Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Vote For The Outcome Of The Murder Trial Of Kyle Rittenhouse
Guilty - Kyle Rittenhouse murdered those young protesters 72 19.78%
Not Guilty - Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense 292 80.22%
Voters: 364. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-31-2020, 05:23 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
16,146 posts, read 10,290,874 times
Reputation: 27279

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat View Post
None of that is relevant to his self defense case even if any of it were true.
I didn't say anything about his case. I was simply saying how his presence with that gun was both illegal and confrontational, it didn't solve problems it created a new one. The fact that there are dead bodies as he faces charges should confirm this. A boy with a big gun should not be taking to the streets to take law and order into his hands.

 
Old 08-31-2020, 05:56 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,400,803 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
Regardless of how he obtained the gun he was still underage so it was illegal for him to have that gun at the rally, as I have clearly stated.

And none of this is armchair QBing. I happen to believe a child with an AR 15 has no business showing up at a protest and I believed that long before this story broke. . How'd it work out anyway? It only incited a reaction as common sense would tell us was pretty predictable.
Not so simple. Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

A key section is: "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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28."

Those referenced statutes are at: Wisconsin Legislature: 941.28 (short barreled rifle or shotgun, not applicable here).

Wisconsin Legislature: 29.304

This one is key. It's sloppily written but there does not appear to be any restrictions on those 16 or older on possession of a rifle or shotgun.
 
Old 08-31-2020, 06:15 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
8,680 posts, read 4,483,963 times
Reputation: 9064
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
Absolutely. The common mistake from the right is they believe the libs condone the rioters.

We do not.
Sure you do. You encourage them. One needs look no further
than you next post to see that you encourage the rioters.

This is now building to a war. Take a side.
You either support those defending law and order,
or those rioting, burning, looting, etc.

You obviously don't support those who defend,
so you condone the rioters. There is no in between.
 
Old 08-31-2020, 06:21 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
16,146 posts, read 10,290,874 times
Reputation: 27279
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Not so simple. Wisconsin Legislature: 948.60

A key section is: "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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28."

Those referenced statutes are at: Wisconsin Legislature: 941.28 (short barreled rifle or shotgun, not applicable here).

Wisconsin Legislature: 29.304

This one is key. It's sloppily written but there does not appear to be any restrictions on those 16 or older on possession of a rifle or shotgun.
Well seeing as one of the charges he faces was carrying a dangerous weapon as a minor I would think those charging him with that crime know more about the local laws than you and I do. Politifact also says you are incorrect. https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ng-assault-st/

But that was a minor crime and not the point. The point is he was a minor, a child, and his presence there didn't restore order, it only escalated the confrontation with deadly results and this kid facing charges. So I'll ask again, was his presence there with that gun a positive result?
 
Old 08-31-2020, 06:31 AM
 
14,801 posts, read 17,600,853 times
Reputation: 9246
Right, they may have the kid on a misdemeanor gun charge. Though the law is murky, there may be a carve out for 17 year olds to carry rifles. Self defense is clear. The DA made a political statement with the charges.
 
Old 08-31-2020, 06:54 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,337 posts, read 26,400,803 times
Reputation: 11334
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
Well seeing as one of the charges he faces was carrying a dangerous weapon as a minor I would think those charging him with that crime know more about the local laws than you and I do. Politifact also says you are incorrect. https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ng-assault-st/

But that was a minor crime and not the point. The point is he was a minor, a child, and his presence there didn't restore order, it only escalated the confrontation with deadly results and this kid facing charges. So I'll ask again, was his presence there with that gun a positive result?
Given how sloppy the criminal complaint is I would have little confidence they know what they are doing unless their intent is he walks. They might have him on that if he had a handgun but not with a rifle. Moreover it's generally accepted that laws like that are not applicable in a case of self-defense where one's life is at risk.
 
Old 08-31-2020, 07:01 AM
 
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,051 posts, read 12,191,427 times
Reputation: 10262
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
Regardless of how he obtained the gun he was still underage so it was illegal for him to have that gun at the rally, as I have clearly stated.

