To Acquit or Not Acquit?

[MountainTi]

258740331_444708447004295_2422190181232659750_n.jpg

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Attachment 176412

You know what's amazing MountainTi, that the media outlets that got their pants sued off of them, pulling that **** on the first young man, did it again to Kyle, and are going to lose big time again.

Either they have very deep pockets and don't care or they are as dumb as posts. Crazy hey, some people never learn!

[tri777]

Brandon's getting upset..

President Biden is 'angry and concerned' at Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er_dailymailus

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by tri777

Brandon's getting upset..

President Biden is 'angry and concerned' at Kyle Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...er_dailymailus

He should be more concerned about the upcoming lawsuit that will be filed against him in the very near future. I'll bet Kyle's cell phone is burning up with calls from top-notch defamation lawyers about now.

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

He should be more concerned about the upcoming lawsuit that will be filed against him in the very near future. I'll bet Kyle's cell phone is burning up with calls from top-notch defamation lawyers about now.

Seen from here, that would prejudice any Prosecution appeal.

Grizz

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams1

Seen from here, that would prejudice any Prosecution appeal.

Grizz

I do believe that the judge ruled not guilty with Prejudice, therefore he can not be tried again??

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by tirebob

It is a sad situation all around. I don't think that kid had any ill intent when he went there and figured he was just being Mr. Do-Good when it all started out, but he got in over his head and it lead to a life altering situation and he is going to be suffering through this forever.

He was a dumb kid and should never have been there and that is a shame, but he definitely was in a moment where I think he would have been the one laying there beaten to a pulp and bleeding out dying or dead on the pavement and what he did to save himself is probably what we all would have done at that very moment. I hope he has learned from this.

The bigger issue is what is leading people to think they need to take action into their own hands, and that is simply the fact that those that are supposed to are not. Not sure where it will all lead in the end but it sure isn't looking like anywhere decent in any short order.

When the authorities allow BLM rioters to destroy businesses, and attack and kill business owners, and the police either avoid it all, or stand by and watch, what do they think people will do? If the police won't protect people and their businesses, the people don't have a lot of options, other than to protect themselves, and their property.
Hopefully the media and Biden himself are sued for large amounts, because of their accusations .

[Jamie]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

This is what you want so in your mind by only looking at the letter of the law- which you have failed to do. Long and short, no matter how you sway it, he was there with a firearm illegally.

You are wrong. You will never admit it.


https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state...-in-wisconsin/
Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.
The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.

THIS is the law!

He also faces two felony charges of recklessly endangering safety and a misdemeanor charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Which part of this do you not understand?

In Wisconsin, lawful gun owners can generally open carry without a permit. But a person must be 18 or older to carry a “dangerous weapon.” Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings.

Criminal defense attorneys who specialize in Wisconsin firearm law say it will be hard for the defense to beat that back at trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...use-trial-faq/

In the clip, first published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, prosecutors say Rittenhouse can be heard saying he wished he could shoot people, whom he believed to be looters, fleeing a nearby CVS store.

“Bro, I wish I had my [expletive] AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them,” Rittenhouse is heard saying.

There is something wrong in this kids head.

Uhh Ken.. You know the judge ruled that there were no valid charges about the gun... The Prosecutor had a charge and the judge threw it out. But I am sure Google knows better than the judge? But even if it wasn't thrown out... How is a illegal gun charge worth a murder charge.. Not saying the kid is straight.. But I am saying now that a Jury of 7 women and 5 men thought this kid was defending himself.. The charge here was Murder.. 12 of his pears figured it was self defence. Kid is eating at home tonight.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

When the authorities allow BLM rioters to destroy businesses, and attack and kill business owners, and the police either avoid it all, or stand by and watch, what do they think people will do? If the police won't protect people and their businesses, the people don't have a lot of options, other than to protect themselves, and their property.

I'm failing to understand how this incident can be seen any other way than stated above. You wanna play, you're gonna pay.
The National Guard should have been put to work before this happened. Enough is enough

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

.
It will be interesting to see how this evolves within the US culture.
.

Interesting indeed.

