Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Justice Dept gets involved. The President’s language of “angry and concerned” should be enough for them to start moving on Rittenhouse.

there is no basis for them to get involved. What is the violation?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

That sounds odd from a legal standpoint. Can you point to a particular statute that says that, or is this one of those "facts" that people reference in passing?

Here https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/traveling-with-firearms/private-vehicles/

[Anonymous]

Kenosha, Wisconsin the proud home town of double murderer Kyle Rittenhouse

Warning : we allow teenagers to ignore curfew, carry illegal weapons without a license, drive without a drivers license

And kill people dead - then walk free

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Justice Dept gets involved. The President’s language of “angry and concerned” should be enough for them to start moving on Rittenhouse.

there is no basis for them to get involved. What is the violation?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

That sounds odd from a legal standpoint. Can you point to a particular statute that says that, or is this one of those "facts" that people reference in passing?

Here https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/traveling-with-firearms/private-vehicles/

Ah, now I see. I misinterpreted the earlier statement.

[Anonymous]

The chickens seem to be coming home to roost in the home town of murderer Kyle Rittenhouse,

On April 18, 2021, a mass shooting occurred at the Somers House bar, a popular venue for local college students. Six people were shot, three fatally. Police believe the shooting occurred as a result of a fight within the crowded bar, and one subject was arrested and criminally charged.[58]

By October 2021, Kenosha recorded 12 homicides, nearly triple the city's annual average.[59]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious - are there any actual lawyers on here that disagree with the verdict?

One attorney, Joseph R. Biden (Syracuse ‘68), of Washington, DC said he was “angry and concerned.”

Dan Bongino, no liberal, pointed out that Biden’s statement when caught off the cuff was reasonable, something about the jury doing their job, etc. The WH then put out a statement saying Biden was angry and concerned. Bongino pointed out it seemed that they hadn’t spoken to Biden yet and if they were putting words into Biden’s mouth, that was disturbing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha, Wisconsin the proud home town of double murderer Kyle Rittenhouse

Warning : we allow teenagers to ignore curfew, carry illegal weapons without a license, drive without a drivers license

And kill people dead - then walk free

1) people have a right to defend themselves.
2) no license needed. Second amendment. I care about no laws that infringe on that basic right. Illegal weapon in your eyes, not mine.
3) curfew? Do not abridge the right to free speech and petition the govt for redress. I recognize no curfew. I am a free human being.

Don't like it, too bad.

Back to your multiple shootings per night in Chicago, EVERY night. Crickets heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kenosha, Wisconsin the proud home town of double murderer Kyle Rittenhouse

Warning : we allow teenagers to ignore curfew, carry illegal weapons without a license, drive without a drivers license

And kill people dead - then walk free

1) people have a right to defend themselves.
2) no license needed. Second amendment. I care about no laws that infringe on that basic right. Illegal weapon in your eyes, not mine.
3) curfew? Do not abridge the right to free speech and petition the govt for redress. I recognize no curfew. I am a free human being.

Don't like it, too bad.

Back to your multiple shootings per night in Chicago, EVERY night. Crickets heard.

Sovereign citizens are loony tunes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Justice Dept gets involved. The President’s language of “angry and concerned” should be enough for them to start moving on Rittenhouse.

there is no basis for them to get involved. What is the violation?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

That sounds odd from a legal standpoint. Can you point to a particular statute that says that, or is this one of those "facts" that people reference in passing?

Here https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/traveling-with-firearms/private-vehicles/

Read the law. You're looking at it backwards. The federal law speaks to what you *can* do, not what you can't do. You can transport guns through states where you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to possess the gun. That particular law is entirely irrelevant to this case.

Furthermore, see:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

[Anonymous]

Based on the Wisconsin law, the verdict came out right. I hate saying that, but it is what it is. I also understand why some people are upset. Kyle Rittenhouse got the opportunity to stand trial and get vindicated. Many non-white people in this country would have been shot dead by the police under the same circumstances and never got their day in court to get vindicated. While this is very true, folks are misdirecting their anger. it should be at the law. Change the law. Technically, we should want this verdict no matter the person's color.

Whether Kyle should have taken some other course of action is another conversation altogether.

[Anonymous]

This from his spokesperson,

Now, the goal is going to be to ensure Kyle's safety as he moves on as an 18-year-old young man in college studying to be a nurse," Hancock told CNN affiliate WBBM. "Those are his plans moving forward."

Ummm…yiu cabt go to college when you have been truant from HS since 9th grade

And Rittenhouse is saying he wants to be an RN - what an outrage

Doesn’t he know that the profession is based on compassion and that her have to take direction from Physicians

Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t respect any laws , does t tho k any rules of society apply to him including, “ thou shall not kill “

I can just see him injecting people with Insulin so he can call a code and try to pretend that he is the “ hero “ who saved him

Who in their right mind would ever trust him with the life of a loved one

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This from his spokesperson,

Now, the goal is going to be to ensure Kyle's safety as he moves on as an 18-year-old young man in college studying to be a nurse," Hancock told CNN affiliate WBBM. "Those are his plans moving forward."

