Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[Westside]

5 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Libertarian?  

I’m actually a democrat. 

[Chef Jim]

Just now, Westside said:

I’m actually a democrat. 

We’ll try not to hold that against you. Try…..😁

[Westside]

Just now, Chef Jim said:

We’ll try not to hold that against you. Try…..😁

I appreciate that👍🏻

[daz28]

1 hour ago, Buffarukus said:

 

after the first encounter he told the camera person and everyone who would listen he was going to the police to turn himself in. they were engaged in a ideological "protest" that prevented them from doing the proper thing. trying to "cranium" a person instead of allowing him to get to police directly down the street as he ran AWAY from them not subjecting anyone to any threats or intimidation on the way.

 

have you watched the full videos that have been out for months because texting the whole incident is repetitive especially when multi videos angles eye witness accounts  are all on record.

 

lastly the gun charge was dropped by the prosecution. hunting exemption, barrel size. it was dismissed in court.

 

 

 

Dropping the gun charge is a HUUGE aspect, imo.  If he shouldn't have had the weapon, that makes him much more negligent.  The Wisconsin law is sketchy, but how in the world was it ACCEPTED as a hunting exception???  Kyle didn't take the weapon there to hunt, and this was testified as fact by the purchaser.  You can't legally hunt in the city, and it was night time.  Doubtful he has a WIS hunting license.  I wasn't asking if the charge was dismissed, but rather why it was, when it's clear he was indeed not hunting. 

 

Also, one could easily argue that him shooting someone shortly beforehand would be considered a "threat", and running "AWAY" from a scene is almost always a sign that you were doing something wrong.  He lied to the camera person.  He didn't "turn himself in".  He could have easily walked in front of a police car to stop it, which is EXACTLY what I(or anyone) would have done if I was in fear for my life, and attempting to turn myself in/seek protection.  

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by daz28

[daz28]

1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I’m not sure I follow you.   Who is arguing everyone in Kenosha was a lawless rioter? There were people who were being victimized, people trying to lend a hand, law enforcement officials and apparently a few people skateboarding to a campfire sponsored by the National Association of Adults Who Victimize Children (NAAWVC).  

What seems most reasonable to me is the folks who set upon KR were intent in doing him harm, though perhaps not to the extent that they would take his life, maybe just leave him with a traumatic brain injury.  I think that because chaos was the order of the day,s one people love chaos and victimizing people who can’t or won’t fight back, and sometimes even those who do.   It’s also possible that they saw KR as an easy mark, and an AR-15 as a pretty good score on Loot N Shoot night.  
 

No idea why he would call a friend, but I’d hazard a guess that the shooting left him traumatized and he reached out to someone he trusted for reassurance.  
 

If he’s guilty of violating gun regulations, he should be held accountable for that.   If he assassinated the victims he should be held accountable for that as well.  However, there are clearly, demonstrably and indisputable facts that cast doubt and raise questions on where you’re going with all this.  

Lot's of people are victim shaming, and taking the position you are that they targeted him.  I'm arguing that it's more likely people targeting a known shooter aren't just looking to get a few licks in on an easy target(one armed and known to use the weapon???), but rather trying to stop him evading or causing further harm. 

 

If you're correct about him needing reassurance, why didn't he contact police shortly after, or turn himself in sooner?  He will say he was scared, but if I just get done protecting myself from people attacking me, I don't go into hiding.  

 

My personal opinion is he is negligent, because he was a child with a weapon who shouldn't have had the weapon.  He was NOT hunting, and that's what the rifle exception is for.  If he stayed at the car lot, likely no one is harmed.  Other people's actions led to their own harm(we will not know their true intentions), but none of them happen if he is following the law in the first place.  The kicker of this whole thing is that the guy who bought him the gun is going to be in prison for many years, but all the negligence after that is somehow washed down the drain.  

[Buffarukus]

10 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Dropping the gun charge is a HUUGE aspect, imo.  If he shouldn't have had the weapon, that makes him much more negligent.  The Wisconsin law is sketchy, but how in the world was it ACCEPTED as a hunting exception???  Kyle didn't take the weapon there to hunt, and this was testified as fact by the purchaser.  You can't legally hunt in the city, and it was night time.  Doubtful he has a WIS hunting license.  I wasn't asking if the charge was dismissed, but rather why it was, when it's clear he was indeed not hunting. 

 

Also, one could easily argue that him shooting someone shortly beforehand would be considered a "threat", and running "AWAY" from a scene is almost always a sign that you were doing something wrong.  He lied to the camera person.  He didn't "turn himself in".  He could have easily walked in front of a police car to stop it, which is EXACTLY what I(or anyone) would have done if I was in fear for my life, and attempting to turn myself in/seek protection.  

 

 

im not sure on the Wisconsin law. what i or you feel about it they read it and it was obvious to drop it. from what i understand it had to do with barrel length not hunting.

