Kyle Rittenhouse, accused multi-murderer from Kenosha BLM shooting - Page 10

SuburbanTurkey · 18th November 2020, 11:03 AM

Lin Wood, one of Rittenhouse's attorneys, seems to be trying to insert himself in the Great Election Fight of 2020. He has filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia.

If I were facing a lifetime behind bars, I'm not sure I would want some clout-chasing lawyer on my multiple felony case. Wood strikes me as just another grifter trying to insert himself as a hero into whatever right wing grievance story that is hot at the moment.

https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status...20234066878465

ponderingturtle · 19th November 2020, 11:18 AM

It seems he used his stimulus money to finance the straw purchase of the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1749495.html

SuburbanTurkey · 19th November 2020, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It seems he used his stimulus money to finance the straw purchase of the gun.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1749495.html

I'm very curious about the exact details of when this rifle was bought from the original FFL. Did Rittenhouse's buddy buy it for the sole purpose of giving it to Kyle, or was this a rifle that he bought for his own personal use that he later decided to sell.

Gets a bit trickier as it seems Rittenhouse only occasionally had possession of the rifle, and it was stored at the friend's house. I have no idea whether they would qualify as a straw purchase or not.

ETA: This dude has lawyers and he's giving jailhouse interviews to the Washington Post about his pending multiple felony case. Wonder if his lawyers are incompetent or Rittenhouse is just an unmanageable client. If he had any sense he'd keep his mouth shut until the trial is over.

webfusion · 19th November 2020, 01:37 PM

"The night of the shooting, Mr Rittenhouse took his weapon from his home across the border in Illinois and brought it to the protest." -- from The Independent article linked.

That is not what happened according to the information provided by Illinois authorities.

webfusion · 20th November 2020, 02:34 PM

Posting bail, Rittenhouse allowed to leave jail.

He might just vanish, a la Abbie Hoffman (aka Barry Freed).

SuburbanTurkey · 21st November 2020, 08:02 AM

And so the reactionary circus begins. Every right wing ghoul that wants to prove their credibility is going to make a point of hanging out with this murderer while his trial is pending. Given it's a serious case and there are serious delays because of covid, Rittenhouse may be free on bail for some time.

The Great Zaganza · 21st November 2020, 08:06 AM

Rittenhouse's bail was paid for by ... wait for it ... the My Pillow Guy!

Brainster · 21st November 2020, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Rittenhouse's bail was paid for by ... wait for it ... the My Pillow Guy!

And Ricky Schroeder from Silver Spoons.

webfusion · 22nd November 2020, 05:27 PM

Ricky Schroder (sp.) is a "right wing ghoul" ? Who knew!

rockinkt · 22nd November 2020, 06:00 PM

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?

Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution.

All these truly ignorant armchair lawyers make me want to laugh - but then I realize that they and their obnoxious uninformed hateful invective is what is causing most of the problem in the US society today.

The amount of vitriol and hatred and the lack of respect for the fundamental rights of people on this so-called sceptics board is truly astonishing.

Rights for only those I deem worthy of having rights!
What a circus!

eerok · 22nd November 2020, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?

Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window.

smartcooky · 22nd November 2020, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?

Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution.

Everyone has a right to apply for bail, but they do not have an absolute right to have it granted. Bail can be denied for people who are regarded as too dangerous to be allowed out in public, or for those who present a significant flight risk. It can also be revoked at any time.

Elagabalus · 22nd November 2020, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Ricky Schroder (sp.) is a "right wing ghoul" ? Who knew!

I was going to say that I'll never watch "The Champ" again and then remembered that it stars Jon Voight. Some of the crazy must have rubbed off on Ricky. Poor lad.

Jon Voight rails against ‘evil’ Democrats and calls Joe Biden ‘Satan’ in ‘disturbing’ new video

smartcooky · 22nd November 2020, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

I was going to say that I'll never watch "The Champ" again and then remembered that it stars Jon Voight. Some of the crazy must have rubbed off on Ricky. Poor lad.

Jon Voight rails against ‘evil’ Democrats and calls Joe Biden ‘Satan’ in ‘disturbing’ new video

... the “greatest fight since the Civil War”.

Looks like he took his role as Ben Gates' father too seriously!

Suddenly · 23rd November 2020, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by eerok

Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window.

Sure. If we change this persons ethnicity and his political orientation his chances of making bail / amount of bail will wildly vary, and usually for the worse.

So, yes, objectivity does go out the window here, but to the advantage of this specific person.

rockinkt · 23rd November 2020, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Everyone has a right to apply for bail, but they do not have an absolute right to have it granted. Bail can be denied for people who are regarded as too dangerous to be allowed out in public, or for those who present a significant flight risk. It can also be revoked at any time.