Ummm…yiu cabt go to college when you have been truant from HS since 9th grade

And Rittenhouse is saying he wants to be an RN - what an outrage

Doesn’t he know that the profession is based on compassion and that her have to take direction from Physicians

Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t respect any laws , does t tho k any rules of society apply to him including, “ thou shall not kill “

I can just see him injecting people with Insulin so he can call a code and try to pretend that he is the “ hero “ who saved him

Who in their right mind would ever trust him with the life of a loved one

Lol are you kidding me? People will move on to the next shiny object in less than a month. By the time he graduates, nobody will recognize him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This from his spokesperson,

Now, the goal is going to be to ensure Kyle's safety as he moves on as an 18-year-old young man in college studying to be a nurse," Hancock told CNN affiliate WBBM. "Those are his plans moving forward."

Ummm…yiu cabt go to college when you have been truant from HS since 9th grade

And Rittenhouse is saying he wants to be an RN - what an outrage

Doesn’t he know that the profession is based on compassion and that her have to take direction from Physicians

Kyle Rittenhouse doesn’t respect any laws , does t tho k any rules of society apply to him including, “ thou shall not kill “

I can just see him injecting people with Insulin so he can call a code and try to pretend that he is the “ hero “ who saved him

Who in their right mind would ever trust him with the life of a loved one

Lol are you kidding me? People will move on to the next shiny object in less than a month. By the time he graduates, nobody will recognize him.

I don’t know about that. Look at George Zimmerman- broke, desperate, and absolutely no one has forgotten who he is or will let him forget what he did. Kyle is destined for the same fate. If he isn’t a drunk or dead from suicide or overdose in 10 years I’ll be shocked. The right wing will move on and he’ll have only his name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the Wisconsin law, the verdict came out right. I hate saying that, but it is what it is. I also understand why some people are upset. Kyle Rittenhouse got the opportunity to stand trial and get vindicated. Many non-white people in this country would have been shot dead by the police under the same circumstances and never got their day in court to get vindicated. While this is very true, folks are misdirecting their anger. it should be at the law. Change the law. Technically, we should want this verdict no matter the person's color.

Whether Kyle should have taken some other course of action is another conversation altogether.

No you don't change the law. This is the law in all of the states and federally as well. You have a right to self defense. It existed in this country since back when it was called England. There is nothing special about the Wisconsin law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Justice Dept gets involved. The President’s language of “angry and concerned” should be enough for them to start moving on Rittenhouse.

there is no basis for them to get involved. What is the violation?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

That sounds odd from a legal standpoint. Can you point to a particular statute that says that, or is this one of those "facts" that people reference in passing?

Here https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/traveling-with-firearms/private-vehicles/

Read the law. You're looking at it backwards. The federal law speaks to what you *can* do, not what you can't do. You can transport guns through states where you otherwise wouldn't be allowed to possess the gun. That particular law is entirely irrelevant to this case.

Furthermore, see:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

None of the things you list is a violation of federal law except civil rights. But there was no civil rights violation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Justice Dept gets involved. The President’s language of “angry and concerned” should be enough for them to start moving on Rittenhouse.

there is no basis for them to get involved. What is the violation?

Uh, let’s see…. Murder? Crossing state lines with intent to commit murder? Violating the civil rights of protesters? Possession of an illegal gun?

Should I go on or is that enough to get you to S T F U ?

Wow, I’m embarrassed for you to speak so confidentially about things you are so wrong about. Your lack of knowledge about the facts is stark.

- didn’t cross state lines
- 0 evidence of intent to murder
- not an illegal gun and not illegal for him to have it
- don’t even know what the heck you are talking about re civil rights

FACT: Rittenhouse DID cross state lines
FACT: Rittenhouse was on video a few days prior saying he wished he had his AR while safely watching some protesters from afar with no immediate threat to him (intent to kill).

But of course this was a sham of a trial.

As an attorney, I would just love it if someone actually chimed in and explained the legal significance of the whole "crossing a state line" mantra that Rittenhouse's detractors continue to spout. FFS, what does that have anything to do with any element of any offense with which he was charged? This is America. People cross state lines all the time. I have been in DC, Maryland, and Virginia all within the last 24 hours.

It's a violation of federal law to travel to a state where it is illegal for you to have a gun. At first the news said he had the gun with him when he left home in IL. Then it was determined he picked up the gun in WI, so he wasn't charged. But many in the media continue to claim that he crossed state lines with a gun and that this shows intent to kill.

That sounds odd from a legal standpoint. Can you point to a particular statute that says that, or is this one of those "facts" that people reference in passing?

Here https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/traveling-with-firearms/private-vehicles/

But there was no crossing of state lines with a gun. When did that happen?