Probably time for a Kyle Rittenhouse thread.

[Jibartik]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Knowledge]

Bush did 9/11
Hillary had Seth Rich killed
Bill knows she's ugly as homemade sin can hardly blame the guy

[Whale biologist]

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.

(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

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
(1)  In this section:
(a) “Rifle" means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.
(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(c) “Short-barreled shotgun" means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
(d) “Shotgun" means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger.

That should be all of it. Oof oof brain hurting juice.

[Jibartik]

...try and stuff my roast on the last page, cant do it! gotya still!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Castle2.0]

The only law that matters in this case is self-defense: https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ection-939-48/

The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

It's just one question:

In each of the 3 instances did Rittenhouse reasonably believe that such force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself?

Easy answer: yes.

A mob that is looting and burning the city says to "kill him" and "get him" and chases you.

• One of them grabs your gun. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One hits you over the head with a skateboard. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One of them pulls a gun on you and points it at you. You are justified in shooting and killing them.

Retreat is not required.
Trying to start with lower levels of force and increasing those levels of force is not required.

Open. Shut. Hope the jury doesn't drop the ball because of politics or personal bias.

Youngsters are getting some great lessons here:

• Do not threaten someone who has a gun
• Do not attack someone who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not attack someone with a mob who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not point a gun at someone who has a gun and expect them not to shoot you
• Do not be a part of a mob that loots and burns a city

Good lessons.

[Homesteaded]

The viewing the video only once was a minor detail that the defense was never going to get but they made a slight argument for it. There is law that states you can only watch a video once when assessing a statement. The video in question was not that so the rule didn't apply. Basically a non-event today.

[Whale biologist]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[*]Do not point a gun at someone who has a gun and expect them not to shoot you

Similarly, if you point your gun at someone and they react aggressively, you can't shoot them and claim it was self-defense.

[Botten]

Originally Posted by Castle2.0 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only law that matters in this case is self-defense: https://law.justia.com/codes/wiscons...ection-939-48/



It's just one question:

In each of the 3 instances did Rittenhouse reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself?

Easy answer: yes.

A mob that is looting and burning the city says to "kill him" and "get him" and chases you.

• One of them grabs your gun. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One hits you over the head with a skateboard. You are justified in shooting and killing them.
• One of them pulls a gun on you and points it at you. You are justified in shooting and killing them.

Retreat is not required.
Trying to start with lower levels of force and increasing those levels of force is not required.

Open. Shut. Hope the jury doesn't drop the ball because of politics or personal bias.

Is it not a good lesson to youngsters:

• Do not threaten someone who has a gun
• Do not attack someone who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not attack someone with a mob who isn't aggressive who has a gun
• Do not point a gun at someone with a gun and expect them not to shoot you
• Don't be a part of a mob that loots and burns

Good lessons.

Cannot shoot a gun 4 times to kill a person you provoked to attack you. Who is unarmed. In a place only law enforcement are supposes to be in. The shooter isn’t protecting property. It was murder from a youth playing vigilante.

Castle this is actually a very important lesson for gun owners.

You aren’t legally entitled with your gun. Just because you have one.
You can’t brandish it at all times and anywhere you go legally.
You can’t use your gun lawfully to protect yourself in some states.
You CAN have your gun taken away if you mess up regardless of the 2nd amendment.
And if you are protecting your home and family in some states and if you kill an intruder you can be prosecuted.

It is almost like it really is not worth it, legally, to having a gun in some states.

And maybe we will have true gun control when one day it is again legal to sue gun manufacturers. Yeah, you heard me.

I can practically hear you all ‘as Elizundo’ would say in his tired 2016 MAGA cliche lingo rearing back your heads saying “REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!”

LOL

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/28/10220...y-be-consideri

[Jibartik]

itt lefties think they are going to inform righties about gun laws after their internet crash course today [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Whale biologist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Similarly, if you point your gun at someone and they react aggressively, you can't shoot them and claim it was self-defense.

See: the Ahmaud Arbery case. Applies to that one much better than Kyle's in my opinion. Ahmaud, regardless of any past transgressions, was pursued and then cut off by men in a pickup truck brandishing guns at him. Regardless of his skin color or the skin color of the people in the truck...if you are doing your thing, and all of a sudden a vehicle with men holding guns cuts you off, that suggests you are now in a flight or fight scenario with your life hanging in the balance. Ahmaud chose to fight, and died for it