Who said anything different? I sure didn't.

rockinkt · 23rd November 2020, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by eerok

Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window.

Which is why most of the comments on this thread do not belong on a sceptic's board.

JoeMorgue · 23rd November 2020, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law?

Why does this concept only apply to Rittenhouse and not the people he murdered?

I mean I know why, but I want to hear what excuse you make up that you honestly think we'll buy.

smartcooky · 23rd November 2020, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Who said anything different? I sure didn't.

Really?

Originally Posted by rockinkt

Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution!

SuburbanTurkey · 4th December 2020, 10:53 AM

Rittenhouse loses motion to dismiss during probable cause hearing. It's unusual that Rittenhouse's lawyer even tried to do this during the PC hearing. There was a 0% chance of success for such a tactic. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be heard at trial, and there's no doubt that Rittenhouse did in fact shoot and kill his victims. The bar for probable cause is quite low, and obviously Rittenhouse's case clears it. The fact that Rittenhouse shot these people is not in dispute, how could there not be probable cause?

Honestly, this smacks of culture war posturing than actually good lawyering. Rittenhouse may actually have a path to freedom on some or even all of these charges if he has excellent legal defense and a bit of luck, but I doubt he's getting that level of defense from these grifting media hounds he has for attorneys.

There was a similar nonsense legal fight over Rittenhouse's extradition. Perhaps this is just savvy pandering to the Kyle's bloodthirsty supporters who are donating money to his legal defense, but if this is the level of legal acumen that is going to be brought to trial, Rittenhouse is in trouble.

Dr. Keith · 4th December 2020, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Rittenhouse loses motion to dismiss during probable cause hearing. It's unusual that Rittenhouse's lawyer even tried to do this during the PC hearing. There was a 0% chance of success for such a tactic. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be heard at trial, and there's no doubt that Rittenhouse did in fact shoot and kill his victims. The bar for probable cause is quite low, and obviously Rittenhouse's case clears it. The fact that Rittenhouse shot these people is not in dispute, how could there not be probable cause?

Honestly, this smacks of culture war posturing than actually good lawyering. Rittenhouse may actually have a path to freedom on some or even all of these charges if he has excellent legal defense and a bit of luck, but I doubt he's getting that level of defense from these grifting media hounds he has for attorneys.

There was a similar nonsense legal fight over Rittenhouse's extradition. Perhaps this is just savvy pandering to the Kyle's bloodthirsty supporters who are donating money to his legal defense, but if this is the level of legal acumen that is going to be brought to trial, Rittenhouse is in trouble.

Kyle can't afford high level legal representation. These stunts help him to raise money. Whether he spends the money raised on high level legal representation or more stunts is yet to be decided.

SuburbanTurkey · 4th December 2020, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

Kyle can't afford high level legal representation. These stunts help him to raise money. Whether he spends the money raised on high level legal representation or more stunts is yet to be decided.

That's true. It's entirely possible that these absurd stunts during preliminary hearings could just be a fundraising effort. If the lawyers involved are savvy, they'll keep these stunts up for the little stuff that doesn't matter much then run the actual trial like real, straight-laced lawyers.

That implies a lot of good faith in the lawyers. I'm not too sure about this trial lawyer, but LL Wood has attached himself to this project and he is 100% grifter who would be happy to trainwreck his client if it meant collecting cash and getting his name splashed about the right wing press. If Kyle is getting good advice, he'll do like you suggest, take the cash, and hire a top-tier lawyer that isn't interested in clout chasing.

webfusion · 30th December 2020, 05:42 PM

2 counts of first degree murder and *** wait for it ***

breaking curfew!
https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2...reaking-curfew

Roger Ramjets · 31st December 2020, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

2 counts of first degree murder and *** wait for it ***

breaking curfew!

Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing.

It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges.

Babbylonian · 31st December 2020, 06:34 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing.

It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges.

It could also show intent. Proving intent in a first-degree murder case can be more easily accomplished by proving the intent to commit a lesser crime committed during the murder. A vigilante can't very well claim to be enforcing the law if they know their presence at the scene of their victims' crime is itself illegal.

webfusion · 31st December 2020, 06:39 AM

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing.

It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges.

I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal? "OK, no murder one -- just plead to the curfew violation and we'll be OK with it"

As for the statement "if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer..."
You can say a lot of "IF" stuff here.

IF Gaige had not been holding a handgun when he confronted Kyle, his arm would still be intact.

IF Mr. Huber had not smashed his skateboard into Kyle's head (effectively turning it into a deadly weapon) he would still be alive to skate another day.

