Kyle Rittenhouse released after posting $2 million bail

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: yuppa

The people who saw him shoot someone did not know whether it could have been self defense. They saw someone shot in the head and the shooter run.

I can't say for sure obviously, I would have to see of any other cases where someone shoots someone in self defense but takes off after.

I don't know in most cases if you see someone shoot someone in the head and run, would you try to apprehend them? We have people on ATS who claim they will shoot someone for damaging property, you're telling me they wouldn't try to stop someone that they saw shoot another person? This will be for the court to decide.

My friend, has was chased 1st, after ruining the attempted arson of the gas station, witness says victim 1 was grabbing for rifle, that victim 1 only a minute previously told Kyle he was going to F him up with..then he shot, then chased again..then the other 2. I would agree the rifle became the target, had the rifle not been there, they would be alive. As far as the law reads, from what I gather(not a lawyer obviously) despite the circumstances not in Kyles favour..he is allowed to defend himself from harm. There is nothing in the law that what you can defend against..ie you can defend from a knife, but not a bat..etc. I don't relish anyones death here.

a reply to: vonclod

I think besides the gun charges the other shootings might be the toughest legal fight, although as I said, I don't have the knowledge, that's just an opinion. I guess I shouldn't speculate and we have to wait and see.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: vonclod

I think besides the gun charges the other shootings might be the toughest legal fight, although as I said, I don't have the knowledge, that's just an opinion. I guess I shouldn't speculate and we have to wait and see.

I could be wrong on the law too..lol, just my interpretation that even if you shouldn't of been there, and despite the rifle shouldn't of been there..one can still use it to defend against attack. Its a sad situation.

a reply to: vonclod

the VIDEO contradicts that false story. In short easily proved to be a liar.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: yuppa

The people who saw him shoot someone did not know whether it could have been self defense. They saw someone shot in the head and the shooter run.

I can't say for sure obviously, I would have to see of any other cases where someone shoots someone in self defense but takes off after.

I don't know in most cases if you see someone shoot someone in the head and run, would you try to apprehend them? We have people on ATS who claim they will shoot someone for damaging property, you're telling me they wouldn't try to stop someone that they saw shoot another person? This will be for the court to decide.

I take it you never seen a retreat under fire before? Oh yeah let me just shoot this guy in self defense,and then his buddies come beat me to death as i stand there looking STUPID.Stop feeling and THINK.

a reply to: vonclod

I dont know if you realize this but the people there felt threatened. In Fact the police caused it they actually ushered everyone down to a group of armed men. Many felt the police set them up for a confrontation closing off all the streets and pushing them towards the militia group. So yes there was some there that got mad and felt threatened by people carrying guns. This was an obvious conclusion to make and this is why the police should have chased them off.

So being armed he created the circumstances that lead to two people being murdered. He chose to kill both unarmed men because he wanted to feel important and thought he was some kind of vigilante hero. That boy had no business being armed past his curfew in the middle of protests. He obviously was not able to handle himself because if he could no one would have died. And now because of his actions hes in alot of trouble and faces spending the rest of his life behind bars. But even if he doesnt he will never have a normal life he not only killed 2 people but destroyed his future.

He is alive, he will have his day in court. He will be convicted of a illegal straw purchase, he will be acquitted of murder via obvious self defense. That would be the just outcome.

originally posted by: frogs453
Here's the thing though. When someone is killed let's say in a similar fashion to Ahmed Arbery, the first ATS comments are usually along the lines of "but he was committing a crime!" Rittenhouse was committing two crimes before he even shot someone. He was illegally carrying a weapon, he was out an hour and a half past curfew. If he had not been out committing these crimes, this situation would never have occurred. Now, you can do a bunch of "yeah, but", although this does not change the fact that the kid was committing crimes even before he shot someone.

here is something to think about. you say if he had not been there and had not been out past curfew this situation would not have occurred. if the POLICE had been doing their JOBS, with the national guard appropriately called in to help them, and arresting those violent rioters and looters, then this situation would have never happened. if the terrorist groups antifa and BLM and their radical supporters were not out rioting and looting (also breaking the law by being out after curfew), then this never would have happened. and if either of the above happened there would have been no need for him to be there to help in the first place. Now, you can do a bunch of "yeah, but", although this does not change the fact that the those shot were committing crimes even before he shot them.

