.  I'd like to see that from a reputable source, though.  

[tvc184]

37 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

Don't quote me on this, but I read (don't judge me) that the guy with the pistol who got shot was actually a felon and illegally carrying HIS firearm.  I'd like to see that from a reputable source, though.  

Judge you? 😂

I have read that also that he is a convicted felon. If that’s true, with the video and his admission under oath, if he is not prosecuted, that is a miscarriage of justice. 

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Once again king dimwit opens his mouth and removes all doubt.

Check out the responses to the fool's tweet.

[bullets13]

I really struggle with how delusional the left has become in general.  Don't get me wrong, there are some seriously delusional people on the right as well, but the ratio is skewed incredibly far to the left.  All of the evidence, and there is a LOT of it, (including clear video of all shootings) points towards self-defense.  Nearly all of the prosecution's witnesses are proving the case of self-defense.  The prosecution is not following the law and disobeying judge's orders in an attempt to illegally sway the jury (or to put the weight of dismissal on the judge to avoid losing when the jury returns).  And somehow, through all of this, the left has come not to the conclusion that Rittenhouse was defending himself, but that the judge is a biased, neo-nazi, unfair cheater?  Some of the news articles and social media comments I've been reading are mind blowing. 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, bullets13 said:

I really struggle with how delusional the left has become in general.  Don't get me wrong, there are some seriously delusional people on the right as well, but the ratio is skewed incredibly far to the left.  All of the evidence, and there is a LOT of it, (including clear video of all shootings) points towards self-defense.  Nearly all of the prosecution's witnesses are proving the case of self-defense.  The prosecution is not following the law and disobeying judge's orders in an attempt to illegally sway the jury (or to put the weight of dismissal on the judge to avoid losing when the jury returns).  And somehow, through all of this, the left has come not to the conclusion that Rittenhouse was defending himself, but that the judge is a biased, neo-nazi, unfair cheater?  Some of the news articles and social media comments I've been reading are mind blowing. 

Yes.  I have seen enough comments from people reading the news articles and some  claim this is all about race. Yesterday I watched an MSNBC Producer and commentator on the show, The Young Turks, admit that she thought Rittenhouse chased down the first guy and shot him. Now with a video from the trail, she has seen that it was Rittenhouse running for his life and the convicted sex offender chasing him down. Oop….. But I wonder where she got this bogus information to begin with? Gee, could it be from the news media is not reporting there facts?

You have a white guy who is accused of shooting three white guys and he has charges brought by a white district attorney, defended by white lawyers in front of a white judge… And it’s all about race?

There are so many claims that Rittenhouse illegally possessed the firearm (he was a couple of months too young) or he lived out of state or he could’ve been somewhere else and somehow any of that negates the right of self defense AND should cause murder charges to be brought. HUH?

Actually there is some validity to race game. Let’s play my favorite game, what if.

So let’s make this about race. What if a young black female in Wisconsin is walking in an area of town that is not so good. She is doing nothing wrong and is simply walking home. A convicted sex offender attacks her, trying to sexually assault and maybe kill her. The young woman pulls a handgun out of her purse and  shoots and kills a guy. It is clearly a case of lawful self-defense.

However…

The young woman is 21 years old but did not get a concealed handgun license. In Wisconsin you can carry openly but can only conceal if you have a license. In other words, she could’ve had it in a holster on the outside of her purse or worn it in a holster attached are jeans or something similar and it would be legal. Unfortunately she stuck it inside her purse. That  is a crime in Wisconsin and even though she is lawfully in her right of self-defense the DA charges her with murder not because in self-defense was unlawful but because she illegally possess a handgun. So now this woman who actually defended her life against a sexual predator, is facing life in prison.

And…

Like Rittenhouse, she was a part of town she shouldn’t have been in. Yes it was legal and she has a right to come and go but it was not the smartest thing in the world. For that reason, let’s charge her with Murder.

Some of the same people who are complaining about Rittenhouse would  almost certainly have a different opinion. Far from being put on trial for murder, she would be seen as a roll model of a young black woman standing up for herself.  If the DA brought charges against her with the facts as I have described, there would be large protests outside of the court  room and they might turn into riots. 

