Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

Makes you look bitter, that.

---

Which procedural rule are you whining about?

---

You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

---

You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.

---

You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.

---

So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?

Shock.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

Makes you look bitter, that.

---

Which procedural rule are you whining about?

---

You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

---

You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.

---

You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.

---

So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?

Shock.

---

OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.

Sam Lowry said:

---

fadskier said:

---

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.

---

Then why do you think he needed an Illinois firearm license?

---

He lived in Illinois. Just pointing out that it had lapsed in Illinois.

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.

---

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.

---

I never said he violated a state law by crossing state lines.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

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/

---

As does this (with a different conclusion): https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/the-injustice-of-the-gun-charge-against-kyle-rittenhouse/

we can keep posting competing partisan links or we can agree that it is an open question, which it is.

---

I'm not posting partisan sites. I don't know any. I just posted what came up on Google. I ma a legal Republican gun owner. I support Kyle and do not think he is guilty of anything but misdemeanors. However, he is not the poster child of a responsible gun owner.

Rawhide said:

---

fadskier said:

---

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?

---

You said he should be fined for crossing state lines - hence illegal:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/97056/replies/2419102

---

Go back and read the thread. I explain later that it was illegal in Wisconsin. I did not say crossing state lines was illegal. Crossing the lines into a state where he is not legal to possess his firearm.

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

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/

---

As does this (with a different conclusion): https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/the-injustice-of-the-gun-charge-against-kyle-rittenhouse/

we can keep posting competing partisan links or we can agree that it is an open question, which it is.

---

BTW my work blocks verified sites that are far left and far right. Your sourced is blocked.

Mothra 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.

---

My understanding is that the unlawful possession charge does not apply to rifles, so I think he skates on that one. As for the Illinois claim, as long as he didn't bring the rifle across state lines into Illinois (which according to the testimony, he didn't), he is not in violation of that either.

---

That has yet to be decided. It applies to dangerous weapons. I believe the rifles and shotguns applies to hunting.

So who decides if an AR is for hunting or is dangerous? Or is it spelled out in the law?

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.

---

I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism. However, once there, he had the right to defend himself and from all accounts, did what he did to deesculate the situation. The people who got shot also CHOSE to be there like Kyle. Then they CHOSE to attack him. Consequences my friend.

Had the police, National Guard or whatever been called and supported, I think it would have been avoided. Of course, if the situation is avoided then it can't be used for political theater.

If anything, he is guilty of illegal possession...pay a fine for the misdemeanor, write a book, sue CNN and he'll be fine. More power to him.

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

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/

---

As does this (with a different conclusion): https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/the-injustice-of-the-gun-charge-against-kyle-rittenhouse/

we can keep posting competing partisan links or we can agree that it is an open question, which it is.

---

I'm not posting partisan sites. I don't know any. I just posted what came up on Google. I ma a legal Republican gun owner. I support Kyle and do not think he is guilty of anything but misdemeanors. However, he is not the poster child of a responsible gun owner.

---

Agree to disagree on Politifact, but it is consistently left-biased.

Also, not to quibble with your link, but it is a fact check of a facebook post and cites no actual law. It also admits that the legality of KR's possession of the rifle is subject to ongoing litigation (this was as of the end of August 2020 when the fact check was posted mind you), as I have noted.

There is clearly a bust in the drafting of 948, because the exception for section 29 effectively swallows the rule for individuals over 16 for anything other than hand guns. While this was likely (clearly I would argue) not the intent of the WI legislature, it is pretty well settled that ambiguity like the one created here inures to the benefit of a defendant.

Judge in Kyle Rittenhouse trial makes inappropriate Asian food joke

Quote:

---

(CNN)The judge presiding over the homicide trial of Kyle Rittenhouse confused observers after making a strange and off-color joke inside the courtroom on Thursday.

"I hope the Asian food isn't coming... isn't on one of those boats from Long Beach Harbor," said Kenosha County Circuit Court Judge Bruce Schroeder as the court was preparing to take a lunch break.

