You had many details wrong. -You thought Kyle was in possession of an assault rifle. -You didn't know about Kyle's connection to Kenosha. -Weren't aware of the possession statute. -You thought Kyle crossed state lines with a firearm. You're also confusing being prepared with intent.
His messages prior to going is intent.
Those "messages" haven't been verified. They are unsubstantiated allegations by a disgruntled ex-spokesperson. Why are you ignoring the 2 violent threats made by Rosenbaum to Rittenhouse that same night? Threats that Rosenbaum acted on.
This is actually new to me.
That's Joanne Fiedler & Ryan Balch.
I'm not sure how.
Laat I checked this trial happened 4 years ago? I wasnt so invested in this trial because I thought he was a piece of shit, or at best, a kid with terrible parents.
Now that you're aware, are you going to continue to ignore the threats by Rosenbaum?
He posted beforehand on facebook and through texts about kenosha. He knee Kenosha hated proud boys. He knew prior to going carrying the firearm would likely spell trouble. He did it anyway. Im the one that cited the exact statute and the original intent of the statue as verified by said writers.
You cited the statute but didn't take exception 3(c) into consideration as I advised you to. Legislative efforts attempted to add an exception (3d). That exception would have made the hunting requirement to include 16 & 17 yo. That was a direct response to the Rittenhouse trial.
Irrelevant
It's very relevant to your statement. "Im the one that cited the exact statute and the original intent of the statue as verified by said writers." You may have cited the correct statute but you failed to properly interpret it despite my guidance. You kept insisting on a hunting requirement.
What happened after the trial is irrelevant. It just means wisconsin has republican leaders, who value guns over lives.
That's an odd way of admitting that you were wrong. 🤔
How is republican controlled legislature who decided they didnt want to enshrine the original intent into law AFTER the trial, me being wrong. Even odder way to say you are right.
The legislative body decided not to add the exception. They chose to keep the statute as originally written.
You haven't explained why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum. The jury agreed that Kyle satisfied the legal principles & determined his actions were reasonable.
If he didnt have a weapon and Kyle knee how to fight, he could have just beat his ass. But he never would have been targeted had he not been carrying the gun....so.
You don't know that he wouldn't have been targeted. Nobody does. It is conjecture. Nobody can say that Rosenbaum wouldn't have attacked had Rittenhouse turned up with just the extinguisher. It is just as likely that he would, especially given his conduct, character and form for attacking minors.
Yes i do. Common sense. 99.9% of the people there had no weapons. The only people that died had weapons or were killed by people with weapons. Weird. Unless someone overdosed or got ran over that im unaware of. Point being, dont go to a riot. If you do, conceal carry. Dont be a jackass.
You don't know. You can surmise, but is just conjecture. Nobody knows what would have happened or what would not have happened. There are an infinite number of possibilities.
That contradicts the testimony by Officer Moretti. "There was probably more people armed than not throughout that entire course of civil unrest." -Kenosha PO Pep Moretti. ⬇️
It contradicts reality. Watch videos. Him saying more people than not is silly. Also Rittenhouse was friends with many of those officers before the incident...wasnt he like a trainee? I take the word of cops like the word of politicians. Hes telling us not to believe our lying eyes.
Rittenhouse was in the Grayslake Police Department's Explorer program and the Antioch Fire Department's cadet program. There was no evidence presented during the trial to suggest that Kyle was friends with any officers in the Kenosha PD.
You can look up the videos & photos of that night & clearly see how many people were armed. A lot. Your 99.9% claim is false.
That's one of the advantages of the self defense statute. Not everyone is required to be an MMA fighter. The next time you read the statute, pay special attention to the words "preventing" and "prevent." It's never acceptable to attack someone for simply being armed. Never.
Its not ok, sure. But it will happen. In my opinion its not ok to walk around brandishing a weapon of war. If you are that big of a pusse, go grab a small caliber gun. As my dad said, "If you open carry, you better be ready to use it, because everyone around you knows you have it."
Properly open carrying a rifle is not brandishing. Rittenhouse demonstrated that he was ready to use it. Your point?
I never said he wasnt legally in the right on this point. Quit making assumptions. Yes, the guy threw a paper bag at him. Yes he ran at him and threatened him. Maybe he would have died by another minor carrying a rifle designed to kill humans. Still immoral. Learn to fight before carrying.
Rosenbaum wasn't a particularly big guy, but he had done ten years in prison. His prison record showed that he had assaulted people whilst incarcerated. He was violent, belligerent and suicidal, with apparently little to lose. And you are upset because a minor that he attacked wouldn't fight him?
gun...guess what? He wouldnt need to fear. Rosenbaum didnt attack all those other folks carrying assault weapons. I wonder why? Almost like Rittenhouse goaded him?
I'll tell you why, because those other folks weren't alone. Even ex-marine Jason Lackowski, who thought of Rosenbaum as a babbling idiot, had to concede on the witness stand that had he found himself in Rittenhouse's position, things might have been different.