How many people doubt that would be true? People from the left would be claiming that maybe she does have some charges for concealing a handgun (or maybe not even then) but you can’t translate that into murder charges. You can’t say that she did not make a wise choice in where she walked so she deserves to go to prison  for life….. yet that is exactly what some of the same people are saying about Kyle Rittenhouse.

So maybe some peoples’ opinion it was about race.

I feel like many of the people who are now happy that Kyle Rittenhouse is being charged with murder would have an exact opposite opinion if it was as my what if scenario. I also think that people who are defending Rittenhouse, would also defend this theoretical black female and not want her in prison for killing a violent sex offender and defending her own life. 

[baddog]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

Yes.  I have seen enough comments from people reading the news articles and some  claim this is all about race. Yesterday I watched an MSNBC Producer and commentator on the show, The Young Turks, admit that she thought Rittenhouse chased down the first guy and shot him. Now with a video from the trail, she has seen that it was Rittenhouse running for his life and the convicted sex offender chasing him down. Oop….. But I wonder where she got this bogus information to begin with? Gee, could it be from the news media is not reporting there facts?

You have a white guy who is accused of shooting three white guys and he has charges brought by a white district attorney, defended by white lawyers in front of a white judge… And it’s all about race?

There are so many claims that Rittenhouse illegally possessed the firearm (he was a couple of months too young) or he lived out of state or he could’ve been somewhere else and somehow any of that negates the right of self defense AND should cause murder charges to be brought. HUH?

Actually there is some validity to race game. Let’s play my favorite game, what if.

So let’s make this about race. What if a young black female in Wisconsin is walking in an area of town that is not so good. She is doing nothing wrong and is simply walking home. A convicted sex offender attacks her, trying to sexually assault and maybe kill her. The young woman pulls a handgun out of her purse and  shoots and kills a guy. It is clearly a case of lawful self-defense.

However…

The young woman is 21 years old but did not get a concealed handgun license. In Wisconsin you can carry openly but can only conceal if you have a license. In other words, she could’ve had it in a holster on the outside of her purse or worn it in a holster attached are jeans or something similar and it would be legal. Unfortunately she stuck it inside her purse. That  is a crime in Wisconsin and even though she is lawfully in her right of self-defense the DA charges her with murder not because in self-defense was unlawful but because she illegally possess a handgun. So now this woman who actually defended her life against a sexual predator, is facing life in prison.

And…

Like Rittenhouse, she was a part of town she shouldn’t have been in. Yes it was legal and she has a right to come and go but it was not the smartest thing in the world. For that reason, let’s charge her with Murder.

Some of the same people who are complaining about Rittenhouse would  almost certainly have a different opinion. Far from being put on trial for murder, she would be seen as a roll model of a young black woman standing up for herself.  If the DA brought charges against her with the facts as I have described, there would be large protests outside of the court  room and they might turn into riots. 

How many people doubt that would be true? People from the left would be claiming that maybe she does have some charges for concealing a handgun (or maybe not even then) but you can’t translate that into murder charges. You can’t say that she did not make a wise choice in where she walked so she deserves to go to prison  for life….. yet that is exactly what some of the same people are saying about Kyle Rittenhouse.

So maybe some peoples’ opinion it was about race.

I feel like many of the people who are now happy that Kyle Rittenhouse is being charged with murder would have an exact opposite opinion if it was as my what if scenario. I also think that people who are defending Rittenhouse, would also defend this theoretical black female and not want her in prison for killing a violent sex offender and defending her own life. 

If the sex offender who attacked the black female was a white male, it would be a good kill…. White man baaaaad. He deserved to die. No questions asked. 
 

Rittenhouse showed great courage and control defending himself. I know taking the stand in his defense was stressful and emotional, but I would have felt better had he had more composure. That’s just me. 

[bullets13]

20 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Yes.  I have seen enough comments from people reading the news articles and some  claim this is all about race. Yesterday I watched an MSNBC Producer and commentator on the show, The Young Turks, admit that she thought Rittenhouse chased down the first guy and shot him. Now with a video from the trail, she has seen that it was Rittenhouse running for his life and the convicted sex offender chasing him down. Oop….. But I wonder where she got this bogus information to begin with? Gee, could it be from the news media is not reporting there facts?

