Kyle Rittenhouse from bullied teen, to Kenosha Killer ?

That is your opinion you may be right but anything can happen in a politically charged trial.
Look at the OJ case where a murderer got away with murder just because of his race and that he was a celebrity. A prejudiced jury afraid to convict a well known Black man sealed the deal of a corrupt jury.

No justice no peace. LOL

 

The Chicago Sun Times has an account of their interview with Ryan Balch a U.S.Army vet. who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now a member of the far right militia 'Boogaloo Bois", white supremacists who are intent upon creating a new civil war. He claims to have spent much of last Tuesday in Kenosha with Kyle Rittenhouse. Balch said there were at least 32 'Boogaloo Bois" present last Tuesday during the mayhem in Kenosha.

 

Your first paragraph is chock full of revisionist, white supremacist clap trap. You ignore what I posted in favor of your error ridden supposition and conjecture. Let's make short work of it.

1. Yep, the Irish caught hell for quite a time...until https://www.thoughtco.com/immigrants-overcame-discrimination-in-america-2834585. And let's remember.... a mere juxtaposition of letters and change of accent changes an Irish surname to a WASP one. VERY FEW black folk can physically pass for caucasian, no matter what they change their names or accents to.

2. The Chinese, the Italians, the Japanese WERE NOT TREATED AS INHUMAN SLAVES FOR NEARLY 2 CENTURES BEFORE THE COUNTRY BECAME OFFICIAL, NOR FOR ANOTHER NEAR 2 CENTURIES AFTERWARDS.

3. Your ignorance regarding the black civil rights movement and other members of American society is great. Here one example, a primer for your education...do the due diligence before you make blanket statements:
From the NAACP homepage:

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination.

Vision Statement

The vision of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights and there is no racial hatred or racial discrimination.

Objectives

The following statement of objectives is found on the first page of the NAACP Constitution — the principal objectives of the Association shall be:

To ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of all citizens

To achieve equality of rights and eliminate race prejudice among the citizens of the United States

To remove all barriers of racial discrimination through democratic processes

To seek enactment and enforcement of federal, state, and local laws securing civil rights

To inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination

To educate persons as to their constitutional rights and to take all lawful action to secure the exercise thereof, and to take any other lawful action in furtherance of these objectives, consistent with the NAACP's Articles of Incorporation and this Constitution.

4. With regards to the Native Americans, a primer for you: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/f...-broken-treaties-white-domination/ar-BB16iXpz

5. Slavery ended officially 155 years ago...it's off spring Jim Crow ended in 1965, just 7 years my younger. Look it up, as you obviously have little knowledge of the subject.

As to the rest of your clap trap, the chronology of the post cast doubts as to your lip service regarding Rittenhouse and the Trump supporter, not to mention it sounds like a sound bite for an alt-right site. You post, you run the risk of critical thinking and fact checking. You've failed on both accounts.

 

Like I told another poster....where is the footage of what transpired BEFORE this shoot out? Who 'started' it? Rittenhouse gets driven by his mom to another state looking for trouble. He found it. One could hypothesize that had he not been there, the armed protestor would either have not been in an altercation or would have been and had been arrested or shot by police.

 

@Crownline is just justifying their own lack of sympathy and concern for the dude who had his bicep shot off. he/she isn't justifying Kyle. Kyle actions were justified via self defense.

 

Nice try, but:

(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.

Here's what you leave out: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/938/iii/18

Read the latter carefully and thoroughly. More than enough to take Rittenhouse in and charge him, and go to trial.

And I noticed you didn't touch the second part of my questions. Why?

 

Again, unless you have video as to who started the confrontation, you can't claim self defense for Rittenhouse.

 

And since you ASSUME that there was no confrontation preceding that chase, it's safe to conclude that you ASSUME Rosenbaum started the conflict. Any first year law student will tell you that assumption would be shredded in court, unless you have overwhelming contributing eyewitness testimony and additional circumstance evidence.

The rest or your supposition and conjecture laden screed does not address the core issue.....is Rittenhouse guilty of some degree of manslaughter, let alone illegal weapons possession in the state of Wisconsin?

Oh, I found your fairy tale explaining why the cops gave a pass to Rittenhouse fascinating.....Disney would be proud. Pity black folk don't enjoy the same fanciful tales. Carry on.

 

A childish and absurd screed. Alt right whining at it's best.

 

yeah there is a video of Rittenhouse putting out a fire in a dumpster that the dude in the red shirt was at. Then some time later they guy is seen chasing Rittenhouse. This shows motive as to why the guy in the red shirt was chasing Rittenhouse. Also the criminal record of Rittenhouse suggests that Rittenhouse is more prone to violence and is likely to be the instigator in this. We will see if it cooraberates wtiht eh story that Rittenhouse gave to the police or not though. That would be the final proof. Most of the evidence that we have points to Rittenhouse defending himself and there isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise so I side with Rittenhouse defending himself until someone can provide something else that paitns a different picture.

 

You just mentioned a time lapse....your supposition and conjecture to "fill in the blanks" is NOT fact, but your belief.

That won't stand in court. Try again.

 

Even if conflict did occur prior, the clip shows Rosenbaum chasing him and intending to do harm. The only argument that can be made to suggest that is isn't self defense is to argue that Rosenbaum had perceived Rittenhouse to be a threat and would harm someone if he did not pursue and attempt to attack Rittenhouse.

