-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
It sounds like he was in possession of a firearm illegally, which compromises, it seems, his right to self defense under 939.48 1mB1 of the Wisconsin code. If I am incorrect in this, then I am incorrect and am happy to eat that.
See above. I am also undecided on whether deadly force was justified in shooting #1.
My main point, however, was that this was a tragedy that occurred because government officials, who were so invested in a Presidential election, were in dereliction of duty to the point that 17 year olds felt the need to be defending a community that was not even theirs. That is the main takeaway. If I am wrong on the law, I am wrong on the law.
I have not kept tabs on any of this. Nor do I want to be in the middle of any arguments. That said the only thing he could be found guilty of (in my opinion) is having a minor in possession of a rifle or whatever the relevant charges are for that in the situation (based on age or whatnot).
Everything else is a complete witch hunt to try and prove a point.
He was retained to guard a business, from what I recall. Probably that is why you said only within a home, and not, as the statute reads, within a home or place of business.
Need a lot more people like Kyle! Good is bad and bad is good under these evil fucking corrupt democrats!
I know, I made a really shitty argument and I don't want to own up to it, but I do. It isn't that I am missing the main point, I am trying to evade it.
EPIC! Marine Veteran Hero Who Stopped Robbery in Progress Receives Valor Award - And Shows Up Wearing "Let's Go Brandon" T-Shirt and MAGA Hat | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft
The Yuma County Sheriff’s Offices honored Marine veteran James Kilcer with their valor award on Tuesday.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Being in possession of the gun illegally, which we aren’t even sure is illegal in and of itself, does not negate a persons right to self defense. Even if it is illegal, and let’s say he used a knife instead, does him having the gun illegally, negate his right to protect himself?
Also his attacker has zero way to know if he was 1 year older or not and legally allowed to have that rifle.
what was rittenhouse suppose to do? Let the arsonists attack him?
everything that he may be guilty of he would get off of on time served.
Was someone’s opinion changed on the Internet today?! This might be historic
Kyle was not alone that night.
This seems to have part of the police report on the incident.
minor in possession of a firearm is a misdemeanor 9 months max. He already had time served.
This seems to have part of the police report on the incident.
minor in possession of a firearm is a misdemeanor 9 months max. He already had time served.
The Constitution is like the anti - Spanish Inquisition...
Just wait till they break out the comfy pillows.....
948.60(3)(c) declares that 948.60 doesn't apply to minors carrying rifles or shotguns that are not SBRs or short barreled shotguns.Kyle was not alone that night.
View attachment 7729098
This seems to have part of the police report on the incident.
View attachment 7729106
minor in possession of a firearm is a misdemeanor 9 months max. He already had time served.
(c) 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.
If in violation of... what do 942.28, 29.304 and 29.593 say.
Everything I read it says he is getting charged with some sort of minor in possession.
941.28 is Possession of Short barreled rifle or shotgun
29.304 is Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593 is Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval (hunters safety requirement)
939.51 is Classification of misdemeanors (spells out classes and related fines and jail time)
Honestly, I don't see how they can charge him with minor in posession of a rifle when the statue clearly says (paraphrasing..."this doesn't apply to minors carrying rifles or shotguns unless they are violating SBR laws, or hunting age requirements or hunter safety class requirements"
To me, that is purposefully written to allow minors to possess long guns.
29.304 is Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593 is Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval (hunters safety requirement)
939.51 is Classification of misdemeanors (spells out classes and related fines and jail time)
Honestly, I don't see how they can charge him with minor in posession of a rifle when the statue clearly says (paraphrasing..."this doesn't apply to minors carrying rifles or shotguns unless they are violating SBR laws, or hunting age requirements or hunter safety class requirements"
To me, that is purposefully written to allow minors to possess long guns.
The "section" he's charged with is 948.60. part 1 defines terms, part 2 lays out what is a violation, and part 3 clarifies who the section applies to. You cant separate part 1 or 2 from part 3
The totality of the circumstances, a full blown Aunt Tiffa riot, render that statute moot.
Perhaps you should look at what I am saying. I’m not blaming him at all and not asking you to buy anything. That is something that’s been established in many self defense cases. Remember, the prosecution only needs one person to hang a jury too. This one won’t stop with a hung jury, it will be tried over and over.
The way I understand it being charged with 948.60(2)(a) which he is being charged with. Is not the same as 948.60(3)(c).
948.60(3)(c) which I believe references hunting does not apply.
I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding
Not guilty of homicide and endangerment and guilty of firearm possession. No more time in jail because of time served.
I see. You threw me off when you mentioned crossing State lines in violation of a law that doesn't exist. Can you fill me in on the State firearm possession law that he violated?
oh please please do it. haha. come to kansas and try to fuck us up. pretty please
White or jewish depends on the circumstance. Basically they can be either, depending on which is more beneficial at that time.
It's conditional.... So, not likely to be taken seriously by a prosecutor. Not in my experience, anyhow.
Here’s the first guy he shot, but earlier in the night.
also seen here from the picture above. Safe to say he was pretty aggressive that night, likely also when he was chasing Kyle.
also seen here from the picture above. Safe to say he was pretty aggressive that night, likely also when he was chasing Kyle.
Just a public service message: For your blood pressure and the blood pressure of others, please do not feed the trolls.
Thank you!
At this point, can't the dead scum just be considered mutual combatants and we call it a day?
So the teams have been chosen……Beta Fuck Bois vs MealTeam6.
I’ll watch the livestream from work.
Jury Trial starts Nov1. Recent events were just setting the ground rules.
Glad to know I am some sort of Jesus figure in your mind. It's a lot to live up to, but I will do my best.
The judge can also nullify the jury’s verdict using judicial prejudice and insert his own verdict……
epstein, weinstein, rosenbaum...
www.wisconsinrightnow.com
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender Arizona '02 Criminal Complaint
Joseph Rosenbaum Sex Offender: Arizona court documents confirm Rosenbaum charged with child molestation causing his sex offender status.
www.wisconsinrightnow.com
Last edited:
Similar threads
