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

OK, don't say I didn't warn you:

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "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/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

However, the exception is: "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult (not what Kyle did in Kenosha) or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult (also not what Kyle did in WI)."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "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."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

And Statute 29.304(3)(b) states: "No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm" with added exceptions listed."

But that last statute doesn't matter because Kyle was 17 when he killed those people in Kenosha, and he was from IL, not WI.
 
LV426 said:
OK, don't say I didn't warn you:

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "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/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

However, the exception is:
B]"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."[/B]
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

But that last statute doesn't matter because Kyle was 17 when he killed those people in Kenosha, and he was from IL, not WI.
Click to expand...

the statute I gave you was 29.304............29.593 just gives those requirements to meet 29.304. you really need to learn how to read ALL the law, not just the parts you need.
you didn't prove me wrong here..........you actually proved me right, so thanks.

so, to clarify, you declared that wisconsin has an open carry statute.......when in fact, the only open carry statutes they have are for persons under the age of 18, but provides exceptions which were already shown to you and you still aren't getting that the exemption applies to certificates from ANY STATE, which implies that anyone from any other state can carry a rifle........
 
LV426 said:
OK, don't say I didn't warn you:

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "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/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

However, the exception is: "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult (not what Kyle did in Kenosha) or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult (also not what Kyle did in WI)."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

Wisconsin statute 948.60(3)(c) states: "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."
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/st... Any person under 18,of a Class A misdemeanor.

And Statute 29.304(3)(b) states: "No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm" with added exceptions listed."

But that last statute doesn't matter because Kyle was 17 when he killed those people in Kenosha, and he was from IL, not WI.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the laws you just quoted...all of them. Kyle was legal.
 
zymurgy said:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-victim-terminology/index.html

This is going to go very well for the defense
Click to expand...


He should have never been tried to begin with. Everybody knew what was going on. The riots were on the news every day. So the chances that Kyle was just shooting people willy nilly just for the hell of it was just about zero. If it was me, I wouldn't have ended up running away from the attackers like he did. I would have depopulated the whole fucking area! Also, I'm sure Mr Rittenhouse wasn't there doing what he was doing by himself. It seems to me that the others who were there with him could have told the cops what happened and why. But these days, negro appeasement seems to be what the government is trying to promote.
 
AProudLefty said:
In other words, he allegedly pulled his handgun after the fact. Not threatening Kyle with it?
Click to expand...

That's the way it appears. He's the guy that was shot in the arm and survived, IIRC. I'm waiting for the trial for the most part before accepting any facts.

Video is great but sometimes things are not as they appear. Chauvin's trial proved that the more views, the better. There was no doubt he killed a man.

I'm curious to see if more smartphone videos are introduced plus home security camera videos, the police car videos, etc.
 
AProudLefty said:
You must have watched the movie titled, "Kyle 2: Antifa Gonna Die Harder".
Click to expand...

I saw a poster on that:

4m8wfx.jpg
 
AProudLefty said:
I am. They did not intend to kill Kyle. They tried to disarm him to neutralize the threat.
Click to expand...

if that truly is the case, that they only wanted to disarm a kid with an AR-15 instead of going the opposite direction to avoid being shot, then they are every bit as stupid and moronic and the idiots that stormed the capitol on 1/6
 
chainbreak said:
He should have never been tried to begin with. Everybody knew what was going on. The riots were on the news every day. So the chances that Kyle was just shooting people willy nilly just for the hell of it was just about zero. If it was me, I wouldn't have ended up running away from the attackers like he did. I would have depopulated the whole fucking area! Also, I'm sure Mr Rittenhouse wasn't there doing what he was doing by himself. It seems to me that the others who were there with him could have told the cops what happened and why. But these days, negro appeasement seems to be what the government is trying to promote.
Click to expand...

True. We know that he went there to start shit with people he did not like. He got a weapon. That was not tourism, even as rightys define 1-6 to be.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
That's the way it appears. He's the guy that was shot in the arm and survived, IIRC. I'm waiting for the trial for the most part before accepting any facts.

Video is great but sometimes things are not as they appear. Chauvin's trial proved that the more views, the better. There was no doubt he killed a man.

I'm curious to see if more smartphone videos are introduced plus home security camera videos, the police car videos, etc.
Click to expand...

has there been a gag order by the judge in this case yet?
 
Nordberg said:
True. We know that he went there to start shit with people he did not like. He got a weapon. That was not tourism, even as rightys define 1-6 to be.
Click to expand...


I think he went there to prevent shit. Not start it. And if his objective was to start the shit, he wouldn't have run away, would he.
 
chainbreak said:
I think he went there to prevent shit. Not start it. And if his objective was to start the shit, he wouldn't have run away, would he.
Click to expand...

that's part of the leftist problem. they got no problem doing shit in a mob........one on one is a little different for them. they especially like outnumbering teenage kids. it makes them feel tough, like hoosier daddy likes to do.

they still haven't come across real resistance or violence and it's going to make them shit their pants when they do.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if that truly is the case, that they only wanted to disarm a kid with an AR-15 instead of going the opposite direction to avoid being shot, then they are every bit as stupid and moronic and the idiots that stormed the capitol on 1/6
Click to expand...

In other words, you think the cops are being idiot for trying to disarm a kid with a gun. The cops should have ran away.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what fucking cops are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I thought you understood? This one you said:

"if that truly is the case, that they only wanted to disarm a kid with an AR-15 instead of going the opposite direction to avoid being shot, then they are every bit as stupid and moronic and the idiots that stormed the capitol on 1/6"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top