And none of this is armchair QBing. I happen to believe a child with an AR 15 has no business showing up at a protest and I believed that long before this story broke. . How'd it work out anyway? It only incited a reaction as common sense would tell us was pretty predictable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
Well seeing as one of the charges he faces was carrying a dangerous weapon as a minor I would think those charging him with that crime know more about the local laws than you and I do. Politifact also says you are incorrect. https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...ng-assault-st/

But that was a minor crime and not the point. The point is he was a minor, a child, and his presence there didn't restore order, it only escalated the confrontation with deadly results and this kid facing charges. So I'll ask again, was his presence there with that gun a positive result?
How did him being 17 with a weapon "incite a reaction" and then "escalate the confrontation"?
There were plenty of people on both sides with guns. Was he picked out and attacked by Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum knew he was 17? Did the mob who chased him know he was 17?


Kyle is a few months shy of his 18th birthday. Are you saying that him being just a few months older would make a big difference, where he would not "incite a reaction" or "escalate the confrontation"?
 
Old 08-31-2020, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
16,146 posts, read 10,290,874 times
Reputation: 27279
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRex2 View Post
Sure you do. You encourage them. One needs look no further
than you next post to see that you encourage the rioters.

This is now building to a war. Take a side.
You either support those defending law and order,
or those rioting, burning, looting, etc.

You obviously don't support those who defend,
so you condone the rioters. There is no in between.
Of course there is an in between, you are just too obtuse to understand it. Now follow along, read this slowly so maybe you will understand.

I am all for peaceful protests. Although I do not believe Jacob Blake was murdered, I believe the officer had every reason to believe he could have been reaching for a weapon, I support the rights of people who gather in protest. That does not mean I support those showing up just to cause violence.

if you honestly can't understand the difference between supporting peaceful protests and being critical of those on both sides who show up just to cause confrontation and actually supporting those looters and rioters I have no idea what you are thinking.

Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 08-31-2020 at 07:23 AM..
 
Old 08-31-2020, 07:12 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
16,146 posts, read 10,290,874 times
Reputation: 27279
Quote:
Originally Posted by berdee View Post
How did him being 17 with a weapon "incite a reaction" and then "escalate the confrontation"?
There were plenty of people on both sides with guns. Was he picked out and attacked by Rosenbaum because Rosenbaum knew he was 17? Did the mob who chased him know he was 17?


Kyle is a few months shy of his 18th birthday. Are you saying that him being just a few months older would make a big difference, where he would not "incite a reaction" or "escalate the confrontation"?
Did you really read my posts and conclude that my position was his age was the reason for this confrontation? Really? That's pretty amazing from where I sit.

No as I clarified in another post, one you missed or ignored, the fact that he was charged with that crime of underage possession of a deadly weapon was not the real issue here. The point was he is still a very young person, people that age do not have fully developed brains which is why they have different ramifications for juveniles than the do for adults for the same crime. A kid that age should not be brandishing an AR 15 for crowd control. He is simply not qualified for that role, all he did was instigate a reaction and that caused more violence as we saw.
 
Old 08-31-2020, 07:19 AM
 
Location: SE corner of the Ozark Redoubt
8,680 posts, read 4,483,963 times
Reputation: 9064
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
Of course there is an in between, you are just too obtuse to understand it. Now follow along, read this slowly so maybe you will understand.

I am all for peaceful protests. Although I do not believe Jacob Blake was murdered, I believe the officer had every reason to believe he could have been reaching for a weapon, I support the rights of people who gather in protest. That does not mean I support those showing up just to cause violence.

if you honestly can't understand the difference between supporting peaceful protests and being critical of those on both sides who show up just to cause confrontation and violence I have no idea what more to say to you.
I honestly can't understand why you think any of this has to do with peaceful protests.
None of this has to do with peaceful protests: that is a red herring.

You either support the rioters, or the defenders.
There is no in between, except to walk away in silence, but you have not.
Since Demoncrats either can't or won't keep the peace,
it falls to citizens to keep the peace.

Do you support the rioters or the defenders.
Your past comments show that you support the rioters.

I support the defenders.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top