Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Setx fan]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

You’ll have to ask the people who make laws. I think it goes back to the old days and if you were going to commit a crime, you would  conceal the weapon until the last minute and a handgun is easy to conceal where a rifle or shotgun is not. Some states to this day say is against the law to carry a concealed weapon. You could put a pistol on your hip line in a holster as long as it is visible and it is legal but if you cover it with a T-shirt, it becomes a felony.

Why does the federal law say that an 18-year-old can possess a handgun and even buy one from another private citizen but the same legally purchased and carried handgun by the 18-year-old cannot be bought in a store such as Academy Sporting Goods. Does that make sense? An 18-year-old cannot go in the store and purchase a handgun but he could meet me in the parking lot of the same  store  and I could sell him one and it would be legal.

Again, you need to ask the legislators.

Wisconsin state law 948.60 is not very strongly worded so you can find loop holes to get around it but if you read the whole thing you can easily see it was never intended for teenagers to be out on the streets with “dangerous” weapons. Dangerous meaning harmful to other humans. Teenagers were only allowed to possess guns for hunting, target practice, things of that nature. 

[Reagan]

 

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, Setx fan said:

Wisconsin state law 948.60 is not very strongly worded so you can find loop holes to get around it but if you read the whole thing you can easily see it was never intended for teenagers to be out on the streets with “dangerous” weapons. Dangerous meaning harmful to other humans. Teenagers were only allowed to possess guns for hunting, target practice, things of that nature. 

Do you actually see that somewhere in the law, as convoluted as Wisconsin law is, or is that just your opinion? Some states have laws that are so messed up I don’t think even lawyers can understand them. Texas laws used to be fairly simplistic and very easy to understand even for the average person however in the last 15 or 20 years, they have started to add some gibberish in some areas. 

An 18 or 19-year-old are teenagers and can legally carry long guns almost anywhere in Wisconsin. Is there a different law for target practice for a 17 year old than there is for 18 year old adult? Like maybe does it say a 17-year-old teenager is not allowed to carry weapons around other humans but an 18-year-old can? How about a 21 year old? I thought all weapons were dangerous and harmful to other humans. Is there a distinction in Wisconsin law between a 20 and 21 year old…. or a 17 year old and an 18 year old? 

I’m not even sure what your point is. If your point is that Rittenhouse should not have carried the weapon, great. I have said that in a couple of responses in various forums. It isn’t that he should not have been arm to protect himself but why go there in the first place?  That has nothing to do with him lawfully defending himself from an unlawful felony attack by other people.

Way before I was ever a police officer, I asked several long time police officers that I knew a hypothetical question. If I was a unlawfully carrying a weapon under Texas law by having a handgun with me and I shot and killed a guy that would otherwise been ruled as self-defense, would I be held for murder because of the weapon. The answer was always the same. Your right to protect your own life has nothing to do with an unlawful weapon. I would likely be charged with the weapon but not with homicide.

You can simply look at New York as one of the most obvious cases. I don’t think there is anywhere in the country that has more strict gun laws than New York and in particular New York City. There is a United States Supreme court case which might be ruled on this week on that very issue from NY. Way back in 1984 Bernhard Goetz shot four teenagers on a subway who he said was trying to rob him. A few days later he turned himself in. A grand jury refused to indict him except on weapons charges. It was against the law to have a weapon but he still had the authority under New York law to protect himself. That  did not sit well politically so they brought it to a second grand jury who under political pressure indicted him.  He went to trial and a jury acquitted him of shooting all four people. He was convicted of the unlawful possession of a weapon charge. Unlawfully carrying a weapon or doing so even if lawful but not the smartest thing to do, does not negate lawful self defense. 

[LumRaiderFan]

9 hours ago, Setx fan said:

Wisconsin state law 948.60 is not very strongly worded so you can find loop holes to get around it but if you read the whole thing you can easily see it was never intended for teenagers to be out on the streets with “dangerous” weapons. Dangerous meaning harmful to other humans. Teenagers were only allowed to possess guns for hunting, target practice, things of that nature. 

