It sounds like you relied more on the media news/reports.

I got more specific than the news. And i was still correct. He did a morally bad thing. Put himself in a bad situation where he had to use his "gun" to defend himself. If Mel Gibson from Lethal Weapon 3 had that sign on his body walking down the road and shot anyone who attacked him...same thing

You were wrong on several details regarding the trial. Why? It sounds like you relied more on legacy media. Morally wrong? 😂 -Cleaning graffiti. -Putting out fires. -Offering basic 1st aid. -Watching over a minority owned business. -Defending yourself against unprovoked attacks.

I wasnt. Morally wrong. Yes. He went there knowing hed probably be attacked. He wanted to be attacked so he could fire his weapon. If he didnt, well hes lucky he didnt win a Darwin award that day.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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?

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

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.

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?

Who were you referring to in this post?

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

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.