judge may allow the men Kyle Rittenhouse shot to be called 'rioters' or 'looters'

[Into the Night]

So...there is an issue...

So some people (and the law) can classify you as a threat.




Now, just imagine if you were Black or Muslim, and what the cops' reaction would have been.




You say you do this all the time, but then you also say that there are issues occasionally.

You're not helping your case.

Straw men fallacies.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Wasn't that Florida too? Fucked up state. Glad I was able to finally leave.

True that's a prosecution tactic, but most of the charges appear to have substantial evidence. Like the Chauvin trial, video evidence might figure prominently since people tend to believe what they see with their own eyes.

agreed........we just differing viewpoints on the actions appearing in the video......

I left it open to you in a post. Agreed, it's a gamble for you and an almost sure thing for me. LOL

and you actually thought that was funny??????

Nothing matters except what evidence is presented at trial. Should be fun when his militia friends are dragged into court.

any 'evidence' of association AFTER the events putting him on trial will never see the inside of a courtroom, providing that the judge doesn't want to see his decision overturned on appeal.

you should know better than this, but it's obvious that you're letting your emotions get the better of you on it

 

[LV426]

I was born and raised in Northern Illinois, near Wisconsin, and visit there every now and then, of course I know the laws up there.

So you know then that it was illegal for Kyle to cross into Wisconsin with that gun?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Not if they're the only ones firing, which he was.

He had already fired his gun before skateboard guy got to him, so he was an active shooter at that moment and in that time.

was he being threatened by the first person shot????? was that first person committing a crime at the time he was shot?

the rest is just your emotion filled opinion and not facts of law

 

[SmarterthanYou]

My opinion? Okay I'll bite. Why did they want to kill him, especially when he was armed?

because they were a violent and bloodthirsty bunch of bullies who saw someone they could get away with beating to death

 

[AProudLefty]

because they were a violent and bloodthirsty bunch of bullies who saw someone they could get away with beating to death

Ah. So they just randomly single him out of other armed people? What did they do? Roll the dice?

 

[LV426]

this is correct and quite possibly is the ONLY charge he can actually be convicted of.

Ah, but what you don't seem to understand is that because of that illegal act, Kyle killed two people.

This gets to the intent...Kyle KNEW or had to have known that it was illegal for him to carry that weapon into Wisconsin, therefore any act he takes with that weapon is viewed as an illegal act by the law.

So "self defense" isn't going to fly in court when you're admitting to breaking a law that put you there in the first place and created the circumstances of what happened.

Rittenhouse is actually in a worse position, legally, than James Fields ever was because Fields wasn't illegally driving his car on the roads prior to his attack.

 

[LV426]

there have been numerous state and federal cases where a convicted felon used a gun in self defense and was only convicted of the possession.....not the use and shooting....

OK, name one case.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So...there is an issue...

So some people (and the law) can classify you as a threat.

anyone can classify anyone as a threat........but the one thing that escapes you is that if i'm carrying a gun in full accordance with the law, no matter how anyone else sees me, i'm not a threat. at least not a threat within the law

Now, just imagine if you were Black or Muslim, and what the cops' reaction would have been.

irrelevant...........

You say you do this all the time, but then you also say that there are issues occasionally.

You're not helping your case.

stupid people make stupid decisions based on many emotions........but a random persons hate or fears does not make it illegal for me to carry a gun..............

 

[NiftyNiblick]

So you know then that it was illegal for Kyle to cross into Wisconsin with that gun?

Is this actually true? It might be but it doesn't seem right.
Even the most strict gun law states have no restriction on rifles as long as they're not machine guns.
There may have rules about where you can bring them, but that wouldn't include one's own car.
Maybe it's because he was under eighteen at the time. That could be it.

 

[Into the Night]

Not the law in Wisconsin or Illinois, which are the two states in question here.




Is it? Because Rittenhouse's very presence with the weapon in WI was a violation of the law because he wasn't allowed to legally carry that weapon in Kenosha.

So he starts his defense as an admitted criminal.

So what happened prior to his mass shooting is relevant, specifically the fact that he was there illegally.

So that invalidates any self-defense because Kyle has already admitted to being a lawbreaker the moment he crossed the border into Wisconsin.

It is legal to carry a rifle openly in either State. No permit required.

 

[LV426]

irrelevant..........he felt threatened by the first person shot

Wait a second.

You're saying KYLE felt threatened AFTER SHOOTING SOMEONE FIRST????

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Kyle has the right to be in Kenosha.

So did the people he shot.

 

[BartenderElite]

So, "victim" is too loaded of a term, but "rioter" and "looter" are not.

Got it. Pretty clear where this one is headed.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So you know then that it was illegal for Kyle to cross into Wisconsin with that gun?

that's debatable..........in order to prove that, you must be able to show that HE had sole possession of the weapon the entire time. the way i've heard this presented, to date, was that he was handed the weapon in WI when he was dropped off..........

 

[LV426]

irrelevant..........he felt threatened by the first person shot and fired in self defense.

Kyle shot into the crowd first, then skateboard guy charged him...so when skateboard guy charged him, KYLE WAS ALREADY THE ACTIVE SHOOTER, and skateboard guy was the one acting in self defense.

That's what the video shows.

Kyle shot first, then skateboard guy charged him, then Kyle killed skateboard guy.

So Kyle was in Kenosha illegally, fired into the crowd, then killed the guy who was trying to stop Kyle, who was the active shooter.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ah. So they just randomly single him out of other armed people? What did they do? Roll the dice?

or saw a young and frightened person as an easy target that would be too afraid to shoot.....guess they were wrong

 

[Dutch Uncle]

For what?

Scroll up, Sybil. The charges are already covered.

 

[Into the Night]

Shut the fuck up, Donny.

You ask me a question, then tell me to shut up?!? You've lost it, pal.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Ah, but what you don't seem to understand is that because of that illegal act, Kyle killed two people.

This gets to the intent...Kyle KNEW or had to have known that it was illegal for him to carry that weapon into Wisconsin, therefore any act he takes with that weapon is viewed as an illegal act by the law.

So "self defense" isn't going to fly in court when you're admitting to breaking a law that put you there in the first place and created the circumstances of what happened.

Rittenhouse is actually in a worse position, legally, than James Fields ever was because Fields wasn't illegally driving his car on the roads prior to his attack.

I again refer you to the numerous court cases that found convicted felons not guilty of using a gun in a violent crime because of self defense