To Acquit or Not Acquit?

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

It doesn't work that way anymore if you live in a State run by liberals. Remember these guys? Common sense is in very short supply in Liberal States.

This is an interesting comparison. The protestors in this case didn't care one bit about that couple or their home, they were passing by en route to the Mayor's house. The ONLY reason they were involved in that situation is because they inserted themselves into it.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

This is an interesting comparison. The protestors in this case didn't care one bit about that couple or their home, they were passing by en route to the Mayor's house. The ONLY reason they were involved in that situation is because they inserted themselves into it.

That was the CNN FAKE version you speak of, the FOX News REAL version is completely different than what you just stated.

It was a gated community, the MOB kicked in the iron gate, broke into the compound, and confronted Mark and Patricia McCloskey with a loudspeaker, and threatened them while they were on their patio.

Easy enough to search the FOX News website to read the real story.

Cheers N40

[270person]

I haven't been following the story? Why was this Mensa candidate at this protest or whatever it was, and why was he carrying a rifle? Couldn't have been doing something else?

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by Trochu

Lets try to put this in perspective a little bit....

I understand you were recently looking for people to secure a private lot out of town. So, lets say you are there, someone comes to steal something, a struggle ensures, maybe you push him, throw a punch, and he dies, should you be charged with assault, manslaughter, maybe murder? You traveled to get to the location, where you knew there might be violence, and engaged with scum. Not identical, but seemingly very similar. Would you be innocent there, no, no you wouldn't, do I think you should be charged, no, no I wouldn't.

if if if if if if if what?

If my Grandma was born with wheels would she be a car or a bicycle?

I am not even going to get into that other completely irrlevant discussion, which was coordinated with the RCMP after discussing with an ex RCMP who's son worked with me there. We were not armed, were not underage, and the intent was not to kill anyone. You are way above this, cmon.

The kid took a rifle to a place to shoot people and did it. He chose himself to be a vigilante and got away with it.

What exactly is the question here?

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 270person

I haven't been following the story? Why was this Mensa candidate at this protest or whatever it was, and why was he carrying a rifle? Couldn't have been doing something else?

What were the convicted criminals that were shot doing at the protest, and why was one carrying a handgun? Couldn't they have been doing something else? The end result is, they were all at the protest, and one of them shot the other three when they attacked him.

[bucksnbears]

When he turns 21, I wanna shake his hand and buy him his first beer.

[270person]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

What were the convicted criminals that were shot doing at the protest, and why was one carrying a handgun? Couldn't they have been doing something else? The end result is, they were all at the protest, and one of them shot the other three when they attacked him.

Why was he at the protest and armed though? Is he security? If so can you be security in the U.S. at 17 yrs of age? Can you legally even walk around with a gun in a city at 17 down there? Dang. What could go wrong?

You got the "anyone armed at a protest" part right tho. It's kinda the way things roll down there now tho right? Its the excited states. Or incited states. Lots of paranoia to marvel at.

[Nayr]

Was he breaking any laws walking down the street openly carrying, f I understand their laws I don’t think he was. Was he fearful for his life, maybe. If he was I’m pretty sure he’s allowed to use deadly force in self defence. If I was on the jury and understand their laws correctly I’d aquit, and recommend paying him restitution.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by bucksnbears

When he turns 21, I wanna shake his hand and buy him his first beer.

Can I join you both, I'll buy the JD Shooters

[midgetwaiter]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

That was the CNN FAKE version you speak of, the FOX News REAL version is completely different than what you just stated.

I’d explain that AP, Reuters and the other non partisan news services saw it the same way but I suspect that’s not going to make a difference for you.

You’ll fit in well with a certain bunch here though that’s for sure.

[270person]

I'd say this kid broke the law before he even got to the protest. Another slack jawed save the world militia wannabe thinking he's tough because he's carrying.


Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

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

[Ken07AOVette]

Originally Posted by 270person

I'd say this kid broke the law before he even got to the protest. Another slack jawed save the world militia wannabe thinking he's tough because he's carrying.


Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

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

EXACTLY!

Walk like a man with a rifle, cry like a baby on the stand.

These actions need to have consequences.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 270person

I'd say this kid broke the law before he even got to the protest. Another slack jawed save the world militia wannabe thinking he's tough because he's carrying.


Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

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

The judge in the case doesn't agree, and dropped the firearms charge, but what does he know?

https://www.newsweek.com/judge-drops...-twice-1649322

[Mulehahn]

Originally Posted by 270person

I'd say this kid broke the law before he even got to the protest. Another slack jawed save the world militia wannabe thinking he's tough because he's carrying.


Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

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

He didn't break the law by carrying the rifle though. The Wisconsin law has an exception for 16 and 17 year olds to lawfully carry a rifle as long as the barrel is over 16" (or shotguns with a barrel over 18"). That is why the gun charge was dismissed. He had a legal right to be carrying that rifle; unlike the Grosskruetz who was a convicted felons and openly admitted in court to raising his handgun towards Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse drew on him.