 

if you live in Wisconsin then you can work within the framework to change the law but regardless what you and i say its what's on the books. you also cannot start fires and there were plenty of more weopons there then kyles including a pistol fired in the air first just a kyle was being chased and later pulled to stop him so lets not cherry pick to hard on weopontry that shouldn't be in the streets.

 

he went directly towards the police with his hands up without confronting or talking directly to anyone else. they attacked him, he kept running, they got him on the ground where the next incidents happen. when he cleared threats he continued to police with his hands raised. police told him to get out of the way because of the chaos. he turned himself in the next morning. 

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

I'm thinking this is going to be a hung jury.  The judge made a monumental mistake not sequestering the jury and they don't want to face the consequences which ever way they vote.  And I don't blame them.

[daz28]

13 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

im not sure on the Wisconsin law. what i or you feel about it they read it and it was obvious to drop it. from what i understand it had to do with barrel length not hunting.

 

if you live in Wisconsin then you can work within the framework to change the law but regardless what you and i say its what's on the books. you also cannot start fires and there were plenty of more weopons there then kyles including a pistol fired in the air first just a kyle was being chased and later pulled to stop him so lets not cherry pick to hard on weopontry that shouldn't be in the streets.

 

he went directly towards the police with his hands up without confronting or talking directly to anyone else. they attacked him, he kept running, they got him on the ground where the next incidents happen. when he cleared threats he continued to police with his hands raised. police told him to get out of the way because of the chaos. he turned himself in the next morning. 

 

 

 

 

It was not obvious to drop it.  The judge initially did not.  From what I understand is the hunting exemption is what was accepted, because 17 year olds can use them for hunting.  The b arrel length is also a factor, but I'm only pointing at the hunting part.  Imo, if that's the provision, and he was not hunting, then it shouldn't apply.  

 

His own words:  "People are getting injured and our job is to protect this business," Rittenhouse told the Daily Caller in a video interview before the shooting. "And my job also is to protect people. If someone is hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle; I’ve gotta protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit."

 

He VERY CLEARLY did not have his rifle for hunting. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by daz28

[Buffarukus]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It was not obvious to drop it.  The judge initially did not.  From what I understand is the hunting exemption is what was accepted, because 17 year olds can use them for hunting.  The b arrel length is also a factor, but I'm only pointing at the hunting part.  Imo, if that's the provision, and he was not hunting, then it shouldn't apply.  

 

the last question was barrel length. im guessing because you dont want anything concealable in the context of the law. im not saying its a good idea to have 17 yr olds allowed to carry loaded rifles but its not my town. i also dont think allowing 900 dollars in theft should not be prosecuted like in san fran ect ect ect. 

 

regardless its on the books as legal. it their town. but what is illegal is destroying buisnesses attacking police. ect ect ect. but noone seems concerned on that part so again you seem to cherry pick what you think should be illegal, prosecuted we should start there...no?

Edited November 19, 2021 by Buffarukus

[daz28]

1 minute ago, Buffarukus said:

 

the last question was barrel length. im guessing because you dont want anything concealable in the context of the law. im not saying its a good idea to have 17 yr olds allowed to carry loaded rifles but its not my town. i also dont think allowing 900 dollars in theft should not be prosecuted like in san fran ect ect ect. 

 

regardless its on the books just like destroying buisnesses attacking police. ect ect ect. 

I just added to my last post, and I don't know if you saw it.  Here's the problem: The barrel length was necessary for it to fit under the 17 year olds hunting staute, not to qualify it as an open carry weapon for those 18 and older(adults).  He was clearly and self-admittedly using the weapon as open carry, and that's not legal.  I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but judges OFTEN make bad/poor calls.  This is one of them, because if he's considered legally allowed to carry the weapon, then that takes away the negligence factor.  

[Buffarukus]

4 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I just added to my last post, and I don't know if you saw it.  Here's the problem: The barrel length was necessary for it to fit under the 17 year olds hunting staute, not to qualify it as an open carry weapon for those 18 and older(adults).  He was clearly and self-admittedly using the weapon as open carry, and that's not legal.  I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but judges OFTEN make bad/poor calls.  This is one of them, because if he's considered legally allowed to carry the weapon, then that takes away the negligence factor.  

 

i added to mine to. the judge read the law word for word and then it came down to barrel length. judges make poor calls sure i can name numerous i feel in this case in the other direction..which is why mistrial against the prosecution is a real possibility as he is letting alot of stuff go.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Doc]

A mistrial is also a very real possibility given the Judge's warnings to the prosecution, the bad video given to them by the prosecution and the NBC/MSNBC shenanigans.  It would also be a way to get the jury out of their jam.