IF JoJo had not gotten all up in Kyle's face, trying to take away his gun, he would still be just another evil thug out there on the streets.

By the way, the curfew offense is a civil citation "punishable by forfeiture."
Maybe the Kenosha prosecutor sees the $2-million Bond as eligible for forfeiture?

SuburbanTurkey · 31st December 2020, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by webfusion

I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal? "OK, no murder one -- just plead to the curfew violation and we'll be OK with it"

As for the statement "if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer..."
You can say a lot of "IF" stuff here.

IF Gaige had not been holding a handgun when he confronted Kyle, his arm would still be intact.

IF Mr. Huber had not smashed his skateboard into Kyle's head (effectively turning it into a deadly weapon) he would still be alive to skate another day.

IF JoJo had not gotten all up in Kyle's face, trying to take away his gun, he would still be just another evil thug out there on the streets.

By the way, the curfew offense is a civil citation "punishable by forfeiture."
Maybe the Kenosha prosecutor sees the $2-million Bond as eligible for forfeiture?

Seems laying the groundwork that Kyle's presence on the streets was unlawful from the start would contribute to undermining any self defense claim.

I could see how a prosecutor might paint this. Kyle was illegally on the streets (curfew violation) while illegally carrying a rifle, and any violence that followed was at least an indirect result of this lawlessness.

Self defense claims are usually rooted in the idea that the person claiming self defense was acting lawfully and using reasonable judgement to prevent violence. Showing that Kyle was not doing so would greatly weaken such a claim, especially when it comes to convincing a jury.

At the very least, I doubt the prosecutor is really motivated by hitting Rittenhouse with a petty violation. It's about building the larger case against him for murders and his other felonies.

plague311 · 31st December 2020, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Seems laying the groundwork that Kyle's presence on the streets was unlawful from the start would contribute to undermining any self defense claim.

I could see how a prosecutor might paint this. Kyle was illegally on the streets (curfew violation) while illegally carrying a rifle, and any violence that followed was at least an indirect result of this lawlessness.

Self defense claims are usually rooted in the idea that the person claiming self defense was acting lawfully and using reasonable judgement to prevent violence. Showing that Kyle was not doing so would greatly weaken such a claim, especially when it comes to convincing a jury.

I was going to imply much the same. I shouldn't have to say IANAL (I'm not) but I've been through the legal system enough times to understand the basics of what prosecutors do, and what they go for. I also haven't read the whole thread so if I duplicate something in my opinion, I apologize.

Everything webfusion labeled was AFTER the initial interaction. This charge shows that Kyle had no right to be there because his actions were against the law. Also, if Kyle initiated the interaction with "JoJo" then he can't claim self defense either. That's just not how it works. Everything after that initial encounter is a direct result of that initial encounter, which wouldn't have happened had Kyle followed the laws set in place. Same with the people he shot. The only difference is a few of them can't be penalized as they've given everything up.

Brainster · 31st December 2020, 11:15 AM

I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?

Roger Ramjets · 31st December 2020, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?

Why?

Thermal · 31st December 2020, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?

That's a fair question. If Rittenhouse's defiance of the emergency police order is deemed significant enough to prosecute...well, he wasn't exactly the Lone Ranger. Seems a bit selective.

smartcooky · 31st December 2020, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?

Why?

Originally Posted by Thermal

That's a fair question. If Rittenhouse's defiance of the emergency police order is deemed significant enough to prosecute...well, he wasn't exactly the Lone Ranger. Seems a bit selective.

No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why.

Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would.

Rittenhouse brought a gun across a state line (a crime) carried it in public without a permit (a crime) while under age (a crime) and into a protest specifically for the purpose of causing trouble... that makes him the aggressor. He then then used the gun to kill two people... that makes him a double murderer regardless of the specific circumstances of the killings.

If he had not committed the first three crimes, none of what followed would have happened, and two families would not be mourning the death of their loved ones. I'm both surprised and disappointed that this clear and obvious fact needs to be explained to anyone other than an extreme right-wing gun-owning nutcase!

webfusion · 31st December 2020, 12:59 PM

I seem to recall that around 50 people were arrested for curfew violations that night.

We know that several people were not there for First Amendment rights, but rather, for Second Amendment rights.

Also, your statement of the 'crimes' doesn't jibe with the set of facts as we know them.
Kyle never carried the weapon across state lines.
Kyle needed no permit for his rifle.
Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A.

You can go back through the thread (10 pages) and see the various cites for the laws of Wisconsin in this case.

Cavemonster · 31st December 2020, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A.

Could you link me to where this particular point is addressed?
It seems Kyle was charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a minor.

