Kyle Rittenhouse's so-called victim just admitted under oath that KR shot him self-defense

a reply to: JinMI

For the state, how do you legally hunt as a teenager?

a reply to: neutronflux

If you look up the law exceptions part, there's exemptions.

Its murky though as it specifies under the age of 16.

a reply to: game over man

You argue about as well as the prosecution in this case and seem just about as knowledgeable

Which is why they lost

a reply to: game over man

Disagree entirely. With every word, syllable and letter you’ve written.

Not one word has been accurate, even the most basic facts of the case seem to elude you.

I’ll make this easy and skip to the end. You lose. Prosecutors lose. KR walks free with 2,000,000 cash money. Most importantly, the left loses what it sees as a referendum on putting down violent extremist domestic terrorist insurrectionist mobs o morons.

Keep your pump and dump opinions coming. They’ll make precisely 0 difference to that jury or any sentient observer.

At least we know antifa and BLM thugs will be too terrified to reign terror on SYG states. Even in states without sensible common sense self defense laws (like Stand Your Ground) I fully hope and expect a chilling effect on riots, looting and other characteristically domestic violent left wing extremist activity.

Can’t wait for this precedent. Hope more people take up defending their homes and businesses from these unwashed vile thugs after it comes down.

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: JinMI

Kyle didn't kill anyone with his bare hands or some other weapon. He used the weapon he was illegally possessing. Possessing the gun is behaving in a lawless manner. So what whatever else he's doing. Psychos who abduct and sex traffic children can lure them in with candy and being a sweet friend to them. Breaking the law is breaking the law, doesn't matter if you have moments of being good in your life. The law is the law.

Except for the rioters?
All breaking curfew?
The law is the law?

Lol
Painted yourself into a corner?

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: JinMI

People who commit crimes could have done a good deed or two, or many, in their past. Kyle fans defend his lawlessness by saying he's protecting buildings and providing first aid. Doesn't matter, he's still consciously breaking the law illegally possessing the firearm while doing that. Kyle pulled the trigger, 8 times. If he wasn't in possession, like he knew he shouldn't be, then there would be no trigger to pull.

The media is on fire today discussing and commenting on our previous evenings conversation.

The judge acknowledged the murky law about the gun charge that was brought up by the.. PROSECUTION!

Apparently, 16 and 17 year olds are likely not against the law and is also reflected in KR testimony when he inquired to LE.

Now, many left leaning individuals are coming out of the woodwork APOLOGIZING for buying the same exact lies you've regurgitated.

Will you also?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I''m just going by what you said.

No, you’re not. Nowhere in what I said did I a) claim to know what was in his mind or b) claim that he said in his mind he knew Rittenhouse had murdered anybody. Weirdly, you provide a quote from me that directly contradicts your claim that you got the “in his mind Rittenhouse had murdered somebody” from me and yet somehow think it vindicates you. Huber and Rosenbaum are two different people, so trying to use what he said about Huber as a rebuttal against what he said about why he gave chase to begin with doesn’t really work.

You’re really reaching for a straw to cling to and it’s getting ugly. Credit where it’s due though, your mental gymnastics is honestly impressive. It’s been some time since I’ve seen such a blatant display of trying to intermingle facts and using a thought after the fact to justify a behavior that occurred before the thought. Well done

a reply to: Shamrock6

Nowhere in what I said did I a) claim to know what was in his mind or b) claim that he said in his mind he knew Rittenhouse had murdered anybody.

JFC Dude! Chill out. My posts were NOT about you!

I quoted exactly what you said, and then I made my point, several pages back already. Point made, move on.

They only thing that had anything to do with you, is that you posted that Gaige Grosskreutz only had hearsay information about the shooting, which as it turns out was incorrect. I have no idea why my posts make you feel so threatened or why you feel the need to defend yourself from my posts/opinions, or whatever is going on in your myopic mind.

My posts have been observational, about how the legal deffinition of self defense could, theoretically, be used by anyone trying to escape people trying to stop them, even murderers and shoplifters, depending on the supposed mindset of all the people involved. In this case, at least two people were shot, one killed, because they thought they were stopping an active shooter who just shot a guy, while Rittenhouse was running from people who he thought were trying to take his weapon and kill him.

As a juror I don't see self defense...in a situation with no protest or riot, if a kid got possession of a firearm illegally and went to Kenosha on a normal night, walking around open carrying on a normal night, claiming to protect the city on a normal night, some bad cops don't do anything on a normal night, people start yelling at him and after he's pointed the gun at them on a normal night, then he's chased, and he shoots someone 4 times killing them, that's not self defense. He's the aggressor, provocateur, and disturbing the peace.

The judge is obviously biased with rejecting evidence showing intent and disregard for human life, while Trump's theme song plays from his phone in the court room, calling for breaks when the witnesses don't answer the prosecution's questions, and getting jurors to clap for defense witnesses is a total sham and complete mockery.

Right wing commentary doesn't want to admit they have a huge political advantage in this case. I'm sure the jurors are all Right Wing 2A Christians so clearly it was over before it started.

Now apparently teenagers from Compton can go armed to the teeth and defend Orange County at the next Right Wing rally, and if they get scared they can start killing people, because that's the new norm now. You can declare yourself as protecting a city at a rally, show up armed, and if someone scares you, you have the right to kill them. That's what conservatives are saying.

a reply to: game over man

Just to be clear, you consider rioting, looting, arson as a "rally"?

a reply to: game over man

The judge is obviously biased.....

and there is where you lose.