[Buffarukus]

31 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It was not obvious to drop it.  The judge initially did not.  From what I understand is the hunting exemption is what was accepted, because 17 year olds can use them for hunting.  The b arrel length is also a factor, but I'm only pointing at the hunting part.  Imo, if that's the provision, and he was not hunting, then it shouldn't apply.  

 

His own words:  "People are getting injured and our job is to protect this business," Rittenhouse told the Daily Caller in a video interview before the shooting. "And my job also is to protect people. If someone is hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle; I’ve gotta protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit."

 

He VERY CLEARLY did not have his rifle for hunting. 

ok so i read your full response. ill have to look into the exact law as its was dictated. 

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

A mistrial is also a very real possibility given the Judge's warnings to the prosecution, the bad video given to them by the prosecution and the NBC/MSNBC shenanigans.  It would also be a way to get the jury out of their jam.

it should just be done this trial is a clown car riding off the cliff. not sequestering the jury when you KNOW there will be issues with intimidation alone is grounds

[daz28]

23 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

ok so i read your full response. ill have to look into the exact law as its was dictated. 

it should just be done this trial is a clown car riding off the cliff. not sequestering the jury when you KNOW there will be issues with intimidation alone is grounds

It's tough to track it down, but I just read that the judge could have easily asked an appeals court to rule on it, but he didn't("shame on me", he said), because he waited too long it's now moot.  Just another blunder in a long list.  Wisconsin law is bad in many ways, but it's very obvious that open carry law is intended for 18+.  

 

He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away.

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

Edited November 19, 2021 by daz28

[Buffarukus]

50 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It's tough to track it down, but I just read that the judge could have easily asked an appeals court to rule on it, but he didn't("shame on me", he said), because he waited too long it's now moot.  Just another blunder in a long list.  Wisconsin law is bad in many ways, but it's very obvious that open carry law is intended for 18+.  

 

He said prosecutors could have asked a state appeals court to rule on whether the charge was valid “all along.” Then he caught himself, noting that he never issued a ruling against the prosecution that might have triggered such a request until just then with closing arguments minutes away.

“I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute,” Schroeder said. “I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that’s not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me.”

 

if thats what went down then i have to believe you as i have not looked into it myself. the fact this is a high profile case that is VERY important when it comes to self defense i say all around its been treated as some sat afternoon jay walking charge.

 

id like to switch the subject. was this self defense in simple yes no terms? if no at what point did it become something else because it seems kyle is condemned from the get go based on simply bringing a gun but the ENTIRE day he was trying to help people on BOTH sides, yet has been portrayed as a BLM obstruction. he was a violence obstruction. which everyone should be behind. unfortunately that is what brought about more violence on him and he had no choice but have a unforeseen outcome of violence on him or give it back when there were no alternatives. its extremely clear.

 

i think there are too many people that look at outcomes and say this or that should have been done having the godly power of hindsight to guide them but ONLY at the point where they see contention, never before. if kyle allows his gun to be taken away hes just another dead kid from last year and no one would know his story or care like so many others that died. that doesnt include the countless beaten to a pulp that had no gun, 17 or older.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Buffarukus

[daz28]

10 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

if thats what went down then i have to believe you as i have not looked into it myself. the fact this is a high profile case that is VERY important when it comes to self defense i say all around its been treated as some sat afternoon jay walking charge.

 

id like to switch the subject. was this self defense in simple yes no terms? if no at what point did it become something else because it seems kyle is condemned from the get go based on simply bringing a gun but the ENTIRE day he was trying to help people. 

 

i think there are too many people that look at outcomes and say this or that should have been done having the godly power of hindsight to guide them but ONLY at the point where they see contention, never before.

I think the kid had good intentions, but I think that him playing cop would likely been taken by many as a provocation.  Almost everyone reacts adversley to anyone who's not an authority figure judging their actions.  He shouldn't have had a weapon, and being a kid, shouldn't have been there playing hero.  As for yes or no, I'd say yes, he was defending himself.  Did his negligence put him in that spot? Also yes.  The super grey area imo, is when he started firing on the second group of people trying to disarm him. Does that allow them to in turn defend themselves and shoot him???  If they were trying to stop a shooter, and he fired on them, they certainly would have been left fearing for their lives, too.  The "good guy with a gun" advocates want to pretend that never happened, because it shows that it's not always cut n dried in those circumstances.

 

Answer me this yes or no:  if the 2nd group of people thought he was a shooter, and were trying to disarm/stop him, would they have had a right to shoot him after he fired on them???  

[Buffarukus]

17 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I think the kid had good intentions, but I think that him playing cop would likely been taken by many as a provocation.  Almost everyone reacts adversley to anyone who's not an authority figure judging their actions.  He shouldn't have had a weapon, and being a kid, shouldn't have been there playing hero.  As for yes or no, I'd say yes, he was defending himself.  Did his negligence put him in that spot? Also yes.  The super grey area imo, is when he started firing on the second group of people trying to disarm him. Does that allow them to in turn defend themselves and shoot him???  If they were trying to stop a shooter, and he fired on them, they certainly would have been left fearing for their lives, too.  The "good guy with a gun" advocates want to pretend that never happened, because it shows that it's not always cut n dried in those circumstances.