I've read the statute and there is a law in WI that draws the line at 18. There are exceptions but I've seen no evidence the conditions for exceptions were met, and it would be confusing for the state to charge him if he were easily provable as being in compliance with that law.

Are you trying to argue here that WI law is unconstitutional?

Thermal · 31st December 2020, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Why?

No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why.

Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would.

Defying an emergency police order in the interests of public safety in order to burn down car dealerships is not protected as ******* speech by the first amendment. It's just crime.

Btw, I'm on the protesters side. I assume however that you are 'on your own' when you partake in criminal activity.

Quote:

Rittenhouse brought a gun across a state line (a crime)...

Nope. It has been determined that he did not do so. The gun was bought in Wisconsin and is not known to have ever left.

Quote:

...carried it in public without a permit (a crime)...

Nope. Open carry perfectly legal in Wisconsin.

Quote:

...while under age (a crime)

Hey! You got one right!

Quote:

...and into a protest specifically for the purpose of causing trouble...

How do you know what his specific purpose was? Your assumptions/inferences/clairvoyant powers don't count.

Quote:

...that makes him the aggressor. He then then used the gun to kill two people... that makes him a double murderer regardless of the specific circumstances of the killings.

It makes him a killer, not necessarily a murderer, nor the aggressor. I'm inclined to think he had no intention of actually killing anyone, but was lost in a Captain America fantasy, which backfired hard, and that is entirely his doing and responsibility.

Quote:

If he had not committed the first three crimes...

In case you forgot, there is only one: underage open carry.

Quote:

... none of what followed would have happened, and two families would not be mourning the death of their loved ones

If you want to go all Saudi butterfly, there were a lot of events that could have forestalked the killings. Not picking a fight with an armed kid, for starters. Actually, be honest here: if Rosenbaum hadn't squared off with Ky-Ky and started chasing him around, do you think it was inevitable that Ky-Ky would have shot someone else anyway? Show your work on this one.

Quote:

I'm both surprised and disappointed that this clear and obvious fact needs to be explained to anyone other than an extreme right-wing gun-owning nutcase!

I'm surprised and disappointed that you screwed up the gun laws and crimes committed so badly after pages of discussion, with Wisconsin laws cited for your convenience. We all have our disappointments, no?

smartcooky · 31st December 2020, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

Also, your statement of the 'crimes' doesn't jibe with the set of facts as we know them.
Kyle never carried the weapon across state lines.

Claim withdrawn, however

Originally Posted by webfusion

Kyle needed no permit for his rifle.
Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A.

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ng-assault-st/

"Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess 'a dangerous weapon.'"

"The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin.

In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. In Wisconsin, it is legal for adults to carry firearms in public without a license if the gun is visible. However, to open carry, you must be at least 18 years old."

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...7&ChapterID=39

https://www.grgblaw.com/wisconsin-tr...-gun-wisconsin

"Wisconsin law stipulates that 'any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.'"

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/sta...948/605/2/b/1m

Brainster · 31st December 2020, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Why?

No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why.

Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would.

Selective prosecution is an invitation to corruption. And I am amused at your notion that somehow it's okay to break curfew to exercise the First Amendment right to protest. Do you seriously think the curfew was not intended at those people?

webfusion · 31st December 2020, 05:38 PM

"There are exceptions but I've seen no evidence the conditions for exceptions were met..."

Wisconsin's Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, section 25.

Text of Section 25:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Kyle was legally able to exercise his right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, as protected by the Wisconsin Constitution. He was not forbidden by Wisconsin law from possessing or carrying a rifle just because he was less than 18 years of age.

smartcooky · 31st December 2020, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by webfusion

"There are exceptions but I've seen no evidence the conditions for exceptions were met..."

Wisconsin's Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms, section 25.

Text of Section 25:

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Kyle was legally able to exercise his right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, as protected by the Wisconsin Constitution. He was not forbidden by Wisconsin law from possessing or carrying a rifle just because he was less than 18 years of age.

Nope...

Wisconsin Legislature 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.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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 in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

webfusion · 1st January 2021, 07:51 AM

smartcooky, we have been down this same road before --- Section C of the law as you posted it refers to the EXCEPTIONS --
(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 in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

Was Kyle in violation of s 941.28? Yes or no?
Was he in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593? Yes or no?

This is all covered back from post #61.