You seem to have more of a problem with this young man that was trying to stop rioting than the sexual predator thugs that tried to run him down and kill him...why is that?

[Setx fan]

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Do you actually see that somewhere in the law, as convoluted as Wisconsin law is, or is that just your opinion? Some states have laws that are so messed up I don’t think even lawyers can understand them. Texas laws used to be fairly simplistic and very easy to understand even for the average person however in the last 15 or 20 years, they have started to add some gibberish in some areas. 

An 18 or 19-year-old are teenagers and can legally carry long guns almost anywhere in Wisconsin. Is there a different law for target practice for a 17 year old than there is for 18 year old adult? Like maybe does it say a 17-year-old teenager is not allowed to carry weapons around other humans but an 18-year-old can? How about a 21 year old? I thought all weapons were dangerous and harmful to other humans. Is there a distinction in Wisconsin law between a 20 and 21 year old…. or a 17 year old and an 18 year old? 

I’m not even sure what your point is. If your point is that Rittenhouse should not have carried the weapon, great. I have said that in a couple of responses in various forums. It isn’t that he should not have been arm to protect himself but why go there in the first place?  That has nothing to do with him lawfully defending himself from an unlawful felony attack by other people.

Way before I was ever a police officer, I asked several long time police officers that I knew a hypothetical question. If I was a unlawfully carrying a weapon under Texas law by having a handgun with me and I shot and killed a guy that would otherwise been ruled as self-defense, would I be held for murder because of the weapon. The answer was always the same. Your right to protect your own life has nothing to do with an unlawful weapon. I would likely be charged with the weapon but not with homicide.

You can simply look at New York as one of the most obvious cases. I don’t think there is anywhere in the country that has more strict gun laws than New York and in particular New York City. There is a United States Supreme court case which might be ruled on this week on that very issue from NY. Way back in 1984 Bernhard Goetz shot four teenagers on a subway who he said was trying to rob him. A few days later he turned himself in. A grand jury refused to indict him except on weapons charges. It was against the law to have a weapon but he still had the authority under New York law to protect himself. That  did not sit well politically so they brought it to a second grand jury who under political pressure indicted him.  He went to trial and a jury acquitted him of shooting all four people. He was convicted of the unlawful possession of a weapon charge. Unlawfully carrying a weapon or doing so even if lawful but not the smartest thing to do, does not negate lawful self defense. 

Long page full of nothing. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ignore everything else. 

[Setx fan]

4 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

You seem to have more of a problem with this young man that was trying to stop rioting than the sexual predator thugs that tried to run him down and kill him...why is that?

I don’t have a problem with anybody involved in the incident. All I know about the 3 guys who were apparently “attacking” Kyle is 2 are dead and the other was injured. You missed the whole point of my post but thats expected. 

[Setx fan]

On 11/20/2021 at 3:19 PM, Setx fan said:

Ok cool but I have another question. Do adults have the right to defend themselves against people breaking in their homes? Even if it unknowingly happens to be the cops breaking in their home? 

 

[LumRaiderFan]

48 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

I don’t have a problem with anybody involved in the incident. All I know about the 3 guys who were apparently “attacking” Kyle is 2 are dead and the other was injured. You missed the whole point of my post but thats expected. 

So what is your point?  Also, by you saying they were apparently "attacking" him tells me you either haven't seen the video or simply see what you choose to see.

He was, without a doubt, being attacked by the thugs that he managed to kill before they killed him.  A jury that has seen way more evidence than you or I have seen agrees.

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, Setx fan said:

Long page full of nothing. You see what you want to see. You believe what you want to believe. You ignore everything else. 

I have to hand it to you. You can state absolutely nothing and claim it as fact. 

Your comment about seeing what you want to see is very appropriate. Almost anyone can read your statements and see that exact situation.