Think we all agree sending an armed 17 year old into the middle of a riot (this was never a protest, it was the third day of rioting) is an incredibly stupid thing to do. But up until the point he pulled the turned on Rosenbaum he had not broken a single law. It is up to the jury to decide if he feared for his life from that moment on and acted in self defence or murdered people.

[CaberTosser]

Originally Posted by spoiledsaskhunter

just seems to me that there is a vast difference in shooting some scumbag who is breaking into your home and taking a semi-automatic weapon to a protest. doesn't it seem to you guys that it would be like pouring gas on a fire? what did these people expect, other than a violent, bad outcome?

now everyone is at odds concerning the verdict, when there should never needed to be a verdict in the first place.

..........guess i'll edit out the semi-automatic part of the post before i get replies. any weapon at all to a protest seems to be asking for trouble (at least in my troubled mind)

Look at it this way, for the sake of argument lets pretend you're a lefty protester (not suggesting that you are). You go to a civil unrest festival with your backpack full of anarchy supplies like spray paint, Molotov cocktails and B&E tools and low and behold there happen to be some regular citizens who aren't wearing hoodies and face wraps as disguises and they're carrying rifles. Weird, their faces are plainly visible, as though they have nothing to hide or something... Most people will take that as a sign to tread lightly. Those folks certainly aren't there wanting to shoot anyone, they're just there to be visible deterrents to the anarchy that's been ruining their city. They rationalize that people aren't going to physically attack strangers who are open-carrying AR-15's, handguns, etc. The vast majority of people certainly won't. The mere presence of armed folks is the deterrent, that logic to me means there was clearly no intent. If he had intent he'd have just started spraying the crowd @ random, which clearly wasn't what occurred as the ONLY people who got shot were people who attacked him. Stupid, irrational people whose actions were unpredictable (again, who attacks someone that is holding an AR?). Its a rare breed of psychopath who would start an altercation with someone armed as such. Rosenbaum was just that rage-infused psychopath, snowball effect from there. Suggesting violent intent on the part of anyone who only showed up armed for the purpose of being a visible deterrent is to me very disingenuous.

Remember the part of the video where Kyle tries to surrender to the police and they drive past him? That's because where they're from, its not illegal to have that AR. Of course that wouldn't happen here and someone surrendering like that would be obliged & arrested. Just because some here don't like the concept, doesn't make it illegal.

Stop to think of various outcomes. Lets say he gets found guilty & convicted, now there is precedent and maybe fewer regular non-rioting citizens show up to be visible deterrents. They become slightly more passive. The riots get worse, the lefties more emboldened because this judgement means they can attack defenders; Outcome? More property destruction, assault and murder (left wing rioters have murdered quite a # in the last 2 years, but those just don't get as much press as a Richie Cunningham white kid with an AR, totally wrong narrative)

Not guilty: Rittenhouse is free, but has to look over his shoulder constantly for the rest of his life like he's Salman Rushdie or something. Woke, anarchist rioters aren't quite as emboldened though.

[does it ALL outdoors]

Originally Posted by North40Rules

And let's not forget Old Joe saying that Rittenhouse was a white supremacist without any facts whatsoever (rush to judgment). If I were Rittenhouse I would file a defamation suit against Biden.

Agree 100% Creepy Joe NEEDS to be held accountable for that ridiculous and irresponsible comment.

That was about as ludicrous as that idiot of a prosecutor pointing the firearm at the jury. I couldn't believe that actually happened, especially RIGHT after the Baldwin incident.

That prosecutor lost his case all on his own, the judge was constantly ripping him a new one all throughout the trial.

Funny the Governor is calling in reinforcements for an anticipated not guilty verdict and compulsory "mostly peaceful" riots yet if he would of done that in the first place none of this would of happened.

If the big box stores had any foresight they should be hauling off all their stock to an undisclosed location.

Imagine the look on the scumbag thieves , I mean mostly peaceful protesters faces when they kick the doors in expecting to win the Ghetto lottery and seeing only empty shelves. That or just hire armed security to protect the place. I know lots of bleeding hearts out there will say its not worth shooting someone over or that's what insurance is for, I disagree. Don't wanna get shot? DONT STEAL. Pretty simple.

FREE KYLE!

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by midgetwaiter

I’d explain that AP, Reuters and the other non partisan news services saw it the same way but I suspect that’s not going to make a difference for you.

You’ll fit in well with a certain bunch here though that’s for sure.

Hi midgetwaiter (love your handle)

I am a firm believer that we hunters and fishermen and women, should stick together and not bash each other and I want you to know that I appreciate and respect your opinion, but facts do matter.