 

Answer me this yes or no:  if the 2nd group of people thought he was a shooter, and were trying to disarm/stop him, would they have had a right to shoot him after he fired on them???  

 

id honestly say no. he was not posing a direct threat to them and they had no clue on the situation that lead to the shooting. the police were right down the street and he was running away towards the police not even looking at them. they were against the police and simply wanted to deal street justice in which case they tryed, honestly to do without directly killing him. again poor decisions to try to unarmed a person with skateboards. what would have happened if he was disarmed? held him until the cops....he was running towards got there? i dont know but people were saying cranium him and guns were being shot not by kyle as the chased him. thats a fed up scene all the way around. take cover and call the cops. 

 

sorry i may have answered the wrong question. can people shoot somone who shot those that chased him down and attacked him? after? no same response. no direct threat in any way as was shown when they left him alone he went peacfully to the cops..the exact same thing would have happened imo if they didnt attack him when he first started down the street the cops were ON.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Buffarukus

[Dukestreetking]

11 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Answer me this yes or no:  if the 2nd group of people thought he was a shooter, and were trying to disarm/stop him, would they have had a right to shoot him after he fired on them???  

I'm not trying to be a D-bag about this, but I've addressed this two times already. The rule is basically demonstrable "good faith", plus the other standards I laid out.

 

Example is school shooting: civilian and plain clothes cop. If they both shoot, TRULY believing the other is the bad guy, then they have deadly force privilege.

 

The issues then become really proving good faith, and also satisfying the other standards...not an easy thing.

[daz28]

7 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

id honestly say no. he was not posing a direct threat to them and they had no clue on the situation that lead to the shooting. the police were right down the street and he was running away towards the police not even looking at them. they were against the police and simply wanted to deal street justice in which case they tryed, honestly to do without directly killing him. again poor decisions to try to unarmed a person with skateboards. what would have happened if he was disarmed? held him until the cops....he was running towards got there? i dont know but people were saying cranium him and guns were being shot not by kyle as the chased him. thats a fed up scene all the way around. take cover and call the cops. 

In the world we live in seeing a guy who just shot someone running is about as big of a direct threat as you'll ever encounter.  It would be VERY reasonable to assume he's a shooter. Your whole "street justice" narrative in unfounded.  Now you want to blame them for "poor decisions", while Kyle gets none.  "Take cover and call the cops" is not the mantra of the "good guy with a gun" crowd.  Their mantra is take him out without prejudice as quickly as possible to mitigate a the further threat.  See how quickly your idea of a "hero" changes based on how you view them, and the situation.  

3 minutes ago, Dukestreetking said:

I'm not trying to be a D-bag about this, but I've addressed this two times already. The rule is basically demonstrable "good faith", plus the other standards I laid out.

 

Example is school shooting: civilian and plain clothes cop. If they both shoot, TRULY believing the other is the bad guy, then they have deadly force privilege.

 

The issues then become really proving good faith, and also satisfying the other standards...not an easy thing.

Except an officer is clearly marked as such.  Kyle, to any onlooker, would have had the appearance of an active shooter.  In your instance, the janitor would have laid his weapon down after he mistakenly shot someone.  Totally different.  People here are acting like all the people he shot were just an angry mob looking to hurt someone.  If that's true, then why pick on the guy with a gun??  It makes ZERO sense, and isn't a reasonable argument. 

[Buffarukus]

20 minutes ago, daz28 said:

In the world we live in seeing a guy who just shot someone running is about as big of a direct threat as you'll ever encounter.  It would be VERY reasonable to assume he's a shooter. Your whole "street justice" narrative in unfounded.  Now you want to blame them for "poor decisions", while Kyle gets none.  "Take cover and call the cops" is not the mantra of the "good guy with a gun" crowd.  Their mantra is take him out without prejudice as quickly as possible to mitigate a the further threat.  See how quickly your idea of a "hero" changes based on how you view them, and the situation.  

 

no your completely overlooking my direct threat and running TOWARDS THE POLICE. if you think you should chase down a gunman knowing nothing about the situation whatever the intentions while hes not pointing a weopon at you or acting hostile in any form while trying to run away from you towards the cops then you will not be in this world long my friend. 

 

your discounting a ton of important details to slide in your perspective as if this was some active shooter posing threats to everyone around with no options. every single person kyle shot was posing a direct threat on his life. simply defending his life does not make him a "active shooter" as noone would have been shot had they not attacked HIM.

Edited November 19, 2021 by Buffarukus