RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

The investigating officer that arrived on the scene is a hottie!!! She is on the stand now.

---

Amen.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

his father lives in Kenosha and he had a summer job there.

It is unclear whether or not a group of people were asked by the owners to protect the property.

Why would he be fined for crossing state lines? What crime did he commit in taking that action? (hint - the answer is none).

---

Unlawful possession according to Wisconsin law.

Rawhide said:

---

fadskier said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

What law did he break to justify your "fine?"

---

Unlawful possession in the state of Wisconsin (he wasn't 18). Also, I believe you have to have an Illinois firearm ID which he did not possess.

---

How long has it been illegal for crossing state lines in America?

---

Where did I saw it was illegal to cross state lines?

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

his father lives in Kenosha and he had a summer job there.

It is unclear whether or not a group of people were asked by the owners to protect the property.

Why would he be fined for crossing state lines? What crime did he commit in taking that action? (hint - the answer is none).

---

Unlawful possession according to Wisconsin law.

---

As noted by myself and several others, the unlawful possession charge is still open and my not be applicable at all, either due to KR being within the statuary exception (allowing persons over 16 years of age to possess a rifle or shotgun), or due to the conflict between the existing statutes being unconstitutionally ambiguous.

The defense has raised a motion to dismiss the gun charge, but judge has not ruled yet.

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

his father lives in Kenosha and he had a summer job there.

It is unclear whether or not a group of people were asked by the owners to protect the property.

Why would he be fined for crossing state lines? What crime did he commit in taking that action? (hint - the answer is none).

---

Unlawful possession according to Wisconsin law.

---

The gun never crossed state lines. As to possession within Wisconsin, the statute is vague. On the most literal reading I would argue it was lawful.

---

I never said the gun crossed lines.

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

He didn't live there at the time. and still doesn't.

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

I agree with you his decision to attend the riots that night was a foolish one, but if you are going to fine him or hold him accountable, there has to be a law that he violated. I've yet to hear what it is.

---

In Wisconsin you have to be 18 to possess a dangerous weapon.

It's a misdemeanor, which I am saying he should just be fined.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

He didn't live there at the time. and still doesn't.

---

You seem to be trying to split hairs here, and I don't think that is appropriate.

He split time between his parent's homes, which were less than 30 minutes apart from each other, but across state lines. He had a job in Kenosha. Not sure how "his community" cannot encompass more than the city he physically resided in. That is like saying Floyd Casey Stadium was not in the same community as Baylor because it was in a different city (Beverly Hills vs. Waco).

The larger / more important point still stands, he violated 0 laws by crossing state lines on August 25, 2020.

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't.

---

I live in the Houston area. Twenty minutes/miles from my house is Houston, League City, Webster, Pasadena, Sugar Land, Spring, The Woodlands - I consider everyone one of these cities part of my community.

---

That's not only a stretch, it's ridiculous.

I lived in Katy and if there was rioting in Pasadena...it has little to do with me.

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

---

Again, as several people (myself included) have pointed out, there are conflicting statutes that make this point far from clear. It is an issue at trial and there is currently a motion to dismiss under consideration in front of the court.

Thus a conclusory statement such as yours is inappropriate in this case.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ashli Babbitts shooter was cleared for self defense.

Think about that in comparison to Rittenhouse.

---

Rittenhouse was defending the Capitol while a Constitutional duty was being performed by the legislative branch?

From this distance, looks like Rittenhouse is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't.

---

I live in the Houston area. Twenty minutes/miles from my house is Houston, League City, Webster, Pasadena, Sugar Land, Spring, The Woodlands - I consider everyone one of these cities part of my community.

---

That's not only a stretch, it's ridiculous.

I lived in Katy and if there was rioting in Pasadena...it has little to do with me.

---

Mount Carmel is 25 minutes outside of Waco - still called the Waco Siege.

You are right about Katy, that is more like East San Antonio.