Good game.

Right wing commentary doesn't want to admit they have a huge political advantage in this case. I'm sure the jurors are all Right Wing 2A Christians so clearly it was over before it started.

Double down.


To the rest of the bluster, it's not in the realm of reality.

"Illegal" possession of a gun being the reason for an intended murder conviction is like saying a "Stolen" car is the reason for a bank robbery conviction 😎

Yes Mertyl we are in an age of assumptive connective deductions 😃

a reply to: game over man

How would somebody "conceal carry" an AR15 ? 😃

a reply to: game over man

What reasoning is used when people refer to "Christians" and "2nd Amendment" ? 😃

Do "Christians and 2nd Amendment" apply equally to Christian Black People living in, for example, The South Side of Chicago high crime areas ?😃

a reply to: Sookiechacha

JFC Dude! Chill out. My posts were NOT about you!

You seem worked up. All I did was correct your erroneous understanding of what you think I said versus what I actually said. That seems pretty specific to being about me since y’know….I said it….and you implied that I’m making things up.

I quoted exactly what you said, and then I made my point, several pages back already. Point made, move on.

Oh I see. You get to misrepresent what I said to try and score a point but when I correct it, I need to just move on. That seems reasonable.

They only thing that had anything to do with you, is that you posted that Gaige Grosskreutz only had hearsay information about the shooting, which as it turns out was incorrect. I have no idea why my posts make you feel so threatened or why you feel the need to defend yourself from my posts/opinions, or whatever is going on in your myopic mind.

You seem to have an awfully high opinion of how much an impact you have on people and that’s adorable! Perhaps if you don’t want people to respond to your posts, don’t run around quoting said people? Don’t post an essay about how you’re not talking about a person and then proceed to do so in paragraph form? Seems kinda self defeating.

My posts have been observational, about how the legal deffinition of self defense could, theoretically, be used by anyone trying to escape people trying to stop them, even murderers and shoplifters, depending on the supposed mindset of all the people involved.

Which I’ve disagreed with and presented why I disagree with them, which you’ve now somehow turned into me being upset with you in order to deflect from the absurdity of your position. Apologies for calling you on it.

originally posted by: game over man

then he's chased, and he shoots someone 4 times killing them, that's not self defense. He's the aggressor, provocateur, and disturbing the peace.

An aggressor doesn't run, an aggressor doesn't get chased. The aggressor is the one that is chasing.

If we forget about the political ramifications of the situation; On a normal night a man with a gun who is chased is the victim; it is understandable that he might use his gun in self defense to stop his pursuer.

All the colorful context you add to justify why one human would chase another human with the intent to harm is irrelevant. One man chose to chase another with the intent to harm him; the other man ran away from the situation. They could have both ran away from the situation and no one would have been shot. The chaser is the aggressor; the guy running away shot in self defense.

Now if you want to add back into the conversation that their was a riot going on and that a vigilantly did show up because he had more guns than brains; now you have a situation where all involved were preforming legally questionable and highly dangerous acts.

Had Rittenhouse's been the one killed in this situation his attackers could also make the claim they were acting in self defense from a man with a gun that they thought was an active shooter.

Just because both parties in this situation have legitimate claims to self defense doesn't mean that one of then must be wrong. Its not a mutually exclusive outcome, they could have all legitimately thought they were acting in self defense and none of them had a legitimate reason to be there that night.

Guilt in this case comes down to the political stance of the observer; nothing more.

On a normal night no one would have been chased or shot. The ultimate blame rests with the people who allowed these riots to start and continue.

a reply to: Shamrock6

You get to misrepresent what I said to try and score a point but when I correct it, I need to just move on.

You haven't corrected anything.

Which I’ve disagreed with and presented why I disagree with them, which you’ve now somehow turned into me being upset with you in order to deflect from the absurdity of your position.

What position would that be?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You, like others, should learn to just walk away instead of doubling down. It is obvious you will never own your mistakes or misconceptions.

The problem is none of that is relevant to the case. Hypotheticals about another situation in a completely different state are not relevant. You are comparing apples to anti tank mines. There simply is no relation.

Had those other events actually had occurred and been adjudicated, you could generally use them to cite precedent/case law, but even that is typically non binding except in specific circumstances.

You aren’t arguing points of law. You are throwing out totally hypothetical situations, and when you don’t get the answers you want, attempt to deflect and muddy the waters as much as possible to avoid admitting your arguments simply aren’t relevant to KRs case.

No two cases have the same circumstances. It is those small details that make or break a self defense claim. It is also most significantly dependent on what state it occurs in. With the exception of SYG laws, most states define self defense in a unique way. There is no Universal Statute #1 on self defense that the states share. In the case of SYG, they usually remove any duty to retreat and also force the state to disprove the self defense claim in order to charge you with a crime. What is legal in Virginia may be a felony in California. What constitutes self defense in PA might constitute murder in NY.

If you really wanted to objectively compare the application of law, find other cases from Wisconsin. Even this will only be a comparison on points of law, because again the circumstances (which make or break the claim) are never the same.

a reply to: JinMI

In perusing this thread, I couldn't help but notice this quote by you.

It's about Kyle proving his innocence.

I'm fairly sure you didn't mean it in this fashion...

The trial was never about him proving his innocence...it was the prosecution trying to prove guilt. Failing, but trying nevertheless. He is/was presumed innocent 'til proven otherwise.

I know that you know this...but some others herein don't seem to.