Let’s face it, you appear to be angry that Rittenhouse complied with all of the laws and a jury found the same thing. Even the judge realized that there was no violation claimed of carrying a rifle in the public by Rittenhouse. But, you say what you want to say and believe what you want to believe.

Or maybe just trolling…

[Setx fan]

27 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I have to hand it to you. You can state absolutely nothing and claim it as fact. 

Your comment about seeing what you want to see is very appropriate. Almost anyone can read your statements and see that exact situation.

Let’s face it, you appear to be angry that Rittenhouse complied with all of the laws and a jury found the same thing. Even the judge realized that there was no violation claimed of carrying a rifle in the public by Rittenhouse. But, you say what you want to say and believe what you want to believe.

Or maybe just trolling…

Yea your right. Kyle carrying his big riffle that he had to have someone else purchase for him into a scene full of raged protestors and rioters is exactly what Governor Tommy Thompson had in mind when he passed that law. And yea everybody can just keep ignoring my question. Let me quit bothering you good ole folks. Y’all have a good one 

[SmashMouth]

On 11/22/2021 at 1:27 PM, Setx fan said:

Ok so explain to me the difference between a long gun and a hand gun. Why is one legal and the other illegal for people his age? 

Why are you answering my question with a question. 

[Kountzer]

On 11/22/2021 at 10:02 AM, CardinalBacker said:

BUT, if you go out breaking windows, setting fires, and assaulting people you should kinda expect to get your head blown off, too, right?  It's a possibility at least.  I mean, if those boys weren't out breaking multitudes of laws, they'd still be alive, too. 

If she could would Ashli Babbitt agree with all that?  Who knows?

[SmashMouth]

On 11/20/2021 at 5:00 PM, Setx fan said:

He illegally possessed a firearm at the time when he ended up shooting people in “self defense”.

His possession of the firearm was not illegal. 

[BS Wildcats]

26 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

His possession of the firearm was not illegal. 

You’re killing the liberal narrative 

[bullets13]

4 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I have to hand it to you. You can state absolutely nothing and claim it as fact. 

Your comment about seeing what you want to see is very appropriate. Almost anyone can read your statements and see that exact situation.

Let’s face it, you appear to be angry that Rittenhouse complied with all of the laws and a jury found the same thing. Even the judge realized that there was no violation claimed of carrying a rifle in the public by Rittenhouse. But, you say what you want to say and believe what you want to believe.

Or maybe just trolling…

I was about to say the same thing.  Accuses people of seeing what they want to see, and then immediate makes another post about people “attacking” Rittenhouse.  Laughable.

[Unwoke]

3..2..1…..TDS 😂
 

 

[bullets13]

51 minutes ago, Unwoke said:

3..2..1…..TDS 😂
 

 

I made the mistake of clicking the Twitter video and lost 100 brain cells and aged 5 years.  But it’s probably accurate

[Unwoke]

15 minutes ago, bullets13 said:

I made the mistake of clicking the Twitter video and lost 100 brain cells and aged 5 years.  But it’s probably accurate

Well…. Twitter is definitely a Trash Dumpster but I find some humor on it occasionally. Lol

[tvc184]

22 hours ago, Setx fan said:

Yea your right. Kyle carrying his big riffle that he had to have someone else purchase for him into a scene full of raged protestors and rioters is exactly what Governor Tommy Thompson had in mind when he passed that law. And yea everybody can just keep ignoring my question. Let me quit bothering you good ole folks. Y’all have a good one 

The only questions I saw you ask they were not directed at me, are answered.

What do you want to know?

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Rittenhouse might be headed for a big payday.

[tvc184]

1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Rittenhouse might be headed for a big payday.

Hopefully.  I wish the DA like in the Duke rape case and in the Ahmaud Arbery cases get handled. Of course in those cases there was a cover-up and in the Rittenhouse case the prosecutor just stretched reasonableness.

I think in the Duke case the DA was disbarred and had criminal charges filed and so far there are criminal charges pending on the DA in the Ahmaud Aubery case.