RITTENHOUSE TRIAL

[WMJ77]

anyone else watching this circus    

[WMJ77]

of course the wokies are 

Joy Reid: CRT Exists Because of The Rittenhouse Trial

[jaman]

Innocent by self defense . If people are chasing you with a gun or point a gun at you laying down. You better shoot or else. I have to admit the MSN even booddoggled me. I thought one of the shot was Black. Nope.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mr.d]

He said he went there to help and if so why take a gun.  Saw from several news sources and seen about him crying on the stand, after all that crying he never shed any tears. Should have stayed home and none of this would have happened.

[buschpounder]

One way to look at it. That's what the prosecution is saying he shouldn't have been there with a gun.  The shootings seem to be self defense, at least to me  Another view is he took a gun to protect himself from harm that could come from rioters.  If the rioters would have stayed home this wouldn't have happened either.

[pennstater]

Yeah. Folks say he shouldn’t have been there In the first place.  Agreed.  
But even more, the RIOTERS shouldn’t have been there criming it up. Yes…he defended himself.  Shouldn’t be murder.  Should get lesser gun charges. 
Either way the rioters will get off free. And they will riot more.  The police should have more authority to use force during riots by any means. 

[fedup]

Supposedly his father lived there. So, he traveled to another state to protect his country from law breaking thugs. Nothing wrong with that. 

Quit giving pass to the lawbreaking thugs taking over our country. Did you all vote for them in the last election????

And once gain, the liberals are protecting anti-Americans with lies and propaganda. 

[jaman]

3 hours ago, buschpounder said:

One way to look at it. That's what the prosecution is saying he shouldn't have been there with a gun.  The shootings seem to be self defense, at least to me  Another view is he took a gun to protect himself from harm that could come from rioters.  If the rioters would have stayed home this wouldn't have happened either.

I agree with you.  But remember, the people pointing guns at him first  were RIOTERS. We cant miss that fact.  Just imagine if he would have got shot unarmed by a rioter. OOPS! Nobody would have cared.

[jaman]

2 hours ago, pennstater said:

Yeah. Folks say he shouldn’t have been there In the first place.  Agreed.  
But even more, the RIOTERS shouldn’t have been there criming it up. Yes…he defended himself.  Shouldn’t be murder.  Should get lesser gun charges. 
Either way the rioters will get off free. And they will riot more.  The police should have more authority to use force during riots by any means. 

Why havent these RIOTERS who had the guns charged too? One  guy who was shot  shot was going to shoot Rittenhouse.

[fedup]

7 hours ago, jaman said:

Why havent these RIOTERS who had the guns charged too? One  guy who was shot  shot was going to shoot Rittenhouse.

Easy answer. Your Liberal run DOJ has no interest in being fair when it comes to our established laws in this country.

It is spending all it's time trying to hang the January group for supposedly attacking this country while the Liberal thugs burn this country down over pure stupid. 

Cop shoots a black man somewhere in America. The uneducated, gang educated immature punks starts burning and destroying America while the white Liberals support and protect them.

Meanwhile we hear all about how the white man is surprising the black people.

Go figure. 

[Polo]

None of them should have been there in the first place, neither the boy nor the rioters, but they were.  So now we have a decision to make.  Guilty or not?  The dead can't be charged with anything.  The boy can.  I believe he was afraid for his life, and the rioters were there looking to harm.  Still, he shouldn't have been there period, let alone with a gun.  If I was his mother, I would have tried to stop him and forbid him to go.  So he does need some type of charges.  However, I would give him lesser charges with a light sentence.   He didn't plan to murder. I don't think he is a bad kid, and I think he was exercising his constitutional rights to defend himself.  Shouldn't have gone there, though, period.  

[Guest Other Side of the Coin]

2 hours ago, Polo said:

None of them should have been there in the first place, neither the boy nor the rioters, but they were.  So now we have a decision to make.  Guilty or not?  The dead can't be charged with anything.  The boy can.  I believe he was afraid for his life, and the rioters were there looking to harm.  Still, he shouldn't have been there period, let alone with a gun.  If I was his mother, I would have tried to stop him and forbid him to go.  So he does need some type of charges.  However, I would give him lesser charges with a light sentence.   He didn't plan to murder. I don't think he is a bad kid, and I think he was exercising his constitutional rights to defend himself.  Shouldn't have gone there, though, period.  

That's the least American and least Christian statement I've heard in a long, long time.  The police were in a stand-down mode and this kid steps in to protect property from looters and rioters.  He is assaulted with deadly force and intent and protects himself.  He deserves a medal.  Had I been there and not acted to support him I would feel extreme shame.  Suggest you read the Declaration of Independence.

[pennstater]

2 hours ago, Guest Other Side of the Coin said:

That's the least American and least Christian statement I've heard in a long, long time.  The police were in a stand-down mode and this kid steps in to protect property from looters and rioters.  He is assaulted with deadly force and intent and protects himself.  He deserves a medal.  Had I been there and not acted to support him I would feel extreme shame.  Suggest you read the Declaration of Independence.