a reply to: generik

But the police aren't being charged. Those other people are not being charged. Was the 17 year old legally supposed to be there, with a weapon? Is he legally authorized to defend the laws? Was he a cop? It is a messed up situation all around. What will come into play is the laws in the state and his actions.

originally posted by: game over man
Isn't posting bail just 10% of the bail amount? So Republicans donated $200,000 to this kid when they could have used that money for helping small businesses. Specifically black owned businesses, ya know, because Republicans are NOT racist.

why should Republicans give their money to help BLACK (nice to see your racism there), owned businesses? it wasn't Republicans that were destroying businesses. that should be democrats paying to help those businesses, since it was their supporters causing the destruction and theft, in support of the democrat's false cause.

Republicans (if that is who gave him the money), did the right thing by trying to help someone who is being railroaded by the democrat's lynch mob mentality, for trying to help stop those very businesses you speak of, from being destroyed and robbed in the first place.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: generik

But the police aren't being charged. Those other people are not being charged. Was the 17 year old legally supposed to be there, with a weapon? Is he legally authorized to defend the laws? Was he a cop? It is a messed up situation all around. What will come into play is the laws in the state and his actions.

why should the police be charged? they were prevented from doing their job by the same politicians who would not call in the national guard to help. it is those politicians who should be charged and prosecuted. including being charged for two counts of murder. and all those involved in the rioting and looting should be charged as well, also including the survivor, with two counts of murder in this case.

originally posted by: panoz77
He is alive, he will have his day in court. He will be convicted of a illegal straw purchase, he will be acquitted of murder via obvious self defense. That would be the just outcome.

HE didnt buy the gun. His friend who lent it to him bought the gun. Kyle was un armed when he crossed state lines into wisconsin.

a reply to: dragonridr

If he is found not guilty by self defense,no his future is still viable if he dont act like the zimmerman guy.

The Bidonett's want to hold his gun up to create more bad laws so people can't protect themselves unless they are government approved.

a reply to: Anon283799

For those wanting to follow the charges & case:
wcca.wicourts.gov...

Count no. Statute Description Severity Disposition
1 940.02(1) 1st-Degree Reckless Homicide Felony B
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
2 941.30(1) 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
3 940.01(1)(a) 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
4 940.01(1)(a) Attempt 1st-Degree Intentional Homicide Felony A
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
5 941.30(1) 1st-Degree Recklessly Endangering Safety Felony F
Modifier: 939.63(1)(b) Use of a Dangerous Weapon
6 948.60(2)(a) Possess Dangerous Weapon-Person < 18 Misd. A

a reply to: dragonridr

Know what they tell us to do in the military in the event of an active shooter, run away if able, Hide if you cant, fight as a last resort, all the people shot that night would be hale and healthy if they hadnt chosen to engage a shooter with bare hands since they had other options.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: panoz77
He is alive, he will have his day in court. He will be convicted of a illegal straw purchase, he will be acquitted of murder via obvious self defense. That would be the just outcome.

HE didnt buy the gun. His friend who lent it to him bought the gun. Kyle was un armed when he crossed state lines into wisconsin.

The story is that Kyle gave his buddy the $$ to buy the AR. That is a straw purchase. May or may not be true, but that is the story I am hearing, the courts and a jury get to decide.

a reply to: yuppa

Actually his friend lied he had given him money to purchase it. I coudnt figure out how he managed to buy a gun he was seen with wasnt his moms, So he had a friend buy it for him it stayed at his house. Amazes me his mother did not put a stop to a minor having a gun in his room.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: yuppa

Actually his friend lied he had given him money to purchase it. I coudnt figure out how he managed to buy a gun he was seen with wasnt his moms, So he had a friend buy it for him it stayed at his house. Amazes me his mother did not put a stop to a minor having a gun in his room.

STILl the GUN he used was not BROUGHT WITH HIM INTO THE STATE. The gun used in the shooting was from his militia friends and in his state he can have a hunting rifle if i remember correctly.

I have had at least one gun in my room since I was 10 years old. 5 years old if you count .177 guns. I didn't shoot my eye out.