Actually the onus is on the prosecuter to prove that Rosenbaum had a legitimate reason to attack Rittenhouse since that's what is seen in the video when the shot is fired.

 

Are you referring to Part D? Kyle is not under 17 years of age. And if you’re referring to part A... again that section is ONLY applicable if the individual received his firearm illegally or is carrying a short barreled rifle or shotgun or if he’s 16 years of age or younger.

As for the second part of your question, I thought that was rather obvious. He’s an American citizen and he can go anywhere in this country he damn well pleases as long as he’s not breaking any laws. He’s also allowed to carry a firearm and defend himself if need be. Which it was.

 

You know, there is actual video of the confrontation where Rittenhouse and others were attempting to keep the mob, including Rosenbaum from attacking and looting a business... right? Stupid gets you thrown out of court. Out you go.

 

This has been addressed.

Whatever happened in the initial confrontation, Kyle ran away. He was then chased. Shots rang out and the man who chased him died.

Under WI law, provoking a fight removes your ability to claim self-defense.
938.48 2(a)
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

HOWever, that ability to claim self-defense resets once you withdraw:
938.48 2 (b)
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

And so, unless Kyle committed some act that falls under 2(a) after the first guy started chasing him, 2(b) means - regardless of what happened before he was chased - he has the right to act in self defense; as the burden is on the state to prove Kyle did NOT act in self-defense, the state must prove this to be the case.

 

Under WI law, the state has to prove Rittenhouse did NOT act in self defense.

 

1. If other video footage shows WHO INITIATED the conflict, then that determines whether Rittenhouse acted in self defense or suffered retaliation after failed aggression. That can determine the degree of manslaughter.

2. "...According to the criminal complaint, Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, of Kenosha, followed Rittenhouse into a used car lot, where he threw a plastic bag at the teen and attempted to take his weapon". https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/kenosha-alleged-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-charges

Given that Rittenhouse broke two state laws to play vigilante in an already tense situation where violence occurred, the prosecution would only have to deal with that perspective. As for Rosenbaum...dead men tell no tales, and the complaint would have to be vetted in court. So again, your assertion is not assured.

 

Let's see that video, because it would demonstrate a non- police vetted vigilante who was NOT A STATE RESIDENT, NOT REQUESTED BY STORE OWNERS, brandishing a weapon that was NOT legally his. A complaint was lodged that Rosenbaum tried to physically take Rittenhouse's rifle....that has yet to be vetted. If you want to bring your assertion to court and face what I've put forth here thinking slam dunk....well, stupid is a stupid does.

And again, I found your fairy tale explaining why the cops gave a pass to Rittenhouse fascinating.....Disney would be proud. Pity black folk don't enjoy the same fanciful tales. Carry on.

 

let me break it down for you, as you seem to try and take excerpts and treat them as a separate issue:

A 17-year-old can’t legally own a firearm in Wisconsin except for hunting purposes and with the permission of a legal guardian, according to the Giffords Law Center. In Illinois, where Rittenhouse lives, people under 21 can only own a gun legally if a parent or guardian who meets the eligibility criteria to own a gun signs off on their child owning a gun. https://heavy.com/news/2020/08/how-did-kyle-rittenhouse-have-gun/

Rittenhouse was NOT legal in Kenosha to have that weapon....one allegedly given/loaned to him by a friend. Nor was he legal to own one in Illinois https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/28/facebook-posts/did-kyle-rittenhouse-break-law-carrying-assault-st/#:~:text=In an Aug. 27 post, one Facebook user,state lines is perfectly legal," the poster said.

So spare us the revisionist clap trap while waving the flag and just answer the question, since I've just reduced your blather to rubble with valid facts. Why the hell didn't the cops arrest him while walking around with a AR-15 declaring he just shot someone?

 

The burden of proof falls on the state to show that Rittenhouse did NOT act in self-defense.
I don't think anyone has seen evidence to that effect.

 

... none of which is relevant....

Carrying and brandishing are two different thing; the weapon was given to him legally so the only possible violation of the law here - and that's only possible - is illegally carrying that weapon openly.
If true, this misdemeanor does not affect his claim to self-defense any more than if he has been breaking the law by running around naked.

 

^^^^^
This what happens when you get your information from anti-gun loons.

948.60(3)(c)
(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.
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

Thus:
Open carry of loaded handguns and long guns and knives is permitted without a license for adults over 18, or for minors 16 or older when carrying a long gun that doesn't violate WS 941.28.

The law, above, says otherwise.

 

Your ad hominem attacks make a statement about you, not Rittenhouse. That is my thought.

 

Snotloller I provide the actual DOCUMENTED law and your response is to give me heavy.com and a biased “fact checking” site politifact who is KNOWN to be a liberal hack website?

Miss me with that BS right there.

Show me in the law where it says a 17yo in Illinois can’t own a firearm. It doesn’t exist, as I’ve already PROVEN. The ONLY portion of the law you or your heavy.com and politifact even addresss is the 18 year old portion, but you all COMPLETELY ignore the fact that says “this section ONLY applies if...”. NONE of which applied to Kyle. He’s over 16 years of age and was not carrying a short barreled rifle or shotgun.

Damn the liberal tears when this kid walks is going to be hilarious. “Mmm the sweet tears of unfathomable sadness, yummy!”

 

Several people called him out on this. He won't be back.