You have a white guy who is accused of shooting three white guys and he has charges brought by a white district attorney, defended by white lawyers in front of a white judge… And it’s all about race?

There are so many claims that Rittenhouse illegally possessed the firearm (he was a couple of months too young) or he lived out of state or he could’ve been somewhere else and somehow any of that negates the right of self defense AND should cause murder charges to be brought. HUH?

Actually there is some validity to race game. Let’s play my favorite game, what if.

So let’s make this about race. What if a young black female in Wisconsin is walking in an area of town that is not so good. She is doing nothing wrong and is simply walking home. A convicted sex offender attacks her, trying to sexually assault and maybe kill her. The young woman pulls a handgun out of her purse and  shoots and kills a guy. It is clearly a case of lawful self-defense.

However…

The young woman is 21 years old but did not get a concealed handgun license. In Wisconsin you can carry openly but can only conceal if you have a license. In other words, she could’ve had it in a holster on the outside of her purse or worn it in a holster attached are jeans or something similar and it would be legal. Unfortunately she stuck it inside her purse. That  is a crime in Wisconsin and even though she is lawfully in her right of self-defense the DA charges her with murder not because in self-defense was unlawful but because she illegally possess a handgun. So now this woman who actually defended her life against a sexual predator, is facing life in prison.

And…

Like Rittenhouse, she was a part of town she shouldn’t have been in. Yes it was legal and she has a right to come and go but it was not the smartest thing in the world. For that reason, let’s charge her with Murder.

Some of the same people who are complaining about Rittenhouse would  almost certainly have a different opinion. Far from being put on trial for murder, she would be seen as a roll model of a young black woman standing up for herself.  If the DA brought charges against her with the facts as I have described, there would be large protests outside of the court  room and they might turn into riots. 

How many people doubt that would be true? People from the left would be claiming that maybe she does have some charges for concealing a handgun (or maybe not even then) but you can’t translate that into murder charges. You can’t say that she did not make a wise choice in where she walked so she deserves to go to prison  for life….. yet that is exactly what some of the same people are saying about Kyle Rittenhouse.

So maybe some peoples’ opinion it was about race.

I feel like many of the people who are now happy that Kyle Rittenhouse is being charged with murder would have an exact opposite opinion if it was as my what if scenario. I also think that people who are defending Rittenhouse, would also defend this theoretical black female and not want her in prison for killing a violent sex offender and defending her own life. 

There is zero doubt that if you took all of the exact same circumstances in this case, moved them to January 6th in Washington DC,  and changed the shooter to a young black man shooting three trump supporters who were trying to hurt him, he would have 100% support from the left.  AS HE SHOULD.  Because that would be self defense, just like this case.  

[tvc184]

6 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

There is zero doubt that if you took all of the exact same circumstances in this case, moved them to January 6th in Washington DC,  and changed the shooter to a young black man shooting three trump supporters who were trying to hurt him, he would have 100% support from the left.  AS HE SHOULD.  Because that would be self defense, just like this case.  

I always get the opinion that when a case like this comes up, some people want to know who it is and who the victim is so they can decide which way their opinion should lean.

[baddog]

14 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

There is zero doubt that if you took all of the exact same circumstances in this case, moved them to January 6th in Washington DC,  and changed the shooter to a young black man shooting three trump supporters who were trying to hurt him, he would have 100% support from the left.  AS HE SHOULD.  Because that would be self defense, just like this case.  

The only difference is that this shooting didn’t cross any racial borders, go figure. 

[bullets13]

7 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I always get the opinion that when a case like this comes up, some people want to know who it is and who the victim is so they can decide which way their opinion should lean.

If you took away the videos and the circumstances (shooter, victims, race, politics, etc), and described the events as they unfolded in the most basic terms, it could go into a textbook about self-defense.  A man carrying a rifle was attacked by another man who threw an unknown object at him and then attempted to take his gun.  The man attacking the gun holder had already threatened his life earlier in the evening.  The man with the gun shot his attacker multiple times in an attempt to maintain control of his weapon.  As the shooter began trying to call for help, a mob began to chase him.  The man with the rifle ran for safety, but as he retreated he shot and killed someone who hit him in the neck with a heavy piece of wood after he'd fallen down, and shortly thereafter shot and wounded someone pointing a handgun at him.  With the threat ended, the man with the rifle quickly retreated from the area to avoid any more conflicts.  