??  Least Christian.   Um okay. Although yes the guy was justified in the killings, he still shouldn’t have been there with a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to have.  He broke the law there (which is  “un-Christian”).   
He should not be charged with murder.  A gun crime yes. 

[Guest Other Side of the Coin]

21 minutes ago, pennstater said:

??  Least Christian.   Um okay. Although yes the guy was justified in the killings, he still shouldn’t have been there with a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to have.  He broke the law there (which is  “un-Christian”).   
He should not be charged with murder.  A gun crime yes. 

Christians care for and protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Robin Hood broke the law but is held to be a hero.  Circumstances dictate what is the correct action.  The city was lawless, police were doing nothing, and this kid stepped in to help.  Wake up.

[Gold Brick]

Agree,neither should have been there. Rioters started destroying the city, police told to stand down, what else can you do? You either fight to protect in a created situation or sit on your hands and let them burn and destroy. When you aren't able to rely on police to protect, you have to do it yourself.

[S_A_Hoov]

Killed not murdered. Rioters not protesters.

 

[fedup]

The good people of that city did not vote to have their police force neutralized by the Liberals. At least someone stepped in to help protect the good people. 

[jaman]

16 hours ago, pennstater said:

??  Least Christian.   Um okay. Although yes the guy was justified in the killings, he still shouldn’t have been there with a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to have.  He broke the law there (which is  “un-Christian”).   
He should not be charged with murder.  A gun crime yes. 

The judge dismissed the gun charges.

 

[jaman]

21 hours ago, Polo said:

None of them should have been there in the first place, neither the boy nor the rioters, but they were.  So now we have a decision to make.  Guilty or not?  The dead can't be charged with anything.  The boy can.  I believe he was afraid for his life, and the rioters were there looking to harm.  Still, he shouldn't have been there period, let alone with a gun.  If I was his mother, I would have tried to stop him and forbid him to go.  So he does need some type of charges.  However, I would give him lesser charges with a light sentence.   He didn't plan to murder. I don't think he is a bad kid, and I think he was exercising his constitutional rights to defend himself.  Shouldn't have gone there, though, period.  

One misdmeanor gun charge. That's it because the crowd targeted him. The minute the criminal pointed him out and the crowd targeted him. You have a right to defense. If somebody knocked you down and pulled a Glock on you, I shoot too.  The guy who pulled the Glock. Did he get any charges during the riot? And where do they get the race card in this case? It was white on white.

[pennstater]

5 minutes ago, jaman said:

The judge dismissed the gun charges.

 

Yeah and actually he was right to do so.   Law against that type of gun charge only applies to hand guns in that state.......not rifles.  A technicality but it is their law.

[dubois_15801]

Here is the reason why the gun charge was dismissed:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
(3)(c) = only applies under 18 who possesses a rifle
IF matching 941.28 OR not following ss 29.304 and 29.593

941.28 short barreled rifles & shotguns
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/28
(1)(a)
defines short barreled rifle:
less than 16" barrel
OR total rifle length <26"
Kyle's barrel length = 16", not <16"
overall length = 35", which is not <26.
*DOES NOT APPLY TO KYLE*

29.304 restrictions on hunting and firearms on <16 year olds
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/314
(1)(a) kyle not hunting
(1)(b) kyle not <12 years old
* DOES NOT APPLY TO KYLE*

29.593 requirement to get certificat for hunting
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593
kyle not hunting
* DOES NOT APPLY TO KYLE*

 

Since the AR didn't have a barrel less than 16" or didn't have an overall length less than 26", the law didn't apply.  He was fully within his rights to possess and carry it.

[dubois_15801]

On 11/13/2021 at 1:27 AM, mr.d said:

He said he went there to help and if so why take a gun.  Saw from several news sources and seen about him crying on the stand, after all that crying he never shed any tears. Should have stayed home and none of this would have happened.

Obviously, the video shows why he needed it.   He was attacked, not once, not twice, but at least three times.

As for the crying, he was being badgered by the DA.  I've seen many others break down from badgering, including burly grown men.

As for staying home, so should have all the other people - especially all the rioters, arsonists, and those destroying property.   If anything, he had more of a right to be there than any of them.  He also has ties to that city - his father, grandmother, and friends live there and he worked there.  Now, about those folks who were bused into the city to riot?

 

[dubois_15801]

17 hours ago, pennstater said:

??  Least Christian.   Um okay. Although yes the guy was justified in the killings, he still shouldn’t have been there with a gun he wasn’t legally allowed to have.  He broke the law there (which is  “un-Christian”).   
He should not be charged with murder.  A gun crime yes. 

Read my two posts above.  He had every right to be there.  And he was legally allowed to have the gun, the proof is in the legal text.  Links to the actual WI law library provided.

 

[Pompeii]

[Jeff]

Got to love the left demanding a guilty verdict no matter what the law calls for. Is it only me or does the Democrats and their supporters don't believe in laws only what THEY want?