Originally Posted by Battle Rat

They will be welcome in Quebec but not in Canada.

I like what you did there

Originally Posted by Bushrat

Yes, perhaps rioting criminals will think twice if they have to deal with people who actually will do what the police should be doing.

Pretty sad that it's come to this, citizens dooing what the cops should be doing. (To be CRYSTAL CLEAR, I'm not bashing on cops, but rather their superiors and politicians that told the front line cops to stand down, absolutely DISGUSTING!)

Originally Posted by hogie

From what I understand National Guard is on standby for riots. BLM and the likes served there intended purposes, election is done. Won't allow that level of riots again. Wouldn't use the NG when the original riots happened.

They were on standby for the original riots too where this all took place. But a stubborn Liberal State Governor would rather watch it burn to the ground so they could somehow make it Trumps fault that uphold law and order. Liberal logic

Had the cops and the NG done their jobs that they were sworn to do none of this would of happened. There is blood on the Governors hands on this one.

Glad the kid got off but he still has a HUGE uphill battle for a long time to come.

[nitro]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

This is what you want so in your mind by only looking at the letter of the law- which you have failed to do. Long and short, no matter how you sway it, he was there with a firearm illegally.

You are wrong. You will never admit it.


https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state...-in-wisconsin/
Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.
The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.

THIS is the law!



He also faces two felony charges of recklessly endangering safety and a misdemeanor charge for possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Which part of this do you not understand?

In Wisconsin, lawful gun owners can generally open carry without a permit. But a person must be 18 or older to carry a “dangerous weapon.” Rittenhouse was 17 at the time of the shootings.

Criminal defense attorneys who specialize in Wisconsin firearm law say it will be hard for the defense to beat that back at trial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...use-trial-faq/

In the clip, first published by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, prosecutors say Rittenhouse can be heard saying he wished he could shoot people, whom he believed to be looters, fleeing a nearby CVS store.

“Bro, I wish I had my [expletive] AR, I’d start shooting rounds at them,” Rittenhouse is heard saying.

There is something wrong in this kids head.

I am going to respectfully point out in the first link you provided to scroll down and read the notes and pay close attention to this one
Wis. Stat. § 948.60(2)(a). These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 29.304 and 29.593.
That is why the judge threw out the gun charges. Do I think it is a good law no not really but it is the LAW in Wis.

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by MountainTi

Attachment 176412

I've read many legal experts analysis on his settlements and they all agree that he didn't hit it big with settlements but rather took "nuisance money" to just make him go away.

I read it on the Interwebs so take that for what it's worth.

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by nitro

I am going to respectfully point out in the first link you provided to scroll down and read the notes and pay close attention to this one
Wis. Stat. § 948.60(2)(a). These restrictions only apply to a person under age 18 who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, or if the person is not in compliance with the hunting regulations set forth in Wis. Stat. §§ 29.304 and 29.593.
That is why the judge threw out the gun charges. Do I think it is a good law no not really but it is the LAW in Wis.

Is it not under these circumstances; same page - he was not hunting, at a range or being instructed at the time. Am I incorrect?

Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by does it ALL outdoors

Glad the kid got off but he still has a HUGE uphill battle for a long time to come.

Not if he wins a defamation suit again the news organizations that slandered him.

If I were him and won millions I would move to Montana, buy an awesome exclusive spread, build an awesome home then hunt and fish since I would not have to work anymore and go to Hawaii in the winter

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Jamie

Uhh Ken.. You know the judge ruled that there were no valid charges about the gun... The Prosecutor had a charge and the judge threw it out. But I am sure Google knows better than the judge? But even if it wasn't thrown out... How is a illegal gun charge worth a murder charge.. Not saying the kid is straight.. But I am saying now that a Jury of 7 women and 5 men thought this kid was defending himself.. The charge here was Murder.. 12 of his pears figured it was self defence. Kid is eating at home tonight.

An illegal gun is not worth a murder charge.

Killing people is murder.

He got away with it this time.

[ScottFitter]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

Not if he wins a defamation suit again the news organizations that slandered him.