[bullets13]

6 minutes ago, baddog said:

The only difference is that this shooting didn’t cross any racial borders, go figure. 

Thank God.  

[tvc184]

21 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

If you took away the videos and the circumstances (shooter, victims, race, politics, etc), and described the events as they unfolded in the most basic terms, it could go into a textbook about self-defense.  A man carrying a rifle was attacked by another man who threw an unknown object at him and then attempted to take his gun.  The man attacking the gun holder had already threatened his life earlier in the evening.  The man with the gun shot his attacker multiple times in an attempt to maintain control of his weapon.  As the shooter began trying to call for help, a mob began to chase him.  The man with the rifle ran for safety, but as he retreated he shot and killed someone who hit him in the neck with a heavy piece of wood after he'd fallen down, and shortly thereafter shot and wounded someone pointing a handgun at him.  With the threat ended, the man with the rifle quickly retreated from the area to avoid any more conflicts.  

And in Wisconsin law, like Texas law, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that none of that happened.

In other words, if any of your scenarios or statements  “might” have been true, then he is not guilty under law. If Rittenhouse might have had a belief that a guy was going to take his gun away and use it on him or if he might have had fear that a skateboard could’ve caused him serious injury (fear of death is not a requirement), he is not guilty. Anything that might have happened is reasonable doubt. A jury would have to come to the conclusion that none of that was reasonably possible.

[baddog]

I have seen claims that somehow, the gun used by Rittenhouse, crossed over Illinois state lines and back to Wisconsin, or he lived in Illinois and crossed into Wisconsin, take your pick. This would be illegal. Funny how the sovereignty of state lines comes into play and should be honored, but our National border with Mexico allows drugs, sexual predators, gang members, murderers,….the list goes on….to come and go freely.

[Unwoke]

😂

[baddog]

Kenoshans bracing for riots ahead of verdict. Who the heck is going to riot and why?

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

Kenoshans bracing for riots ahead of verdict. Who the heck is going to riot and why?

I don’t think people that riot generally need a reason why. It is more like if they can find an excuse to get together.

I have seen media like CNN and MSNBC have commentators that claim this is about race. That alone should tell you that race is used for any reason, for any excuse, for any action or any complaint.  That is not to invalidate all complaints but it’s like the boy that cried wolf. No matter what the discussion, some people can drop the R Bomb and feel the discussion ends.

[baddog]

8 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I don’t think people that riot generally need a reason why. It is more like if they can find an excuse to get together.

I have seen media like CNN and MSNBC have commentators that claim this is about race. That alone should tell you that race is used for any reason, for any excuse, for any action or any complaint.  That is not to invalidate all complaints but it’s like the boy that cried wolf. No matter what the discussion, some people can drop the R Bomb and feel the discussion ends.

I’ll never figure that one out. Rittenhouse is white and he shot 3 white guys. Methinks someone has their eye on a new big screen tv, I mean, with Christmas around the corner and all.

[baddog]

Kenosha has called in the national guard to squash any riots after the verdict. Funny, had they done this during the actual riots, we wouldn’t have this trial.

[Reagan]

[bullets13]

3 hours ago, Reagan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

What's funny is the prosecutor has claimed that had Rittenhouse not shot Rosenbaum, he (the prosecutor) likely would've brought arson charges against him.  I find this exceptionally hard to believe.  

[mat]

Now the jury is viewing clear FBI drone footage that was held and not presented during the trial. How unlike the FBI to be withholding evidence. 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, mat said:

Now the jury is viewing clear FBI drone footage that was held and not presented during the trial. How unlike the FBI to be withholding evidence. 

I think it was the prosecution withholding evidence, not the FBI. 

[PAMFAM10]

Honestly thought it’ll be a quick verdict . But here goes Day 3.

[SmashMouth]

On 11/18/2021 at 2:55 AM, PAMFAM10 said:

Honestly thought it’ll be a quick verdict . But here goes Day 3.

Agreed.