3rdnlng Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Capco said: If you read my last post carefully, then read the above chapters from Wisconsin state law, you would immediately begin to notice how his points were crafted with Wisconsin law in mind... since, you know, the incident happened in Wisconsin and Wisconsin thereby has jurisdiction. Why would you bring up Stand Your Ground when we are talking about a case in Wisconsin? Moron. Read back what I posted in response to your posts and you might begin to see the light. Notice that I haven't called you a name based on my respect for morons.
Capco Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 Just now, bdutton said: Is the act of carrying a firearm supposed to provoke an attack? He is guilty of being under the age for legal open carry but that is not an act of unlawful conduct to provoke and attack! That's ultimately for a jury to decide. I think coming to a city: 1) one is entirely unaffiliated with, 2) with active protests, 3) with a firearm is worthy enough to provoke an attack. Just now, 3rdnlng said: Read back what I posted in response to your posts and you might begin to see the light. Notice that I haven't called you a name based on my respect for morons. It was also a nod to DC Tom tbf. I kinda miss him calling me a moron.
bdutton Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 9 minutes ago, Capco said: That's ultimately for a jury to decide. I think coming to a city: 1) one is entirely unaffiliated with, 2) with active protests, 3) with a firearm is worthy enough to provoke an attack. It was also a nod to DC Tom tbf. I kinda miss him calling me a moron. That is a really dumb stretch of logic. By extension, the idiot felon that got his arm blown off would also be guilty of provoking an attack as he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Why he wasn't the Felon in possession of a firearm charged????!!!! 1
3rdnlng Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 23 minutes ago, Capco said: That's ultimately for a jury to decide. I think coming to a city: 1) one is entirely unaffiliated with, 2) with active protests, 3) with a firearm is worthy enough to provoke an attack. It was also a nod to DC Tom tbf. I kinda miss him calling me a moron. One would think that you have no scarcity of people calling you a moron so I don't see the issue.
Chandemonium Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 28 minutes ago, bdutton said: He was peaceful until he was attacked without provocation. We was there to lend aid (and was filmed doing so). Is the act of carrying a firearm supposed to provoke an attack? He is guilty of being under the age for legal open carry but that is not an act of unlawful conduct to provoke others to attack! Even that aspect isn’t a slam dunk, due to some exceptions written into the applicable Wisconsin law: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/kyle-rittenhouse-are-people-under-the-age-of-18-forbidden-from-open-carry-in-wi/#axzz6X6dh1hNZ 1
Doc Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 20 minutes ago, bdutton said: That is a really dumb stretch of logic. By extension, the idiot felon that got his arm blown off would also be guilty of provoking an attack as he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Why he wasn't the Felon in possession of a firearm charged????!!!! Good question.
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 22 minutes ago, bdutton said: That is a really dumb stretch of logic. By extension, the idiot felon that got his arm blown off would also be guilty of provoking an attack as he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Why he wasn't the Felon in possession of a firearm charged????!!!! ...because society's ongoing approach is to make "the perpetrator the victim".....personal responsibility/accountability disappears with this psychoanalytical gang....."society MUST have failed this individual to act this way".....so it is OUR fault...go figure.................
Kemp Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 4 hours ago, IDBillzFan said: You are as disingenuous as you are lacking in original thought. It's as simple as this: You are going to vote for an old, angry white man who is a accused of sexual assault and who is on undeniably on record as being a racist. You can not deny any of that. Tara Reade is inconsequential to you. Telling black people 'they ain't black" is inconsequential to you. Stumping for a high-level KKK grand master is inconsequential to you. You accuse others of your behavior, but accept in yourself because you have no spine. So perhaps you should look inward at your own flaws rather than to create flaws about others that are simply untrue, like you posted above. Lie less. Think more. Give it a try. Are you one of those loser veterans? You m,ust be so proud of your hero, today.