19th November 2020, 11:18 AM	#362
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 52,965	It seems he used his stimulus money to finance the straw purchase of the gun. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1749495.html
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

19th November 2020, 12:27 PM	#363
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle It seems he used his stimulus money to finance the straw purchase of the gun. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b1749495.html I'm very curious about the exact details of when this rifle was bought from the original FFL. Did Rittenhouse's buddy buy it for the sole purpose of giving it to Kyle, or was this a rifle that he bought for his own personal use that he later decided to sell. Gets a bit trickier as it seems Rittenhouse only occasionally had possession of the rifle, and it was stored at the friend's house. I have no idea whether they would qualify as a straw purchase or not. ETA: This dude has lawyers and he's giving jailhouse interviews to the Washington Post about his pending multiple felony case. Wonder if his lawyers are incompetent or Rittenhouse is just an unmanageable client. If he had any sense he'd keep his mouth shut until the trial is over.
	Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 19th November 2020 at 12:29 PM.

19th November 2020, 01:37 PM	#364
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010	"The night of the shooting, Mr Rittenhouse took his weapon from his home across the border in Illinois and brought it to the protest." -- from The Independent article linked. That is not what happened according to the information provided by Illinois authorities.
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010

20th November 2020, 02:34 PM	#365
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010	Posting bail, Rittenhouse allowed to leave jail. He might just vanish, a la Abbie Hoffman (aka Barry Freed).
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010

21st November 2020, 08:06 AM	#367
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 19,553	Rittenhouse's bail was paid for by ... wait for it ... the My Pillow Guy!
	__________________ "The only true paradise is paradise lost" Marcel Proust

18th November 2020, 11:03 AM	#361
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Lin Wood, one of Rittenhouse's attorneys, seems to be trying to insert himself in the Great Election Fight of 2020. He has filed a lawsuit against the state of Georgia. If I were facing a lifetime behind bars, I'm not sure I would want some clout-chasing lawyer on my multiple felony case. Wood strikes me as just another grifter trying to insert himself as a hero into whatever right wing grievance story that is hot at the moment. https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status...20234066878465

21st November 2020, 08:02 AM	#366
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	And so the reactionary circus begins. Every right wing ghoul that wants to prove their credibility is going to make a point of hanging out with this murderer while his trial is pending. Given it's a serious case and there are serious delays because of covid, Rittenhouse may be free on bail for some time.

21st November 2020, 09:01 AM	#368
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,734	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Rittenhouse's bail was paid for by ... wait for it ... the My Pillow Guy! And Ricky Schroeder from Silver Spoons.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

22nd November 2020, 05:27 PM	#369
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010	Ricky Schroder (sp.) is a "right wing ghoul" ? Who knew!
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010

22nd November 2020, 06:00 PM	#370
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,342	What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law? Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution. All these truly ignorant armchair lawyers make me want to laugh - but then I realize that they and their obnoxious uninformed hateful invective is what is causing most of the problem in the US society today. The amount of vitriol and hatred and the lack of respect for the fundamental rights of people on this so-called sceptics board is truly astonishing. Rights for only those I deem worthy of having rights! What a circus!
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,342	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

22nd November 2020, 06:20 PM	#371
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: ON Canada Posts: 5,387	Originally Posted by rockinkt What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law? Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window.
	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

22nd November 2020, 06:48 PM	#372
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 23,129	Originally Posted by rockinkt What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law? Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution. Everyone has a right to apply for bail, but they do not have an absolute right to have it granted. Bail can be denied for people who are regarded as too dangerous to be allowed out in public, or for those who present a significant flight risk. It can also be revoked at any time.
	__________________ What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass. Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd November 2020 at 06:56 PM.

22nd November 2020, 06:49 PM	#373
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 7,051	Originally Posted by webfusion Ricky Schroder (sp.) is a "right wing ghoul" ? Who knew! I was going to say that I'll never watch "The Champ" again and then remembered that it stars Jon Voight. Some of the crazy must have rubbed off on Ricky. Poor lad. Jon Voight rails against ‘evil’ Democrats and calls Joe Biden ‘Satan’ in ‘disturbing’ new video
Elagabalus Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 7,051

22nd November 2020, 07:50 PM	#374
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 23,129	Originally Posted by Elagabalus I was going to say that I'll never watch "The Champ" again and then remembered that it stars Jon Voight. Some of the crazy must have rubbed off on Ricky. Poor lad. Jon Voight rails against ‘evil’ Democrats and calls Joe Biden ‘Satan’ in ‘disturbing’ new video ... the “greatest fight since the Civil War”. Looks like he took his role as Ben Gates' father too seriously!
	__________________ What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass. Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd November 2020 at 07:52 PM.

23rd November 2020, 10:10 AM	#375
Suddenly No Punting Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Not In Follansbee Posts: 5,478	Originally Posted by eerok Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window. Sure. If we change this persons ethnicity and his political orientation his chances of making bail / amount of bail will wildly vary, and usually for the worse. So, yes, objectivity does go out the window here, but to the advantage of this specific person.