"Almost like Rittenhouse goaded him" There was no evidence presented during the trial to corroborate your theory. You're ignoring the violent threats (2x) made by Rosenbaum that same night.
Yes. I am. Dads raise pussies these days. Instead of showing them the ropes and how to defend themselves, they are lazy and give them guns. If Rittenhouse got his ass beat, hed have learned a lesson here. Instead, he felt he needed to kill the guy in fear hed take his gun. If he didnt have a
Until the law dictates that carrying a gun is unlawful, then being in possession of one and being in fear that a violent lunatic (who has threatened to kill you already) is going to take it from you is not that unreasonable. Nobody is obliged to take a beating, as this idiot also tried to assert.
I disagree. Well have to agree to disagree. Its a provocative action and will get you shot where Im from. You can point to laws all day long, but open carry around here and the law isnt going to save you. Thats just life.
It wasn't exactly a normal day out.
Your personal beliefs on open carry are in direct conflict with the current open carry laws in WI. The laws don't care about your feelings.
Agreed. The National guard in LA, the EO revoking birthright citizenship, trumps conviction of rape(as said by the judge), trump falsifying documents, his illegal tariffs....those laws dont care about your feelings either. It is what it is.
Lol. You've been trying to bait me into a political discussion for days now. Not interested. Why would I be? You're not even accepting the facts regarding Rittenhouse.
It's never immoral to defend yourself against unprovoked attacks. Never.
They werent unprovoked. Thats what you dont get. Him carrying the gun was a provocation. What happened to men? Everyone is such a pusse they have to carry guns around. If they were illegal here, this shit wouldnt happen.
Open carrying a rifle in an open carry state is hardly proof of provocation. In fact, Kyle wasn't guilty of disorderly conduct for doing so.
Its a provocation to many people regardless of law. Do there here or close by in Memphis, the law wont save you buddy. Im just trying to express the reality of the issue.
Then I suggest those people stay away from open carry states. Your personal beliefs conflict with the open carry laws in WI.
Are you referring to the unverified texts by David Hancock, the disgruntled ex-spokesperson for Rittenhouse? They are unsubstantiated allegations. You wouldn't accept that as proof if I submitted it to you, nor would I expect you to. Lead Det. Antaramian disputes your claim regarding Facebook.
No i didnt. It is no different than an AR except by semantics. I own more guns thab you, I promise. A hair pin trigger and practice can make mode irrelevant. What makes you think i didnt know his connection to Kenosha? Because I dog walked you into saying something incorrect?
Who advised you that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with a firearm? It certainly wasn't from watching the trial. That media lie was addressed during the opening statements by ADA Binger & the origin was proven during the course of the trial.
When did i speak on this?
Ah, I see the confusion. I didnt realize I said that. Yes he crossed state lines. Yes, he had a gun. Yes he lied about that in court and said it was at a friends house. (Black maybe?)..I believe the "proof" that it was in Kenosha was the receipts to buy it. I dont trust his word. Sorry
It was at Black’s address because it was Black’s gun. There was no evidence that Rittenhouse ever owned it, nor any that he had ever taken it to Illinois or possessed it there. There was no evidence that he had even seen or handled it after the weekend that it was purchased in May until August 25th.
Sure thing bud.
You are free to believe what you like. All I am saying is that there was no evidence. That is just a fact.
There was evidence, just none youd accept. Ill agree he got away with it. But hes EXTREMELY lucky to be alive.
And, with respect, if there is evidence, then why not present it? It is a really old debating deflection tactic when people make a claim of evidence, but decline to present it with the caveat of "You would only dismiss my evidence". How do you know if I haven't seen what you propose?
There was no evidence that Rittenhouse had ever owned the rifle or had ever kept it. Black testified that he bought the rifle in his name on May 1st and that it was kept at his address in Kenosha. He still owned that gun when it was destroyed in 2022, and had to sign off on its destruction.
All the evidence of the shootings was exculpatory. There was nothing to suggest that he acted unlawfully. There was nothing in the videos or witness testimony that hurt his case for self-defense under WI s.939.48. Why do you think critics ignore this and focus on "He never should have been there" ?
You're not accepting evidence. -You discounted Officer Moretti's testimony. -Inserted your own statistic. "99.9% of the people weren't armed." -You insist that Kyle crossed state lines with a firearm. Despite evidence to the contrary. You lack integrity.
You're free to prove otherwise. Oddly, you're making claims that the prosecution didn't even make. 🤔
Why are you making claims that the prosecution didn't even make? That's odd. Perhaps you can explain this.
Dogwalked? You claimed that Kenosha wasn't Kyle's community despite proof that it was. He had a secondary residence there with his dad. He worked there (RecPlex). Had extended family & friends who lived there. The rifle was semi-auto. Not an assault rifle like you claimed.
Yes im going armed to my secondary and tertiary communities next week due to the increased crime in DC(actually decreased 40%). Worked there, had friends there, give me a break. If you are going to a riot carrying a gun, you better be prepared to lay your life down.
False Equivalence.