Taro T Posted September 4, 2020 Posted September 4, 2020 1 hour ago, Capco said: That's ultimately for a jury to decide. I think coming to a city: 1) one is entirely unaffiliated with, 2) with active protests, 3) with a firearm is worthy enough to provoke an attack. It was also a nod to DC Tom tbf. I kinda miss him calling me a moron. Except reports have said he lived less than 20 miles from Kenosha & worked at the car dealership he was helping guard. If those are accurate, then your 1st point is not correct. The point of being there, whether wise or not, was to help protect the dealership from the expected riots. There are definitely photos showing him removing graffiti earlier in the day at the car dealership. So, again, wisely or not, it seems he had good intentions initially. There also are videos that appear to show him acting as a medic helping . Not sure if they are accurately depicting that. With your 2nd point, are you saying that because there were active "protests" (personally, would call them riots by the time the shooting started, but poe-tay-toe, pah-tah-toe) on going he was fair game to be attacked? If he was helping as a medic (which is debatable, to say the least) does that alter your conclusion? And, not sure how being armed, in and of itself, justifies someone else hitting him in the head with a skateboard nor chasing after him and throwing stuff at him. Each time, until he falls, he IS retreating. Still haven't seen a video showing why the 1st guy is chasing after him. Based on video from earlier at the dealership would guess/expect that it was on the guy who got shot, but that is byno means necessarily the case. Also don't know why he left the dealership nor why police didn't let him pass back through to the dealership from the same route he'd left it. 1
Bray Wyatt Posted September 5, 2020 Posted September 5, 2020 6 hours ago, Chandemonium said: Even that aspect isn’t a slam dunk, due to some exceptions written into the applicable Wisconsin law: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/kyle-rittenhouse-are-people-under-the-age-of-18-forbidden-from-open-carry-in-wi/#axzz6X6dh1hNZ from your link: Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/kyle-rittenhouse-are-people-under-the-age-of-18-forbidden-from-open-carry-in-wi/#ixzz6X8DqX54I Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 940.60 only forbid people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short-barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16. While a casual reading of Wisconsin Statutes seems to indicate people under the age of 18 are forbidden from carrying rifles or shotguns, that is not the case under Wisconsin law, in general. Like I said I take the lawyers word over some paralegal from a different state 1
keepthefaith Posted September 5, 2020 Posted September 5, 2020 This will be one interesting trial if it gets that far.
Westside Posted September 5, 2020 Posted September 5, 2020 (edited) 11 hours ago, Capco said: I'm seeing a lot of ignorance and misinformation flying around about what happened in Kenosha, and I'm going to set the record straight from a professional legal position... as well as from a former military position. I'm going to explain some things from a more technical angle derived from my many years as a paralegal and from my experience working in federal criminal justice and prosecution. Legally, if you are in the process of a commission of a crime, it negates your ability to claim self defense if you kill someone. As in, it can't even be entered as your official defense in court. It is similar to getting rear-ended at a red light through zero fault of your own, but you were driving without a license or insurance. It automatically makes you at fault because you weren't even legally allowed to be driving. That 17 year old in Kenosha had committed two crimes and was not even legally allowed to open carry the rifle he used to shoot three people. This means that he legally cannot claim self defense. Another key discussion is the Castle Doctrine. Some of you may be vaguely familiar with it, as it is what allows you to use deadly force when someone comes into your house unlawfully, etc. But there are some finer points most people don't realize that you generally have to do some formal legal studies to know. First, as soon as someone sets foot inside the threshold of your home uninvited that you believe intends to commit a crime, you can legally use deadly force and it is immediately considered self defense, even if they haven't made any violent threats or actions towards harming you. This is because in every instance outside your home, you are required to retreat and extricate yourself from a dangerous situation if possible. It is a legal mandate, not a suggestion. Your home is considered the final retreat point, and legally you should be safe in your "Castle." There is nowhere else to retreat to, etc. This is why you are able to immediately use deadly force. However, it is NOT to protect your property, it is for protecting your LIFE. And once the burglar, for instance, has left your home... the threat to your life is considered neutralized, and deadly force is no longer authorized. So if a burglar runs out the door and down the street with your TV, you are no longer allowed to shoot after them because they are not threatening your life. You call the police, you file a claim with your insurance, and you get a new TV. If you shoot a burglar in the back down the street, you can and should be charged with murder. While you are out in PUBLIC, this means a lot of things