---

Yes it is because Waco is the largest city near it.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

---

Again, as several people (myself included) have pointed out, there are conflicting statutes that make this point far from clear. It is an issue at trial and there is currently a motion to dismiss under consideration in front of the court.

Thus a conclusory statement such as yours is inappropriate in this case.

---

Calm down princess...just citing their law.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Ashli Babbitts shooter was cleared for self defense.

Think about that in comparison to Rittenhouse.

---

Rittenhouse was defending the Capitol while a Constitutional duty was being performed by the legislative branch?

From this distance, looks like Rittenhouse is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

---

Babbit was behind a door 10 yards away from the man who shot her.

Rittenhouse had a gun pointed at him while he was on the ground.

---

Rittenhouse is not guilty of murder or manslaughter

ADA Jabba Hutt is angry since his expert likely will not get to testify. To help get his expert qualified, ADA Jabba insults the judge as technologically ignorant.

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

---

Again, as several people (myself included) have pointed out, there are conflicting statutes that make this point far from clear. It is an issue at trial and there is currently a motion to dismiss under consideration in front of the court.

Thus a conclusory statement such as yours is inappropriate in this case.

---

Calm down princess...just citing their law.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

---

I am very calm. I am also following the trial.

Statute you cite also has a section (c): "(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

29.304 and 29.593 are exceptions for possession by a person over 18 of a rifle or shotgun.

That is the source of the ambiguity and the defense motion. The court has not ruled. I think there is enough ambiguity here to dismiss the charge, if not outright say KR did not violate the statue due to the exception in 29.304.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

---

Again, as several people (myself included) have pointed out, there are conflicting statutes that make this point far from clear. It is an issue at trial and there is currently a motion to dismiss under consideration in front of the court.

Thus a conclusory statement such as yours is inappropriate in this case.

---

Calm down princess...just citing their law.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

---

I am very calm. I am also following the trial.

Statute you cite also has a section (c): "(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

29.304 and 29.593 are exceptions for possession by a person over 18 of a rifle or shotgun.

That is the source of the ambiguity and the defense motion. The court has not ruled. I think there is enough ambiguity here to dismiss the charge, if not outright say KR did not violate the statue due to the exception in 29.304.

---

Both of those you cite involve hunting

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

---

Again, as several people (myself included) have pointed out, there are conflicting statutes that make this point far from clear. It is an issue at trial and there is currently a motion to dismiss under consideration in front of the court.

Thus a conclusory statement such as yours is inappropriate in this case.

---

Calm down princess...just citing their law.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

---

I am very calm. I am also following the trial.

Statute you cite also has a section (c): "(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

29.304 and 29.593 are exceptions for possession by a person over 18 of a rifle or shotgun.

That is the source of the ambiguity and the defense motion. The court has not ruled. I think there is enough ambiguity here to dismiss the charge, if not outright say KR did not violate the statue due to the exception in 29.304.

---

Both of those you cite involve hunting

---

yes, but 948.60 states that it only applies to persons under 18 who are not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, each of which KR WAS in compliance with. Hence the ambiguity / exception that is pending before the court.

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Any speak of his travel to the riots means nothing. He has as much right to be there guarding against the rioters as the rioters had to be there rioting. Period. He had every right to use deadly force against a violent man threatening to kill him and chasing him, grabbing for his gun in his final moments. He had every right to defend himself from the man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard. He had every right to shoot the armed rioter who was aiming his pistol at him. The kid should walk.

---

No but he didn't have any reason to be there. Whether he had the right to be flaunting an AR he didn't own, in another state, was an interesting legal discussion, but the guy is an idiot who was looking for trouble. Trouble may have found him before he started his own, but he's an idiot for being there at all.

Edit: also wasn't he 17? Can we just agree that we wouldn't enjoy the results of a police force full of 17 year olds? That maybe policing should not be done by rando 17 year olds?