I listen to FOX, that does not mean that I am a radical thinker, it means that I am with the vast majority. Fox has the highest ratings over all other news networks, they do IMO because they are not propagandists like CNN and MSNBC. More and more people are realizing that the others are FAKE NEWS and are switching to FOX as their source of news as well.

Viewership and overall daily ratings for October 2021.

In primetime, Fox News was on top with an average of 2.3 million total viewers. MSNBC averaged 1.2 million ,CNN posted 661,000. More people watch Bugs Bunny Reruns than CNN lol

OK, with that said, back to the Rittenhouse case.

If I were the judge in this case I would dismiss the case with prejudice, what that means is that the case would be dismissed and Rittenhouse cannot be tried again. The reason why I would do this is for the following reasons.

In his rush to judgment and without any facts “Brain Dead” Biden called Rittenhouse a White supremacist as did CNN, this could impact his right to a fair trial.

The Prosecutors overstepped their legal boundaries on several occasions and gave false information to the jury, as an example the rifle was illegal when it was not.

The Prosecutors also withheld evidence from the Defense Team, and that is definitely a NO-NO as the Defendants by law are entitled to receive all the evidence that the prosecutors will use in their case, prior to the case being heard.

You have NUTCASE BLM Protestors outside the courthouse demonstrating and threatening "TO BURN DOWN THE CITY AGAIN" if he is not found guilty and the jurists can hear this from their seats, which further impacts the case.

If I were one of the jurists, I would not convict Rittenhouse under any circumstance. I am a big believer in the right to self-defense, and that is exactly what he did to the attackers that attacked him that night, he did not attack anyone.

Cheers - N40

[Freedom55]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

EXACTLY!

Walk like a man with a rifle, cry like a baby on the stand.

These actions need to have consequences.

Gotta say: I'm with you on this one.

Free

[sns2]

In the western world, to be convicted you must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How any of these charges would reach the level of beyond reasonable doubt is way beyond me.

None of us were in that kids’ head, but man oh man, after all the lawlessness seen in the BLM riots, lootings, and arsons, I completely understand IF someone wanted to keep a community safe.

I am not saying it was right or wrong.

What I am saying is the US has gone absolutely fricking crazy.

And like Trudeau, US Presidents Trump and Biden, should shut their mouths and let the courts decide on legal matters. When that doesn’t happen, you have vigilantes ready to roll.

Unfortunate for all involved.

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by sns2

In the western world, to be convicted you must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. How any of these charges would reach the level of beyond reasonable doubt is way beyond me.

None of us were in that kids’ head, but man oh man, after all the lawlessness seen in the BLM riots, lootings, and arsons, I completely understand IF someone wanted to keep a community safe.

I am not saying it was right or wrong.

What I am saying is the US has gone absolutely fricking crazy.

And like Trudeau, US Presidents Trump and Biden, should shut their mouths and let the courts decide on legal matters. When that doesn’t happen, you have vigilantes ready to roll.

Unfortunate for all involved.

This is what happens when the authorities knowingly allow rioters to attack people and property. BLM rioters have killed black business owners, the very people that they claim to represent. When this type of thing s allowed to occur by the authorities, who willingly hand over large sections of cities to violent rioters, why would anyone be surprised when citizens decide to take matters into their own hands?

Look how citizens in Idaho prepared when they were told Antifa was coming.

https://cdapress.com/news/2020/jun/0...oeur-dalene-5/

[Sporty]

Originally Posted by Ken07AOVette

EXACTLY!

Walk like a man with a rifle, cry like a baby on the stand.

These actions need to have consequences.

Isn't that the truth!


Pretty hard for the prosecution to argue their case when the judge was antagonistic towards them right from the start. Barring evidence of Kyle hanging with proud boys, previous statements of wanting to shoot shoplifters, excluding the term "victims" because it's too loaded yet "rioter, arsonists, looters" are not. So many instances where this judge showed his bias. Watching the court proceedings and the judge's constant attacks towards the prosecutors only left me with the impression that he was attempting to take away any verdict by the jury by influencing the outcome himself. Kangaroo court comes to mind with that judge.

That said, I don't believe Kyle went with the intent to "murder" anyone but he certainly didn't go for the purpose of providing first aid. What a joke.

Originally Posted by does it ALL outdoors

That was about as ludicrous as that idiot of a prosecutor pointing the firearm at the jury. I couldn't believe that actually happened, especially RIGHT after the Baldwin incident.

He didn't point the firearm at the jury...