obviously. It means that there is far more scrutiny and boxes that must be checked in order to claim self defense. You must be in IMMINENT danger of losing life and limb. Getting into an argument and feeling scared of being punched by an unarmed person? Not likely to be a situation where deadly force is authorized. You MUST retreat. If someone shoots at you or pulls a knife on you in the street, that is deadly force and can be met with deadly force. But if the person is unarmed, you cannot shoot them because you're afraid of a little scuffle. That is why Rittenhouse illegally shot the first protester, and it is one of the many reasons it cannot be considered self defense. The man threw a plastic bag with trash in it at him AND MISSED, and Rittenhouse shot him. He chased his victim and instigated a fight by brandishing and flagging people with his rifle, because he is an untrained idiot with a gun. The protester was not a threat, and even if he was, all he had to do was retreat back to the police line. He rushed at protesters with a gun drawn to pick a fight, and people are acting as if he were just there to keep the peace. He fired INTO A CROWD, and it's a miracle he didn't hit more people. More people that hadn't thrown a plastic bag. More people that were just trying to protest police brutality, which is a real issue in this country. And then when he did finally run away, some more protesters attempted to subdue him after he had already murdered someone, he tripped, and shot two people trying to stop him from shooting others. The fact that the police didn't arrest him and take him into custody right then and there, even if they suspected it could be self defense, is a grave issue with that police department. I could further dissect this situation, but for now I'm going to end with people passing around misinformation about the victims being "criminals so they deserved it." First, there are no actual records of Jacob Blake or the people shot by Rittenhouse being in the official sex offender's registry. None of them raped a 14 year old girl years ago, that is complete fabrication being purposely spread by right wing extremist sites in order to try and justify the shootings. Jacob Blake was indeed awaiting trial for sexual assault and trespassing, and did have a warrant for his arrest. It was not assault on a child, because that is a different charge with a different title. On the charging document, it would literally say that it was against a child. From what is publicly known, he allegedly broke into an ex girlfriend's house and allegedly assaulted HER, but he is innocent until proven guilty, and still deserves his day in court. He could truly be innocent. Rittenhouse's victims do not appear to have had any record, and even if they did, he couldn't have known that at the time. You cannot insist a shoot was justified AFTER the fact because "that person was a criminal." Criminals have rights too, whether you like it or not, and it is enshrined in the very documents that built our country. If you don't like the constitution and bill of rights, I don't know what to tell you. This is also not MY OPINION, this is literally how the criminal justice system and our laws work. I hold a degree in paralegal studies and served 8 years as an Army paralegal. I've worked for the criminal division in the Chicago US Attorney's Office, and currently work in federal law enforcement. This is what I do for a living, and I am not pulling this out of my ass, and my knowlege is a culmination of working in the field and being passionate about justice for 16 years. I'd be happy to send you sources and opines and case law and statutes if you need it. I did not get this from "mainstream media," and I am not brainwashed by the left. I'm an independent progressive. May he face justice for what he did, and may we find a way to get on common ground before more fuses to this powder keg are lit. -Reposted. Words from a military paralegal. I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by six. You know damn well they would have killed them if he didn't get them first. The one who was shot in the arm had a pistol. He didn't shoot randomly into a crowd. You say you work in federal law enforcement, yet condone the rioting, looting, burning down buildings and killing? You say you were in the military, yet your ok with marxists and socialists trying to take down this country? You're lucky your on the side of the criminals or they would have doxxed you by now.Which I don't agree with no matter who does it. Edited September 5, 2020 by westside2
BillStime Posted September 5, 2020 Posted September 5, 2020 The fact that he speaks positively about the white shooter charged with murdering two people, but doesn't say a word about Anthony Huber, the man who died heroically trying to stop the shooter from killing more people, shows you everything you need to know about how Trump is inciting violence in America. 26-year-old man killed in Kenosha shooting tried to protect those around him, girlfriend says The fact that he compared the shooting of Jacob Blake, the unarmed black man who was shot by police seven times in the back in front of his young children, to missing a putt in golf shows you how little he cares about the lives of black citizens. The fact that he didn't say a word about how troubling it is that the same police department that shot an unarmed black man seven times in the back, the very next day let an armed white teen who just shot several people walk right past them and go home, shows you how he supports and perpetuates racism.