23rd November 2020, 11:04 AM	#376
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,342	Originally Posted by smartcooky Everyone has a right to apply for bail, but they do not have an absolute right to have it granted. Bail can be denied for people who are regarded as too dangerous to be allowed out in public, or for those who present a significant flight risk. It can also be revoked at any time. Who said anything different? I sure didn't.
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,342	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt* Last edited by rockinkt; 23rd November 2020 at 11:08 AM.

23rd November 2020, 11:07 AM	#377
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,342	Originally Posted by eerok Once it becomes political, objectivity goes out the window. Which is why most of the comments on this thread do not belong on a sceptic's board.
rockinkt Master Poster Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 2,342	__________________ "Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." *Steve Earle* "I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." *Townes Van Zandt*

23rd November 2020, 11:10 AM	#378
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 43,125	Originally Posted by rockinkt What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty as the cornerstone of American law? Why does this concept only apply to Rittenhouse and not the people he murdered? I mean I know why, but I want to hear what excuse you make up that you honestly think we'll buy.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

23rd November 2020, 11:20 AM	#379
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 23,129	Originally Posted by rockinkt Who said anything different? I sure didn't. Really? Originally Posted by rockinkt Say all you want about guilt or innocence - being let out on bail is not a declaration of either. It is also a protected right under the US Constitution!
	__________________ What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass. Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd November 2020 at 11:22 AM.

4th December 2020, 10:53 AM	#380
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Rittenhouse loses motion to dismiss during probable cause hearing. It's unusual that Rittenhouse's lawyer even tried to do this during the PC hearing. There was a 0% chance of success for such a tactic. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be heard at trial, and there's no doubt that Rittenhouse did in fact shoot and kill his victims. The bar for probable cause is quite low, and obviously Rittenhouse's case clears it. The fact that Rittenhouse shot these people is not in dispute, how could there not be probable cause? Honestly, this smacks of culture war posturing than actually good lawyering. Rittenhouse may actually have a path to freedom on some or even all of these charges if he has excellent legal defense and a bit of luck, but I doubt he's getting that level of defense from these grifting media hounds he has for attorneys. There was a similar nonsense legal fight over Rittenhouse's extradition. Perhaps this is just savvy pandering to the Kyle's bloodthirsty supporters who are donating money to his legal defense, but if this is the level of legal acumen that is going to be brought to trial, Rittenhouse is in trouble.
	Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 4th December 2020 at 11:41 AM.

4th December 2020, 01:41 PM	#381
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 25,552	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Rittenhouse loses motion to dismiss during probable cause hearing. It's unusual that Rittenhouse's lawyer even tried to do this during the PC hearing. There was a 0% chance of success for such a tactic. Self-defense is an affirmative defense that must be heard at trial, and there's no doubt that Rittenhouse did in fact shoot and kill his victims. The bar for probable cause is quite low, and obviously Rittenhouse's case clears it. The fact that Rittenhouse shot these people is not in dispute, how could there not be probable cause? Honestly, this smacks of culture war posturing than actually good lawyering. Rittenhouse may actually have a path to freedom on some or even all of these charges if he has excellent legal defense and a bit of luck, but I doubt he's getting that level of defense from these grifting media hounds he has for attorneys. There was a similar nonsense legal fight over Rittenhouse's extradition. Perhaps this is just savvy pandering to the Kyle's bloodthirsty supporters who are donating money to his legal defense, but if this is the level of legal acumen that is going to be brought to trial, Rittenhouse is in trouble. Kyle can't afford high level legal representation. These stunts help him to raise money. Whether he spends the money raised on high level legal representation or more stunts is yet to be decided.
	__________________ Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God. He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

4th December 2020, 04:27 PM	#382
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Originally Posted by Dr. Keith Kyle can't afford high level legal representation. These stunts help him to raise money. Whether he spends the money raised on high level legal representation or more stunts is yet to be decided. That's true. It's entirely possible that these absurd stunts during preliminary hearings could just be a fundraising effort. If the lawyers involved are savvy, they'll keep these stunts up for the little stuff that doesn't matter much then run the actual trial like real, straight-laced lawyers. That implies a lot of good faith in the lawyers. I'm not too sure about this trial lawyer, but LL Wood has attached himself to this project and he is 100% grifter who would be happy to trainwreck his client if it meant collecting cash and getting his name splashed about the right wing press. If Kyle is getting good advice, he'll do like you suggest, take the cash, and hire a top-tier lawyer that isn't interested in clout chasing.
	Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 4th December 2020 at 04:29 PM.

