DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

... there would probably still be no incident if not for an out of control adult threatening to kill him numerous times, challenging armed protesters to do the same, and then chasing him through the streets, just hours after being released from a hospital after an attempted suicide. I'd say they both needed to be there for this incident to occur.

Rittenhouse couldn't have killed anyone and could not have been threatened if he had not been there. Thus the incident could not have occurred had Rittenhouse not have been there. Not only that, Rittenhouse was in the act of committing a gun crime by being a minor open carrying a weapon. Had he not have been committing a crime none of this could have happened.

None of those people would be dead if they hadnt threatened and assaulted him. Mobs seem to think their daily violence is ok, but they had to learn the hard way that its not ok.

Yeah, that's what killing people is called now, "learning the hard way". The kid was in the process of breaking the law. Had he not been in the process of committing a crime, none of this would have happened. But that's how people think these days. That you reward the person who was the initial breaker of the law.

If you threaten and physically assault someone with a gun then you are a moron and learn the hard way.

The gun charge was dropped because he was not breaking the law based on the actual law.

Sorry, your feelings dont count.

My feelings have nothing to do with the law in Wisconsin. It was posted on the previous page yet you wish to ignore it...

Quote
948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a

It goes on to give the exceptions. None of which is the length of the gun and actually mentions rifles in its description of dangerous weapons.

Quote
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

That's the actual state law from the Wisconsin State Legislature website.

Many people are disarmed during the commission of a crime. You just don't like the fact someone you are trying to uphold for their criminal activity happens to be the subject matter. Your feelings don't count either.

The key thing about this case is that the police stood down.

Rittenhouse was the only one that could help Rittenhouse.

I probably trust the decision of the court with regards to the actual law than some keyboard warrior.

Bottom line is: He is not charged with any gun crime. He had every right to be there with his gun.

Those people chose to threaten and physically assault him.

They paid with their life.

Mobs arent usually known for their intelligence and it shows. They were morons.

I didn't give you my opinion of the law. I gave you the actual law straight from the state of Wisconsin. But you do you. He did not have a right to be there with his gun. The law makes that obvious. He was a minor. Minors are not allowed to open carry by law in Wisconsin. I'm give you the benefit of the doubt that you can actually read it but if this continues maybe I am wrong about that.

You dont get to decide what he is guilty of. The court does that and they decided that he is not guilty of any gun crime. He had every right to be there with his gun. Only morons threaten and physically assault someone with a gun.

Fair statement... and despite how many posts anyone racks up in this thread, the charge has been thrown out. But does that interpretation of this law make any sense to you whatsoever? If he was armed with a handgun, brass knuckles, or nunchucks then he's going to prison for up to 9 months, but because his rifle is 35 inches, then he's in the clear?

And for context, this is from the same judge that said the people killed in the incident can't be called victims and his brain pretty much imploded when the defense used pinch-to-zoom with a video.

There's a reason Kyle Rittenhouse is standing trial and Clemdawg isn't: Clemdawg didn't drive to Kenosha WI with his loaded weapon. He stayed away from protests, riots and chaos. He put no slugs in anyone that night. He's still a free man because he exercised some common effing sense.

I don't know the letter of the law, so I won't weigh in on if this is murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, or something else. What I do know is this: some price must be paid by this person. Actions have consequences. Two people are dead. One is maimed for life. Total impunity should not be an option for someone who was illegally in possession of a lethal weapon that wasn't his transported it across state lines with intent to insert himself into a situation where violence was possible/probable.

Had he stayed his as at home, those rioters may or may not have died that night. What it certain: had he not left home that night, he'd be home tonight.

Rioters should not have been there.
Rittenhouse should not have been there.

You can't just hide in your house forever because someone may assault you and you may defend yourself. Those people died because of their actions on him. They are to blame for their own deaths. Maybe not assault someone next time. Espsecially don't be so stupid to assault someone who has a gun. Just because you are in a mob doesn't mean you can jump people.

You are correct. Because of their actions, they're dead. If they weren't dead they'd be on trial right now, but because they are the trial is out KR and his portion of responsibility.

Exactly.

Common misconception.

When the court finds someone not guilty that does not mean that they are innocent, it does not mean that he did nothing wrong, it does not mean that he had every right to do what he did. It means that the prosecution was not able to prove wrong doing beyond a shadow of doubt. Not the same thing.

They dropped the charge. If he broke the law or it was even questionable there would still be a charge.

Not true

The judge said he dismissed it because no one bothered to challenge the gun length.
Just shows that the prosecutor is bordering on incompetent

j/c

I am 100% for peaceful protesting.

If I show up to your house and burn that thing to the ground, smash your vehicle windows in, and attempt to cause you physical harm... am I a protestor?

j/c


If I become a looter/agitator/aggressor/criminal should there be laws against me that protect the business owners, employees, hired/requested security, people on the property?

This isn't about the prosecution proving anything. There is a subsection of the gun law that was passed in 1991 to curb gang violence and the number of youth walking around with sawed-off shotguns. That subsection added language that makes the law a bit ambiguous by basically stating that guns would be legal for minors so long as their barrels are a certain length. Basic legal doctrine insists statutes must be read in favor of the defense when they aren’t crystal clear.