[spoiledsaskhunter]

.........read your post Caber, and don't disagree with you on several parts of it. all i was saying is that i just don't get the mentality of ANY of those people who participated that day/night. i guess it's just beyond my comprehension why they have the level of hate down there that they do. doesn't matter which side you are on, when you go there, you can expect a bad outcome.....i think its only a matter of luck if things don't go south.

there are some things that i think are good down there, but seriously, most of the time when i watch them i can only think wtf? for heavens sakes, doesn't anyone take any pride in acting like human beings anymore? riots, guns, shooting each other, politicians who provoke their own citizens into riots.....i could go on and on but, like i said before, i truly believe we are witnessing the implosion of a society. perhaps not in my time, but shortly, my prediction is that there will be (more) absolute mayhem down there and when the smoke clears, they will have to start rebuilding their country again. i think of comparing it to the civil war, but this is not a north/south thing, its much more than that in a terribly divided society.

want to know the saddest part (in my opinion)......given the tone of this thread, i wonder how far behind them we are. i pray i am wrong.

[North40Rules]

Originally Posted by Sporty

He didn't point the firearm at the jury...

No, he was only doing an Alex Baldwin impersonation lol

What a goof he is, moron actually!

[obsessed1]

This thread is a perfect picture of exactly what is wrong with this country and why we are heading the way we are. Enjoy the decline boys....many of you actually fully support it.

Caber, great post. A place where thugs, thieves, and rabble rousers are not held accountable for thier destructive dangerous behavior is a sad place. Standing up to defend your person, home, business, city, town ect. From an angry mob and doing so with the fortitude that Kyle did is exemplary of his ability to control his emotion and action. He did not commit murder. He simply protected himself from those who sought to do him harm while he was doing what he could to protect his city and business.... guaranteed if those things stayed home they would still be alive today but they didn't they made extremely bad choices that resulted in them losing their lives...

[spoiledsaskhunter]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

This thread is a perfect picture of exactly what is wrong with this country and why we are heading the way we are. Enjoy the decline boys....many of you actually fully support it.

Caber, great post. A place where thugs, thieves, and rabble rousers are not held accountable for thier destructive dangerous behavior is a sad place. Standing up to defend your person, home, business, city, town ect. From an angry mob and doing so with the fortitude that Kyle did is exemplary of his ability to control his emotion and action. He did not commit murder. He simply protected himself from those who sought to do him harm while he was doing what he could to protect his city and business.... guaranteed if those things stayed home they would still be alive today but they didn't they made extremely bad choices that resulted in them losing their lives...

my point exactly....don't you see what you just did? oh well

[North40Rules]

[QUOTE=obsessed1;4441191]This thread is a perfect picture of exactly what is wrong with this country and why we are heading the way we are. Enjoy the decline boys....many of you actually fully support it.

Bingo and absolutely correct obsessed1!

To me the day we cant defend our lives and property like we can't here in Canada we are LOST and we are only drones working for the state.

As I said before I am happy I am old, I do not like the way Democracy is turning and don't have to tolerate it much longer, the longer the better though lol

Cheers N40

[obsessed1]

Originally Posted by spoiledsaskhunter

my point exactly....don't you see what you just did? oh well

Your issue is you see a problem with someone standing for what is RIGHT and being willing to DO what is needed to be proactive in standing up and saying no. There are three kinds of people..Wolves, sheepdogs, and those who hide under thier beds when wolves are out and about.. personally I'm glad there are still those " sheepdogs" who are willing to stand against the wolves.

[Redhorse Ranch]

Originally Posted by obsessed1

Your issue is you see a problem with someone standing for what is RIGHT and being willing to DO what is needed to be proactive in standing up and saying no. There are three kinds of people..Wolves, sheepdogs, and those who hide under thier beds when wolves are out and about.. personally I'm glad there are still those " sheepdogs" who are willing to stand against the wolves.

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Hope I got the quote right. The precedent however, has been set by our cowardly governments; some people with signs and loud vulgar voices were allowed to shut down a legal and paid-for pipeline project. Other people can and have shut down our national railroad with a few pallets and logs. All that was required to right each of those wrongs was to enforce existing law, and the politicians were afraid to do so.

I despise the message sent by such actions.

[obsessed1]

Originally Posted by Redhorse Ranch

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

Hope I got the quote right. The precedent however, has been set by our cowardly governments; some people with signs and loud vulgar voices were allowed to shut down a legal and paid-for pipeline project. Other people can and have shut down our national railroad with a few pallets and logs. All that was required to right each of those wrongs was to enforce existing law, and the politicians were afraid to do so.

I despise the message sent by such actions.

If good men are not willing to stand up and sometimes push/ fight back evil will always win.. many here think standing up and pushing back and sometimes fighting back means your on the wrong. He legally had right to carry, he legally had right to protect his life, he made a decision to something many don't have the stomach to do. Stand up for what is right. Nothing he did was against the law. Had he been un armed he would be six feet under today. He wasnt and he was disciplined enough to use sound judgment in his actions and only did harm to those who were about to do harm to him.

[Positrac]

He’ll either be acquitted or found guilty and the judge will declare a mistrial.