---

There are two separate issues:

• Did he have a reason to be there? Yes - he has stated that his intent was to protect his community from burners, looters, and murders as well as to provide medical care to injured if needed
• Was it smart for him to be there? No - a 17-year-old should not willfully participate in a volatile, violent situation

I agree it was unadvisable for him to carry a gun. However, had he not he likely would have been dead or seriously injured. The key fact that many keep missing is he did not provoke an attack - it was the opposite.

---

He did not have a good reason to be out alone amongst rioters carrying an AR. I can appreciate sitting in a buddy's business and protecting it. But that's not what he did.

The AR did save his life, but it might have also cost others theirs. Different situation if he was not open carrying.

And it goes without saying the idiots who got shot were idiots too. Any number of people should have made different decisions that night, and nobody needed to die.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

"Everyone should watch the Kyle Rittenhouse trial if they can. It is one of the great trials in US history - but it shouldn't be happening. Why not?

Because historically a CLEAR self defense case with so much defense evidence is not charged as a crime to begin with.

This case is a sign of the times for the revolutionary moment we are in. It will be studied long into the future - no matter who wins the case or which side wins the revolution. It is a historical marker.

The State - through its prosecution - is throwing THE BOOK at an 18 year old with no criminal history. The STATE is DIRECTLY challenging a founding principle of America as we knew it - that Americans can defend themselves, their property & community from terrorist mobs.

The idea that Americans are not free to protect their communities when law & order breakdown and are overwhelmed by radical, dangerous, lawless revolutionary forces would be UNTHINKABLE to all prior generations of Americans & certainly the founders.

The STATE is arguing that Kyle should have not defended himself or his community. They are defacto agreeing with the leftists that America itself is flawed, shameful & should be punished and possibly dissolved. In a way America itself is on trial. The 2nd Amendment is on trial. The right to self defense is on trial.

The prosecution's HERO'S are LITERALLY the rioters. WE are the villains."

---

I get what you are saying except it wasn't his community or property. That being said, I think he should be fined for crossing states line and putting himself in that position, but it was not murder and he should not have any jail time.

---

I think people are ignoring or misinterpreting what you were trying to say here, but to be fair, you did say "I think he should be fined for crossing state lines..."

Again, I believe you left a couple words out of the sentence in the point you were trying to make, but this is what people are responding too. Even if they're just being intentionally obtuse.

---

I guess I have to be completely literal...but I was also responding to the poster who said he was protecting his community. He wasn't. Again, Kyle put himself in that position which is unfortunate and I do think he should be fined or held accountable for some of that...however, it rioters are no held accountable, then no one should.

---

Not sure how you get to this conclusion. He lived ~20 min away. His dad lives in Kenosha and he was there regularly / had a job there during summer of 2020.

The curfew charge has already been dismissed by the court (as it should have been, was clearly not being enforced the night of August 25th, 2020).

Putting yourself in a bad situation or exercising bad judgment is not a crime. Period.

---

Possession and being armed under 18 is a crime in Wisconsin.

---

Again, as several people (myself included) have pointed out, there are conflicting statutes that make this point far from clear. It is an issue at trial and there is currently a motion to dismiss under consideration in front of the court.

Thus a conclusory statement such as yours is inappropriate in this case.

---

Calm down princess...just citing their law.

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

---

I am very calm. I am also following the trial.

Statute you cite also has a section (c): "(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

29.304 and 29.593 are exceptions for possession by a person over 18 of a rifle or shotgun.

That is the source of the ambiguity and the defense motion. The court has not ruled. I think there is enough ambiguity here to dismiss the charge, if not outright say KR did not violate the statue due to the exception in 29.304.

---

Both of those you cite involve hunting

---

yes, but 948.60 states that it only applies to persons under 18 who are not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, each of which KR WAS in compliance with. Hence the ambiguity / exception that is pending before the court.

---

29.304 only applies to persons under 15 years of age

this explains it better

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/