Doc Posted September 5, 2020 Posted September 5, 2020 9 hours ago, westside2 said: I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by six. You know damn well they would have killed them if he didn't get them first. The one who was shot in the arm had a pistol. He didn't shoot randomly into a crowd. You say you work in federal law enforcement, yet condone the rioting, looting, burning down buildings and killing? You say you were in the military, yet your ok with marxists and socialists trying to take down this country? You're lucky your on the side of the criminals or they would have doxxed you by now.Which I don't agree with no matter who does it. The guy even admitted he should have shot him dead first. 1
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2020 Posted September 6, 2020 Quote (CNN)Two self-proclaimed members of the "Boogaloo Bois" were arrested by federal agents after allegedly conspiring and attempting to become "assets" to a foreign terrorist organization that shared their "anti-US government views," the Justice Department announced on Friday. Michael Robert Solomon and Benjamin Ryan Teeter were taken into custody on Thursday and will be held pending a formal detention hearing on Wednesday in US District Court in Minneapolis. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/boogaloo-hamas/index.html 1
ziltoid Posted September 6, 2020 Posted September 6, 2020 34 minutes ago, Tiberius said: https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/04/politics/boogaloo-hamas/index.html This is a win for the law and order president. Thank you for posting this. 1
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2020 Posted September 6, 2020 2 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said: This is a win for the law and order president. Thank you for posting this. Lol, how many of the "Law and Order" president's men are in jail, indicted or have been corruptly helped out with executive power? Trump's a bum
Westside Posted September 6, 2020 Posted September 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Lol, how many of the "Law and Order" president's men are in jail, indicted or have been corruptly helped out with executive power? Trump's a bum Hmmmm........I don't think any of Trumps "men" are in jail for anything Trump has done. How many on the left has pleaded guilty for falsifying a document to spy on the other campaign? Your problem is you don't think, you feel. Emotions are not fact. I like to deal with facts and leave my emotions out of it. That's a sign of immaturity, I don't know how old you or do I care. But there's a time when we all must grow up. I think this is your time Tibs. Become the man your parents wanted you to be, not another emotionally stunted adult you currently are. I say this with great concern for you. I hope you find peace some day.
ziltoid Posted September 6, 2020 Posted September 6, 2020 12 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Lol, how many of the "Law and Order" president's men are in jail, indicted or have been corruptly helped out with executive power? Trump's a bum Scum off the streets = win for Trump Scum still on the streets = Ridin with Biden
Tiberius Posted September 6, 2020 Posted September 6, 2020 5 minutes ago, BeerLeagueHockey said: Scum off the streets = win for Trump Scum still on the streets = Ridin with Biden Free and fair elections= Win for Dems and America 8 minutes ago, westside2 said: Hmmmm........I don't think any of Trumps "men" are in jail for anything Trump has done. How many on the left has pleaded guilty for falsifying a document to spy on the other campaign? Your problem is you don't think, you feel. Emotions are not fact. I like to deal with facts and leave my emotions out of it. That's a sign of immaturity, I don't know how old you or do I care. But there's a time when we all must grow up. I think this is your time Tibs. Become the man your parents wanted you to be, not another emotionally stunted adult you currently are. I say this with great concern for you. I hope you find peace some day. Cohen went to jail as part of campaign finance fraud to help Trump
Recommended Posts