Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

And don’t forget he cross state lines. The onion did an article recently titled Judge Rittenhouse Judge plans to adopt Kyle at the end of the trial or something similar. This is a travesty.

Have you watched any of the trial? He did not cross state lines with any weapon.

No, he affected an illegal straw purchase. Just as bad, if not worse. Unless you are biased about the law.

No, he borrowed a friends rifle, which is 100% legal. You can’t convict on feelings

[Anonymous]

After he is acquitted, he should walk out of the court, sling his AR on his shoulder, do some interviews and then get ready to make a ton of money suing the left wing news agencies for slander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

Wisconsin state law does not prohibit a 17 year old from possessing a rifle. Due to terribly misleading media reports, most people were led to believe otherwise. That is why the count was dismissed.

Only if it is used for hunting. I guess hunting humans during a riot it ok.

No, the statute does not limit it to hunting. Again, it is legal for a 17 year old to possess a rifle (of sufficient barrel length) in Wisconsin, for any purpose.

I wish people would stop trotting out the stupid (and untrue) hunting thing. Why can’t they just admit they’re wrong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

And don’t forget he cross state lines. The onion did an article recently titled Judge Rittenhouse Judge plans to adopt Kyle at the end of the trial or something similar. This is a travesty.

Have you watched any of the trial? He did not cross state lines with any weapon.

No, he affected an illegal straw purchase. Just as bad, if not worse. Unless you are biased about the law.

No, he borrowed a friends rifle, which is 100% legal. You can’t convict on feelings

He paid the friend to buy a gun for him and hold it in Wisconsin until he was 18, because he knew he could not buy it legally in Wisconsin or Illinois.

Did you watch his testimony?

Why do we bother to have gun laws if they aren't going to be enforced?

[Anonymous]

It is unclear to me if this will ultimately be better for Rittenhouse. I think it increases the likelihood that there will be a hung jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

And don’t forget he cross state lines. The onion did an article recently titled Judge Rittenhouse Judge plans to adopt Kyle at the end of the trial or something similar. This is a travesty.

Have you watched any of the trial? He did not cross state lines with any weapon.

No, he affected an illegal straw purchase. Just as bad, if not worse. Unless you are biased about the law.

No, he borrowed a friends rifle, which is 100% legal. You can’t convict on feelings

He paid the friend to buy a gun for him and hold it in Wisconsin until he was 18, because he knew he could not buy it legally in Wisconsin or Illinois.

Did you watch his testimony?

Why do we bother to have gun laws if they aren't going to be enforced?

Well, I feel he should be convicted regardless of some stupid law. Just do it already!

[Anonymous]

Judge dismissed the curfew violation charge.

Curfew was at 8:00PM.

The videos are fro 11:30+ PM.

[Anonymous]

My impression, as someone with experience in both criminal defense and prosecution, is that these particular prosecutors are stuck trying a case that they know is terribly weak. The decision to charge Rittenhouse was likely made by their bosses to appease a certain public demand. But now they are in a bind trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence just isn't there. Imagine trying to prove up these charges when all the key witnesses to the incidents in question can offer testimony favorable to the defense. Rittenhouse will likely be acquitted of all charges. But it won't be because anyone took a dive. It will be because an impartial look at all the evidence provides ample grounds for self-defense and the prosecution could not get within a country mile of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two people who were unarmed are dead at the hand of the only person that fired a gun that night.

This isn't a clear cut case in any way. A jury should absolutely be deciding if self-defense was reasonable.

I can't believe you have much experience in criminal defense or prosecution if you're contending that this case should not have been brought by the prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judge dismissed the curfew violation charge.

Curfew was at 8:00PM.

The videos are fro 11:30+ PM.

Anyone else charged with violating it? He wasnt the only one there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judge dismissed the curfew violation charge.

Curfew was at 8:00PM.

The videos are fro 11:30+ PM.

Anyone else charged with violating it? He wasnt the only one there

But the smirking brat killed two people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that three men, a couple with serious criminal histories, were there that night to ‘be good people’? JFC

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

There is LITERALLY a photograph of one of the men with a pistol. Another had a skateboard and was using it as a weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

Wisconsin state law does not prohibit a 17 year old from possessing a rifle. Due to terribly misleading media reports, most people were led to believe otherwise. That is why the count was dismissed.

And the fact that the prosecution either did not measure the gun or lied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

And don’t forget he cross state lines. The onion did an article recently titled Judge Rittenhouse Judge plans to adopt Kyle at the end of the trial or something similar. This is a travesty.

Have you watched any of the trial? He did not cross state lines with any weapon.

But Don Lemon said he did!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Count 6- possession of weapon by a person under 18- was just dismissed.

Like, that was the most obvious of the counts. He is under 18. He possessed a weapon and even used it on people. There is video and everything. What a crock.

Wisconsin state law does not prohibit a 17 year old from possessing a rifle. Due to terribly misleading media reports, most people were led to believe otherwise. That is why the count was dismissed.

Only if it is used for hunting. I guess hunting humans during a riot it ok.

No, the statute does not limit it to hunting. Again, it is legal for a 17 year old to possess a rifle (of sufficient barrel length) in Wisconsin, for any purpose.

I wish people would stop trotting out the stupid (and untrue) hunting thing. Why can’t they just admit they’re wrong?

They are trying to push a narrative using false information. Allowing that on this website? Hmmm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the odds that three men, a couple with serious criminal histories, were there that night to ‘be good people’? JFC

The odds are 100%. Because they were all unarmed.

There is LITERALLY a photograph of one of the men with a pistol. Another had a skateboard and was using it as a weapon.

Having a skateboard (or a baseball bat or a cast iron skillet or whatever) is not being armed. Literally.