The judge was non-committal when this was questioned in October, so the prosecution was basically blindsided by the decision when he ruled on it last week. Still their fault, they knew the issue wasn't settled and did nothing to question it with an appellate court.

So, bottom line -- Rittenhouse was perfectly legal, and so will anyone else be until Wisconsin can find itself capable of drafting clear laws.

Does anyone have the videos that the security camera footage that the jury has seen?

Why did his mom take him across state lines and put him in the position to be in a crowd of people.... Him holding a gun? Why? did she think he was going to a picnic?

He went there to cause trouble,, and he found it.

Fake News.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...houses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

Keep in mind who you're replying to. Facts don't matter, just HIS facts. After all, he trusts HIS judgment more than most judges.

Not knowing the laws is irrelevant for him. Politics is all that matters.

The problem is that doesn't include all the sub sections that were subsequently added. The section in question is
941.28.

The charge was dismissed. End of story

Mainly on the protesters protesting senseless killing of yet another black man? Come on, you gotta be kidding me! This kid took a gun he couldn't have to a state he doesn't live in to act as security that nobody asked for and then killed two and wounded another... but it's on the protesters? You are ridiculous.

Yet Rittenhouse was the only person to kill anyone that night in the protest area. Don't worry, I'm sure one of the right-wing Trumpian jurors will free your boy.

Yes, those Trumpian MOBS sure do.

But the protest and protesters should have been there! Don't let them infer from your statement because they like to lump all BLM into the 'rioters' label. Peaceful protests make them stain their undies.

Ladies and gentlemen! We've reached that point in our programming once again. Stay tuned as we now take you on a journey, back on the train... The TRUMP train. Where everything is Trump's fault. And if you don't see eye to eye with those in here pouting and screaming the loudest, well, then you'll be a TRUMPSTER.

Trump Trump Trump Trump, Chugga, Chugga, Chugga... Trump Trump Trump Trump.

What drugs are you on? The "peaceful protestors" threatened and assaulted him. They got their own dumb asses shot assaulting someone who had a gun.

They died because he shot them. Their actions wouldn't have even got them arrested that night because he had already shot somebody, and they were chasing him down so he couldn't escape justice. The right makes a big deal about how good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns... They were attempting to stop a bad guy. How in the hell can anyone call that assault? And why isn't the right taking the side of the good guys? Well one good guy because only one had a gun. The other wielded the deadly skateboard assault weapon... Problem is, the right likes to change the narrative to fit their alternative facts way too much. And they water down every damn thing somebody on their side does wrong. Insurrectionist = tourist, Traitor = POTUS, lies = good news and truth = fake news... GOPers are all twisted up in knots trying to keep the lies straight and their thoughts semi coherent, and it's way too much for the mental capabilities of most of them.

Rittenhouse is a killer, he will never not be a killer, and he damn well deserves jail, about 20-30 years of it minimum if you ask me.

Your feeling don't count. Try to come up with some facts. Such as people who assault other people who are packing, get shot. Don't want to get shot? Then don't attack someone.

No. The judge dropped it because he was going to allow the jury to consider lessor charges IF they do find him guilty OR find him innocent of the most severe charges against him. I think he did it to take the least punishable crime off the table. And I think he intentionally went hard at the prosecutor and what he would allow to avoid having the verdict overturned later on appeals... he supposedly had an earlier issue with his cases being overturned.

Also, each of these is multiple counts due to there being three victims and make no mistake they are victims in these shootings, assaults, and murders. So, he isn't just facing one count of murder, but two, along with 3 of almost all other charges including any lessor charges the jury might consider. So, Rittenhouse has more to 'get off' of than most realize. I bet if he is found guilty on all accounts, he'll get the max on each. I think this crazy ass judge is just playing CYA and wants to make sure the verdict, whatever it is, is solid and won't be overturned for the wrong reason.

That's not true at all. Maybe you should reread this thread.

I like how some people are already sentencing him on all counts, without knowing the REAL facts. You know, the ones the prosecutors, the judge, and the defendants attorneys know, and live.

We've got 1 person say he trusts his judgment over the judge.

One person posting Wisconsin law while apparently ignoring the rest of the law that was added after his..........eh, not worth it.

I'd love to know what someone would do if I came after them with a skateboard, trying to bash their head in.

The jury will decide. If Rittenhouse is guilty, so be it. If he's not, so be it. I have no dog in this show.

This is what I mean, they can't tell the difference between rioters, looters, and protesters. Here's a clue SBDdoubleG, the protesters aren't destroying property or murdering people on the streets. The people doing those things are criminals.

Bro, if you don't like being seen as wearing the brown shirt, take it off. Otherwise, you are what you are and no amount of crying and playing victim will change that.

I'll stop bashing Trump a decade after I pee on his grave. Until then, it is what it is and he deserves it all.

That speaks more about you than you could even imagine. Thanks for the proof of what I've, and others, have been saying for years.