30th December 2020, 05:42 PM	#383
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010	2 counts of first degree murder and * wait for it * breaking curfew! https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2...reaking-curfew
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010

31st December 2020, 01:41 AM	#384
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,129	Originally Posted by webfusion 2 counts of first degree murder and * wait for it * breaking curfew! Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing. It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges.
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

31st December 2020, 06:34 AM	#385
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,994	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing. It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges. It could also show intent. Proving intent in a first-degree murder case can be more easily accomplished by proving the intent to commit a lesser crime committed during the murder. A vigilante can't very well claim to be enforcing the law if they know their presence at the scene of their victims' crime is itself illegal.

31st December 2020, 06:39 AM	#386
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010	Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets Are you scoffing? Sounds like you're scoffing. It may seem insignificant in comparison, but if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer facing 1st degree murder charges. I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal? "OK, no murder one -- just plead to the curfew violation and we'll be OK with it" As for the statement "if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer..." You can say a lot of "IF" stuff here. IF Gaige had not been holding a handgun when he confronted Kyle, his arm would still be intact. IF Mr. Huber had not smashed his skateboard into Kyle's head (effectively turning it into a deadly weapon) he would still be alive to skate another day. IF JoJo had not gotten all up in Kyle's face, trying to take away his gun, he would still be just another evil thug out there on the streets. By the way, the curfew offense is a civil citation "punishable by forfeiture." Maybe the Kenosha prosecutor sees the $2-million Bond as eligible for forfeiture?
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010

31st December 2020, 07:12 AM	#387
SuburbanTurkey Guest Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Null Posts: 15,479	Originally Posted by webfusion I am scoffing --- why this charge? I don't get it. Is that the fall-back position of the prosecution for a plea deal? "OK, no murder one -- just plead to the curfew violation and we'll be OK with it" As for the statement "if Kyle had just obeyed the curfew he wouldn't now be a killer..." You can say a lot of "IF" stuff here. IF Gaige had not been holding a handgun when he confronted Kyle, his arm would still be intact. IF Mr. Huber had not smashed his skateboard into Kyle's head (effectively turning it into a deadly weapon) he would still be alive to skate another day. IF JoJo had not gotten all up in Kyle's face, trying to take away his gun, he would still be just another evil thug out there on the streets. By the way, the curfew offense is a civil citation "punishable by forfeiture." Maybe the Kenosha prosecutor sees the $2-million Bond as eligible for forfeiture? Seems laying the groundwork that Kyle's presence on the streets was unlawful from the start would contribute to undermining any self defense claim. I could see how a prosecutor might paint this. Kyle was illegally on the streets (curfew violation) while illegally carrying a rifle, and any violence that followed was at least an indirect result of this lawlessness. Self defense claims are usually rooted in the idea that the person claiming self defense was acting lawfully and using reasonable judgement to prevent violence. Showing that Kyle was not doing so would greatly weaken such a claim, especially when it comes to convincing a jury. At the very least, I doubt the prosecutor is really motivated by hitting Rittenhouse with a petty violation. It's about building the larger case against him for murders and his other felonies.
	Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 31st December 2020 at 07:30 AM.

31st December 2020, 09:16 AM	#388
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 13,789	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Seems laying the groundwork that Kyle's presence on the streets was unlawful from the start would contribute to undermining any self defense claim. I could see how a prosecutor might paint this. Kyle was illegally on the streets (curfew violation) while illegally carrying a rifle, and any violence that followed was at least an indirect result of this lawlessness. Self defense claims are usually rooted in the idea that the person claiming self defense was acting lawfully and using reasonable judgement to prevent violence. Showing that Kyle was not doing so would greatly weaken such a claim, especially when it comes to convincing a jury. I was going to imply much the same. I shouldn't have to say IANAL (I'm not) but I've been through the legal system enough times to understand the basics of what prosecutors do, and what they go for. I also haven't read the whole thread so if I duplicate something in my opinion, I apologize. Everything webfusion labeled was AFTER the initial interaction. This charge shows that Kyle had no right to be there because his actions were against the law. Also, if Kyle initiated the interaction with "JoJo" then he can't claim self defense either. That's just not how it works. Everything after that initial encounter is a direct result of that initial encounter, which wouldn't have happened had Kyle followed the laws set in place. Same with the people he shot. The only difference is a few of them can't be penalized as they've given everything up.
	__________________ “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss Last edited by plague311; 31st December 2020 at 09:17 AM.

31st December 2020, 11:15 AM	#389
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,734	I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well?
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

31st December 2020, 11:21 AM	#390
Roger Ramjets Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 6,129	Originally Posted by Brainster I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well? Why?
	__________________ We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.

