Illinois teen arrested in fatal shooting at Kenosha protest, police say

You read those laws all sorts of wrong.

 

Kyle clearly attempted to de-escalate whatever triggered the sex offender to chase him. Hey, maybe he just thought Kyle was cute? We don't know now.

 

I know you can't walk around with a gun shouting fighting words. Chaplinsky vs NH 1942 has never been overturned. "Fighting words" are NOT protected free speech.

 

Yes, the running away is a legal factor that could clear him even if he used fighting words.

 

It will clear him, unless he gets a SJW judge.

 

If you show up with an AR15 to a BLM protest and shout the N word and then have to defend yourself, you are very likely to be convicted.

 

True. But you still have no right to punch someone for what they say - if you do, you;re guilty of assault.

 

Yes. I'm just stating the fact that I don't know what Rittenhouse did to provoke, and that's the ONLY missing piece of information I need to full on call for the release of this kid.

It seems as though many think his very presence with a gun is enough provocation; I am not one of them.

 

Whatever he may have done, he ran away after doing it. At this point, under WI law, his right to self-defense, even if if diminished because of his provocation, resets; if someone, say, subsequently chases him and threatens violence, he may act in self-defense.

Because you have a functioning brain.

 

Something tells me he wasn't calling those white guys the "N" word.

 

there is exemptions for 948.60 ( one of the crimes he was charged with)

And there is several instances that allows people under 17 to have guns..

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.
(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.

29.304 and 29.593 are hunting laws.
941.28 is the size of the barrel of the gun (as in cant have a sawed off shotgun or rifle).

So he wasnt hunting so didnt break any hunting laws. and his gun was not in violation of 941.28 so he is not breaking any laws

 

No, but there are other words. If I recall the Chaplinsky case correctly, some guy called a cop something and the cop Billy clubbed him. SCOTUS ruled that the man could reasonably expect the cop to do what he did when he said that and ruled against him. It's been a while, I might stand corrected.

 

Okay. Let's see any evidence that Kyle provoked his attackers prior to them giving chase with the intent to do him harm.

Otherwise, it's all merely academic.

 

At what point does he have to stop shooting people? You all are saying that if Donald Trump had rushed into the school in Florida as he said he would have done to attempt to disarm the shooter you'd be calling him a thug and the shooter totally justified in killing him because it was clearly self defense?

Shame on all of you for defiling the names of people who died at this child's hands.

 

My gut says there won't be. It's going to be interesting to see what these pursuers say under cross examination.

 

When there is no long a clear, present and immediate threat to his person.
It's as if you choose to not understand all of this.

Pro tip:
If you have to chase someone for 100yds or so, you aren't acting in self-defense.

 

As Kyle clearly demonstrated by NOT shooting the attacker that stopped chasing him and put his hands up. Kyle ceased firing and continued to run from the mob.

 

Oh yeah, his pursuers were sooooo concerned for the public that Rittenhouse went home 5 minutes later. Where is that concerned crowd when Rittenhouse rolls up on the cops 40 seconds later? Where are the throngs of people demanding his arrest 40 seconds later?

 

The sex offender?
Or the guy that assaulted him with the skateboard?
Or are you talking about the guy that was about to shoot him illegally?

Which one?

 

I've never been more disgusted with people than I am right now. Seriously.

 

Because of your unwillingness to understand what has been put to you.
That's on you, not us.

 

How DARE you describe his heroes in such a manner!?!?!

 

No, the school shooter had undeniably committed felonies and thusly cannot claim self-defense. The question with Rittenhouse is if the first shooting was justified (which looks likely,) if it wasn't then he is guilty of shooting all three. If it is then he is innocent in all three cases as his life and well being were certainly threatened after he fell to the ground. The evidence that we currently have points toward Kyle's innocence but that isn't saying there won't be more forthcoming.

 

All I'm saying is that the videos don't prove his innocence, BUT they DEFINITELY don't show an ounce of guilt.

 

They show enough. None of the people he shot were physically injured by Kyle when they began chasing him. At the point Kyle exhibited GREAT effort to de-escalate the situation by RUNNING away, the evidence weighs almost entirely in his favor.