Schroeder, the longest-serving active judge in Wisconsin's trial courts, appeared to be referring to the supply chain backlogs caused by congestion problems in California ports. But his comments were offensive and perceived as anti-Asian by some and as placing blame on Asian people for a large-scale event.

"It harms our community and puts us in the crosshairs of micro aggressions as well as actual physical violence," said John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

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.

---

After she broke into the Capitol?

---

unarmed..

Rittenhouse was attacked with multiple weapons… if the Babbit case was clear self defense and protecting property then surely the young man being attacked while defending property is allowed to defend himself?

---

From this distance, it appears that Rittenhouse was defending himself. The Capitol cop was defending himself and the Capitol.

Mothra said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Mothra 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.

---

My understanding is that the unlawful possession charge does not apply to rifles, so I think he skates on that one. As for the Illinois claim, as long as he didn't bring the rifle across state lines into Illinois (which according to the testimony, he didn't), he is not in violation of that either.

---

That has yet to be decided. It applies to dangerous weapons. I believe the rifles and shotguns applies to hunting.

---

The problem is when you have an unclear statute, as here, any charge isn't going to hold up. And if you're watching the trial right now, that's exactly the way the judge is leaning.

---

I would agree with you.

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

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/

---

As does this (with a different conclusion): https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/the-injustice-of-the-gun-charge-against-kyle-rittenhouse/

we can keep posting competing partisan links or we can agree that it is an open question, which it is.

---

I'm not posting partisan sites. I don't know any. I just posted what came up on Google. I ma a legal Republican gun owner. I support Kyle and do not think he is guilty of anything but misdemeanors. However, he is not the poster child of a responsible gun owner.

---

He is. He killed child molesters and thugs. God bless America.

---

He did and luckily it was self defense...otherwise it would be murder. He acted correctly. However, I don't think we want individuals deciding who or what they can take a gun to defend....

fadskier said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

fadskier said:

---

303Bear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

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/

---

As does this (with a different conclusion): https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/the-injustice-of-the-gun-charge-against-kyle-rittenhouse/

we can keep posting competing partisan links or we can agree that it is an open question, which it is.

---

I'm not posting partisan sites. I don't know any. I just posted what came up on Google. I ma a legal Republican gun owner. I support Kyle and do not think he is guilty of anything but misdemeanors. However, he is not the poster child of a responsible gun owner.

---

He is. He killed child molesters and thugs. God bless America.

---

He did and luckily it was self defense...otherwise it would be murder.

---

Not if I was on the jury.

I don't think Rittenhouse could have shot someone for destroying property, only to defend himself.

Jack Bauer said:

---

I don't think Rittenhouse could have shot someone for destroying property, only to defend himself.

---

Which is unfortunate. Wisconsin should amend its law to mirror Texas.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

Makes you look bitter, that.

---

Which procedural rule are you whining about?

---

You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

---

You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.

---

You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.

---

So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?

Shock.

---

OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.

---

No, actually, I have no idea which rule you're talking about. You brought it up, you should cite it.

Judge will allow the state to present the claim that Kyle pointed his weapon at rioters which provoked the pedo to attack. He very obviously agrees that the evidence cited by prosecutors is flimsy at best. Presenting such an easily debunked claim only helps Kyle further.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

Makes you look bitter, that.

---

Which procedural rule are you whining about?

---

You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

---

You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.

---

You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.

---

So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?

Shock.

---

OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.

---

No, actually, I have no idea which rule you're talking about. You brought it up, you should cite it.

---

I will say it again: But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

This is what would have happened to #KyleRittenhouse had he not been carrying a weapon. pic.twitter.com/2gLDSfrrts

— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) November 12, 2021

---

Yep,

And none of those people got charged with a hate crime.

Imagine if it was a crowd of mostly white guys beating on some black kid.

---

Did he survive?

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

This is what would have happened to #KyleRittenhouse had he not been carrying a weapon. pic.twitter.com/2gLDSfrrts

— Ian McKelvey (@ian_mckelvey) November 12, 2021

---

Yep,

And none of those people got charged with a hate crime.

Imagine if it was a crowd of mostly white guys beating on some black kid.

---

Did he survive?

---

Yea,

It was in Dallas.