31st December 2020, 11:39 AM	#391
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section Posts: 21,971	Originally Posted by Brainster I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well? That's a fair question. If Rittenhouse's defiance of the emergency police order is deemed significant enough to prosecute...well, he wasn't exactly the Lone Ranger. Seems a bit selective.
	__________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

31st December 2020, 12:47 PM	#392
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 23,129	Originally Posted by Brainster I wonder if the third shooting victim is being charged with violating the curfew as well? Why? Originally Posted by Thermal That's a fair question. If Rittenhouse's defiance of the emergency police order is deemed significant enough to prosecute...well, he wasn't exactly the Lone Ranger. Seems a bit selective. No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why. Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would. Rittenhouse brought a gun across a state line (a crime) carried it in public without a permit (a crime) while under age (a crime) and into a protest specifically for the purpose of causing trouble... that makes him the aggressor. He then then used the gun to kill two people... that makes him a double murderer regardless of the specific circumstances of the killings. If he had not committed the first three crimes, none of what followed would have happened, and two families would not be mourning the death of their loved ones. I'm both surprised and disappointed that this clear and obvious fact needs to be explained to anyone other than an extreme right-wing gun-owning nutcase!
	__________________ What is Woke? It is a term that means "awakened to the needs of others". It means to be well-informed, thoughtful, compassionate, humble and kind. Woke people are keen to make the world a better, fairer place for everyone, But, unfortunately, it has also become a pejorative used by racists, homophobes and misogynists on the political right, to describe people who possess a fully functional moral compass.

31st December 2020, 12:59 PM	#393
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010	I seem to recall that around 50 people were arrested for curfew violations that night. We know that several people were not there for First Amendment rights, but rather, for Second Amendment rights. Also, your statement of the 'crimes' doesn't jibe with the set of facts as we know them. Kyle never carried the weapon across state lines. Kyle needed no permit for his rifle. Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A. You can go back through the thread (10 pages) and see the various cites for the laws of Wisconsin in this case.
webfusion Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 7,010

31st December 2020, 01:11 PM	#394
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	Originally Posted by webfusion Kyle is not underage for the purposes of 2A. Could you link me to where this particular point is addressed? It seems Kyle was charged with illegal possession of a firearm by a minor. I've read the statute and there is a law in WI that draws the line at 18. There are exceptions but I've seen no evidence the conditions for exceptions were met, and it would be confusing for the state to charge him if he were easily provable as being in compliance with that law. Are you trying to argue here that WI law is unconstitutional?
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

31st December 2020, 01:22 PM	#395
Thermal Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: In the Troll Ignoring Section Posts: 21,971	Originally Posted by smartcooky Why? No, it isn't, its a really stupid question. Charging Rittenhouse with violating curfew is not selective, but charging the victim sure as hell would be. Its also entirely irrelevant - and here's why. Everyone there was breaking curfew, exercising their First Amendment right to protest. Perhaps you would like to see all protesters arrested and charged and have people's 1A rights violated by banning protests - I'm quite sure Brainster would. Defying an emergency police order in the interests of public safety in order to burn down car dealerships is not protected as ******* speech by the first amendment. It's just crime. Btw, I'm on the protesters side. I assume however that you are 'on your own' when you partake in criminal activity. Quote: Rittenhouse brought a gun across a state line (a crime)... Nope. It has been determined that he did not do so. The gun was bought in Wisconsin and is not known to have ever left. Quote: ...carried it in public without a permit (a crime)... Nope. Open carry perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Quote: ...while under age (a crime) Hey! You got one right! Quote: ...and into a protest specifically for the purpose of causing trouble... How do you know what his specific purpose was? Your assumptions/inferences/clairvoyant powers don't count. Quote: ...that makes him the aggressor. He then then used the gun to kill two people... that makes him a double murderer regardless of the specific circumstances of the killings. It makes him a killer, not necessarily a murderer, nor the aggressor. I'm inclined to think he had no intention of actually killing anyone, but was lost in a Captain America fantasy, which backfired hard, and that is entirely his doing and responsibility. Quote: If he had not committed the first three crimes... In case you forgot, there is only one: underage open carry. Quote: ... none of what followed would have happened, and two families would not be mourning the death of their loved ones If you want to go all Saudi butterfly, there were a lot of events that could have forestalked the killings. Not picking a fight with an armed kid, for starters. Actually, be honest here: if Rosenbaum hadn't squared off with Ky-Ky and started chasing him around, do you think it was inevitable that Ky-Ky would have shot someone else anyway? Show your work on this one. Quote: I'm both surprised and disappointed that this clear and obvious fact needs to be explained to anyone other than an extreme right-wing gun-owning nutcase! I'm surprised and disappointed that you screwed up the gun laws and crimes committed so badly after pages of discussion, with Wisconsin laws cited for your convenience. We all have our disappointments, no?
	__________________ "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" -Mark Twain "Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet