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.
How anyone can stand to listen to Ben Shapiro I'll never know. That voice.
Anyway, I watched up until he lied. He said it was perfectly legal for an 18 y/o to carry a gun in Wisconsin. Either he's lying about his age, or trying to mislead. Either way that discredited his entire thesis right there as far as I'm concerned.
I did some digging into that. I don't have any experience in Wisconsin case-law nor am I a lawyer, but I did find the exemption for rifles that people keep referencing is real. If you have passed your Hunter's Safety Class, you are legal to open carry a rifle as long as you are 16+ years old. The intent is for hunting, but since you can't hunt without open-carrying, then the implication that you can legally open-carry a rifle (but not a handgun) as long as your 16+ is established.
Barnes and other actual lawyers who have practiced in Wisconsin would be the best resource to know whether the courts have interpreted things the way I'm suggesting. Barnes, who is licensed to practice in Wisconsin seems to suggest as much. I have no idea whether Rittenhouse has taken the Wisconsin Hunters Safety Class, but it makes sense that he would. Antioch is literally right on the border. Wisconsin has more plentiful game and a less crowded hunting season than Illinois -- besides the fact that doing absolutely anything with a gun in this state (I'm in Illinois too) is torturous at best. So if his family hunted much, Wisconsin would be the best place for them to do it.
As for Ben Shapiro, the guy hasn't practiced in some time, but he is an actual lawyer. I expect he knows what he's talking about better than you or I, though he's undoubtedly hold a pretty massive bias to the political Right. Your article likely has a pretty massive bias to the Left. The truth likely rests somewhere in the middle and we'll see how it goes.
He was also helping to protect the community, and even putting out a fire which is supposedly what enraged the group chasing him. He's a lifeguard, he is obviously interested in SAVING lives. The thugs that attacked him were only interested in DESTRUCTION. Kyle was armed and yet he RAN AWAY from the threat. HE was the one being pursued, not the other way around.
With that first guy, Kyle had every right to defend himself and I will go a step further and say that Kyle may have VERY WELL saved more lives. That first felon, the "Shoot me! Shoot me!" guy was obviously deranged and he was trying to take Kyle's firearm AWAY from him. Ask yourself, WHY? Why was he chasing Kyle and trying to get his firearm away from him?
Why was this felon there in the first place? What was HIS motive?? You're so busy ignoring Kyle's motive of helping people and stopping the destruction of the coummunity. Why are you NOT asking about this guy's motive? Why was he going up to and antagonizing people, telling them to shoot him? What if he had gained possession of Kyle's rifle? What if the guy was a suicidal maniac? All these things are distinct possiblities based on his deranged actions. He was an ABSOLUTE threat.
The other 2, also, no argument at all.... clear cut self-defense.
The prosecutor has NO case.
Kyle is a political prisoner.
FREE KYLE.
We are not a country of vigilante antis. He came from another state with a gun to cause trouble. And now he's in a world of trouble. Stay in your own state. This was all on him.
We are not a country of vigilante antis. He came from another state with a gun to cause trouble. And now he's in a world of trouble. Stay in your own state. This was all on him.
Self defense is not vigilantism....and he's not really in any trouble. The DA knows these charges won't stand up to scrutiny, that's why they skipped a grand jury knowing it would be a no-bill situation.
The kid is going to make quite a bit of money off of this situation before it's all said and done.
The lesson here SHOULD be, don't attack people, if the DNC terrorists didn't attack the kid, they'd still be alive.
Self defense is not vigilantism....and he's not really in any trouble. The DA knows these charges won't stand up to scrutiny, that's why they skipped a grand jury knowing it would be a no-bill situation.
The kid is going to make quite a bit of money off of this situation before it's all said and done.
The lesson here SHOULD be, don't attack people, if the DNC terrorists didn't attack the kid, they'd still be alive.
Do you actually believe this? Do you also believe in QAnon?
We are not a country of vigilante antis. He came from another state with a gun to cause trouble. And now he's in a world of trouble. Stay in your own state. This was all on him.
No. That is your false narrative.
Your apparent siding with those who were attacking him is noted, though.
Do you actually believe this? Do you also believe in QAnon?
Honestly, I don't even know what QAnnon is.
As to the kid being in trouble, of course he's not really in trouble. Like I said, there's a reason why the DA knew they had to skip the grand jury despite it usually being a rubber stamp situation. The charges simply do not stand up to ANY scrutiny. Anyone who watches video of a kid running away from an attacker and hears the only nearby eyewitness claim that the kid shot while the attacker grabbed at his rifle is going to realize that we're talking about a clear cut self defense case. The judge might not even let it get that far, realistically he could grant a motion to dismiss early on....it's that ridiculous a case.
I challenge anyone to make a legal argument otherwise.
Self defense is not vigilantism....and he's not really in any trouble. The DA knows these charges won't stand up to scrutiny, that's why they skipped a grand jury knowing it would be a no-bill situation.
The kid is going to make quite a bit of money off of this situation before it's all said and done.
The lesson here SHOULD be, don't attack people, if the DNC terrorists didn't attack the kid, they'd still be alive.
He is a vigilant anti because he came from another state with a gun. And of course he will be charged. He killed 2 people. Just think if he had stayed home....these 2 people would be still be alive and he wouldn't be in this trouble. It's not like he was protecting his own home. He went out of his way to kill.
As to the kid being in trouble, of course he's not really in trouble. Like I said, there's a reason why the DA knew they had to skip the grand jury despite it usually being a rubber stamp situation. The charges simply do not stand up to ANY scrutiny. Anyone who watches video of a kid running away from an attacker and hears the only nearby eyewitness claim that the kid shot while the attacker grabbed at his rifle is going to realize that we're talking about a clear cut self defense case. The judge might not even let it get that far, realistically he could grant a motion to dismiss early on....it's that ridiculous a case.
I challenge anyone to make a legal argument otherwise.
So the first murder was clearly self-defense, and will be easy to prove, right? Is there also clear video evidence he was in imminent danger and only fired to save his life? If not, the burden rests on him to prove it.
If he does, he'll be giving it all away to Gaige Grosskreutz.
LOL, your communist friend is very likely to end up in jail for attempted murder, there's no chance he's winning a lawsuit against ANYONE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
He is a vigilant anti because he came from another state with a gun. And of course he will be charged. He killed 2 people. Just think if he had stayed home....these 2 people would be still be alive and he wouldn't be in this trouble. It's not like he was protecting his own home. He went out of his way to kill.
He didn't come from another state WITH a gun. He lives 15 miles away and was working in the city that day. When a group of friends heard about the terrorists threatening local businesses they armed themselves and looked to head out to defend those businesses and provide first aid to anyone the terrorists harmed.
That said, he didn't shoot the terrorists while defending any property....he was just standing around when he was attacked so he did his best to retreat and when that failed, he was forced to put his attacker down. That's not being a vigilante, that's just defending yourself against an unprovoked attack.
Also, those 2 people still being alive wouldn't be a good thing. That would just be 2 more terrorists on the streets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
So the first murder was clearly self-defense, and will be easy to prove, right? Is there also clear video evidence he was in imminent danger and only fired to save his life? If not, the burden rests on him to prove it.
Yes, the first shooting was clearly self-defense and it's VERY easy to prove.
There is clear video evidence that he did everything in his power to escape an attacker and this is backed by the ONLY nearby eyewitness who claims that the attacker was grabbing for his rifle when he was shot.
There is literally no evidence that points to this being anything other than self-defense, and the burden of proof is on the state to prove that.
A competent, non political DA wouldn't have even brought charges.
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.
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.