If I were him and won millions I would move to Montana, buy an awesome exclusive spread, build an awesome home then hunt and fish since I would not have to work anymore and go to Hawaii in the winter

Who knows, he could end up with enough money to buy the Yellowstone Ranch. At least he'd have good access to the "train station".

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by ScottFitter

Who knows, he could end up with enough money to buy the Yellowstone Ranch. At least he'd have good access to the "train station".

And herds of Jumbo Herdbull Elk!

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Is it not under these circumstances; same page - he was not hunting, at a range or being instructed at the time. Am I incorrect?

Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

So do you consider yourself more qualified to interpret Wisconsin law than the Wisconsin judge that presided over the case? The judge obviously considered all factors before dismissing the charge.

[Twisted Canuck]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

An illegal gun is not worth a murder charge.

Killing people is murder.

He got away with it this time.

Respectfully Ken, killing people who are threatening your life is self defense, not murder. That is how the jury saw it, and that is also how I see it. He didn't get away with anything but his own life which he valued.

Sure, he is a stupid ass kid who had no business being there. That isn't in dispute. But when your life is threatened, you have the right to defend it. At least in the USA. In Canada you also do, in theory.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

An illegal gun is not worth a murder charge.

Killing people is murder.

He got away with it this time.

Just curious sir: If he were your son would you want him to go to prison for life for protecting himself?

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

An illegal gun is not worth a murder charge.

Killing people is murder.

He got away with it this time.

Got away with what? Defending himself? Did you hear my eyes roll?

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by chuck

If men would start acting like men should then boys might not feel the need to act like men for them.

Originally Posted by tirebob

It is a sad situation all around. I don't think that kid had any ill intent when he went there and figured he was just being Mr. Do-Good when it all started out, but he got in over his head and it lead to a life altering situation and he is going to be suffering through this forever.

He was a dumb kid and should never have been there and that is a shame, but he definitely was in a moment where I think he would have been the one laying there beaten to a pulp and bleeding out dying or dead on the pavement and what he did to save himself is probably what we all would have done at that very moment. I hope he has learned from this.

The bigger issue is what is leading people to think they need to take action into their own hands, and that is simply the fact that those that are supposed to are not. Not sure where it will all lead in the end but it sure isn't looking like anywhere decent in any short order.

These two quotes basically sum up the entire situation. Well said gentlemen.

[nitro]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

Is it not under these circumstances; same page - he was not hunting, at a range or being instructed at the time. Am I incorrect?

Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

Here is a not to bad explainer of it
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...harge-81285031
Herre is a stream of the judge making the call on it. It starts around the 36 min mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i7x...l=YahooFinance
and I don't think the judge was real happy about it but like lots of laws are really vague sometimes

[badbrass]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Respectfully Ken, killing people who are threatening your life is self defense, not murder. That is how the jury saw it, and that is also how I see it. He didn't get away with anything but his own life which he valued.

Sure, he is a stupid ass kid who had no business being there. That isn't in dispute. But when your life is threatened, you have the right to defend it. At least in the USA. In Canada you also do, in theory.

Well Said!

[tirebob]

Originally Posted by Twisted Canuck

Respectfully Ken, killing people who are threatening your life is self defense, not murder. That is how the jury saw it, and that is also how I see it. He didn't get away with anything but his own life which he valued.

Sure, he is a stupid ass kid who had no business being there. That isn't in dispute. But when your life is threatened, you have the right to defend it. At least in the USA. In Canada you also do, in theory.

I agree with this... It isn't like the kid doesn't have some responsibility for what happened, as do the idiots rioting, but what happened was not the murders he was charged with. I reckon if the prosecutor wasn't such an idiot he could have gotten a lesser charge of some sort through but they went for the gusto and rightfully failed. He was absolutely defending himself in the moment he fired his weapon. Plain and simple. The rest was a giant mess...

[sns2]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

An illegal gun is not worth a murder charge.

Killing people is murder.

He got away with it this time.

I have read your posts on this thread, and must say they have not made much sense to me. You are cutting and pasting subsections of gun laws, have been consistently combative with others, and yet you seem to have lost the real plot.

By that, I mean that the kid did something that by all appearances is dear to your heart… protecting of peoples’ business and properties from thugs and gangsters. I can’t count how many threads you have started about crime in your area, hiring people from this forum for night watches, inordinate response times from law enforcement et al. So I am puzzled.

The judge and jury ruled he was within the LAW in his actions, and did not commit murder, with the clear indication that his actions were in self defence.

The thugs that lost their lives and were injured, did time for sexual assault of a minor, another one did time for strangling someone. These were not choirboys, and with their records, one has to wonder why they were there.

That country is in a battle for it’s soul. One one side there is the vile racism that is embroiled in its history and very DNA to this vey day. On the other side is the lawlessness that seems to engulf towns and cities given any opportunity, largely propagated by BLM, Antifa, and general thugs. They burn down cities and business, and beat to death senior citizens trying to protect them.

It has gotten to the point that police forces are thankful for the presence of militias to help in protecting communities from these anarchist thugs - this was definitely the case in Kenosha - and county aldermen were calling on people to arm themselves to come and stop the violence they felt was sure to ensue.

The needless death of anyone is tragic. Needless police shootings. Needless racist demonstrations. It doesn’t matter. Needless is needless. Full stop.

But it has gotten to the point that if one chooses to join lawless gangs, I won’t even call them protests, then they should expect that their lives will be in peril.

There is no other way.

If Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t do it, someone else invariably would have.

The courts have ruled, yet you still want to die on this hill. Doesn’t make sense.

Maybe you oughta do some self reflection on why newer members call you out for your animus toward anyone who strongly disagrees with you.

You’ve got a heart of gold. No one disputes that. But man, you get way too riled up.

It is just a chat room.

[Twisted Canuck]

Good answer sns2.

[tri777]

Originally Posted by sns2

I have read your posts on this thread, and must say they have not made much sense to me. You are cutting and pasting subsections of gun laws, have been consistently combative with others, and yet you seem to have lost the real plot.

By that, I mean that the kid did something that by all appearances is dear to your heart… protecting of peoples’ business and properties from thugs and gangsters. I can’t count how many threads you have started about crime in your area, hiring people from this forum for night watches, inordinate response times from law enforcement et al. So I am puzzled.

The judge and jury ruled he was within the LAW in his actions, and did not commit murder, with the clear indication that his actions were in self defence.

The thugs that lost their lives and were injured, did time for sexual assault of a minor, another one did time for strangling someone. These were not choirboys, and with their records, one has to wonder why they were there.

That country is in a battle for it’s soul. One one side there is the vile racism that is embroiled in its history and very DNA to this vey day. On the other side is the lawlessness that seems to engulf towns and cities given any opportunity, largely propagated by BLM, Antifa, and general thugs. They burn down cities and business, and beat to death senior citizens trying to protect them.

It has gotten to the point that police forces are thankful for the presence of militias to help in protecting communities from these anarchist thugs - this was definitely the case in Kenosha - and county aldermen were calling on people to arm themselves to come and stop the violence they felt was sure to ensue.

The needless death of anyone is tragic. Needless police shootings. Needless racist demonstrations. It doesn’t matter. Needless is needless. Full stop.

But it has gotten to the point that if one chooses to join lawless gangs, I won’t even call them protests, then they should expect that their lives will be in peril.

There is no other way.

If Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t do it, someone else invariably would have.

The courts have ruled, yet you still want to die on this hill. Doesn’t make sense.

Maybe you oughta do some self reflection on why newer members call you out for your animus toward anyone who strongly disagrees with you.

You’ve got a heart of gold. No one disputes that. But man, you get way too riled up.

It is just a chat room.

Wholly carp that is some seriously good writing!

[Mr Flyguy]

Biden's doctors are concerned, they found a bit of brain tissue up there.

Further to the whole issue, Ken has to stop watching CNN!

[sask]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

So do you consider yourself more qualified to interpret Wisconsin law than the Wisconsin judge that presided over the case? The judge obviously considered all factors before dismissing the charge.

Exactly.