Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Satoshi
Satoshi

Horrible situation that night. He will be acquitted. The dumbest guy in all this was the one who brought a skateboard to a gun fight. The definition of FAFO

Satoshi
Satoshi

Shots had already been fired at the point of the skateboard guy getting involved. So yeah it reached the level of gun fight at the point he got involved. Not sure what you don’t understand about that.

Brian Fantana
Brian Fantana

I just want to add that I'm not here to pillory Kyle Rittenhouse. He is a fucking child. A child. I had an extensive conversation about this with a good friend of mine who is a juvenile defender by pr

Posted Images

Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted

Vigilantes hunt down criminals to punish, outside of the confines of the law. Kyle didnt do that. He tried to keep active rioters away from places to destroy, tried to help who he could, and only shot people actively attacking him while he did his best to escape them. Thats not vigilantism. This is a political trial and charges never should have been brought against anyone but Zminski and Grosskreutz.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Someone here, one guess who, is gonna go on his own shooting rampage if Kyle doesn’t get off. All of us here are potential witnesses. 
 

In other news, someone on the safe space/circle jerk thread posted that the judges fucking cell phone went off again while he was reading the jury instructions. Is that true? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hmbre97

Hmbre97 6337

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Vigilantes hunt down criminals to punish, outside of the confines of the law. Kyle didnt do that. He tried to keep active rioters away from places to destroy, tried to help who he could, and only shot people actively attacking him while he did his best to escape them. Thats not vigilantism. This is a political trial and charges never should have been brought against anyone but Zminski and Grosskreutz.

I stopped reading at this dumb shit...

Edited by Hmbre97
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Someone here, one guess who, is gonna go on his own shooting rampage if Kyle doesn’t get off. All of us here are potential witnesses. 
 

In other news, someone on the safe space/circle jerk thread posted that the judges fucking cell phone went off again while he was reading the jury instructions. Is that true? 

His car's manufacturer's warranty is about to expire.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47201

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Vigilantes hunt down criminals to punish, outside of the confines of the law. Kyle didnt do that. He tried to keep active rioters away from places to destroy, tried to help who he could, and only shot people actively attacking him while he did his best to escape them. Thats not vigilantism. This is a political trial and charges never should have been brought against anyone but Zminski and Grosskreutz.

The degree to which you fail to understand the law and our justice system is mind-boggling.  You are quite literally THE problem.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9973

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

lunch break timing talk not going away. 

The judge checked himself and said he wouldn't comment on what type of lunch. 

The judge needs a post-trial self-evaluation at a minimum. 

If I am defense at this stage, I want the judge shutting up as well. The judge is one fumble away from blowing this for the defense. He is unpredictable. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He has no pending charges for any of that shit so it's not relevant to this trial.  He was legally openly carrying a rifle and was attacked by someone who threatened to kill him and who tried to take his gun.

He was not legally open carrying a firearm.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes he was.  It's why the judge dismissed the unlawful carrying claim.  A 17 year old can openly carry a rifle in Wisconsin, so long as it is not a short-barreled rifle. 

Open carry laws are simply the owners of the Republican Party wanting us to have the ability to shoot each other. This case is a perfect example of that. It’s also why you are such a big supporter of what happened here. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Open carry laws are simply the owners of the Republican Party wanting us to have the ability to shoot each other. This case is a perfect example of that. It’s also why you are such a big supporter of what happened here. 

You may dislike the law.  That's your opinion that has nothing to do with what the law is. Reality is that Kyle Rittenhouse was legally carrying under Wisconsin law.  Because his rifle was not a short-barreled rifle as defined by the applicable statute.  The prosecution effectively conceded this in argument this morning.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11402

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You may dislike the law.  That's your opinion that has nothing to do with what the law is. Reality is that Kyle Rittenhouse was legally carrying under Wisconsin law.  Because his rifle was not a short-barreled rifle as defined by the applicable statute.  The prosecution effectively conceded this in argument this morning.

keep celebrating. your dude will get acquitted. and it will be another stone on the road to meaningful gun control. 

but 3 - 0, right?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goofyboy

Goofyboy 3434

Posted
Posted
Yes he was.  It's why the judge dismissed the unlawful carrying claim.  A 17 year old can openly carry a rifle in Wisconsin, so long as it is not a short-barreled rifle. 

It was dismissed because the prosecution never presented expert evidence on the gun. All they had to do was have a guy measure the weapon and then answer some questions on it.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:


It was dismissed because the prosecution never presented expert evidence on the gun. All they had to do was have a guy measure the weapon and then answer some questions on it.

They didn't present evidence on it because the AR-15 KR was carrying, which is admitted into evidence, is not a short-barreled rifle.  So having someone measure the barrel to determine it is in fact not a SBR would be a waste of time.  The state conceded it was not a SBR.  Because it just is not.

A short-barrel rifle is any gun that has or originally had a buttstock, and with a barrel under 16”.  It is a NFA item.  Which means you cannot just go into a store and buy one.  You have to fill out ATF form 4, pay for the $200 stamp, and then wait about a year for the FBI to get around to approving it after a background check.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28539

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

A short-barrel rifle is any gun that has or originally had a buttstock, and with a barrel under 16”.  It is a NFA item.  Which means you cannot just go into a store and buy one.  You have to fill out ATF form 4, pay for the $200 stamp, and then wait about a year for the FBI to get around to approving it after a background check.

cmon man, you're not this dumb... The workaround for "not SBR" SBR's is to put a "wrist brace" on the rifle and then pwommmmise to never shoulder it 😉. And besides, anyone can just buy a new upper online, ship it to their door, and presto-change-o you got yourself an SBR without the government knowing

 

But either way - if you're under 18, you MUST be under adult supervision while handling the rifle. Not sure why you refuse to acknowledge this. Unless of course, your boy was out hunting - which would again severely tarnish a self defense claim.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

cmon man, you're not this dumb... The workaround for "not SBR" SBR's is to put a "wrist brace" on the rifle and then pwommmmise to never shoulder it 😉. And besides, anyone can just buy a new upper online, ship it to their door, and presto-change-o you got yourself an SBR without the government knowing

 

But either way - if you're under 18, you MUST be under adult supervision while handling the rifle. Not sure why you refuse to acknowledge this. Unless of course, your boy was out hunting - which would again severely tarnish a self defense claim.

The judge ruled otherwise and that it was not illegal for Kyle to be openly carrying the rifle.  His rifle is not a SBR so the statute he was charged under does not apply.  The Wisconsin legislature drafted a terribly worded statute.  If they want to ban 16 and 17 year olds from open carrying rifles, they need to amend the statute.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28539

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The judge ruled otherwise and that it was not illegal for Kyle to be openly carrying the rifle. 

Yes, I am well aware that the judge who has been favoring rittenhouse has continued to rule in his favor.

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

His rifle is not a SBR so the statute he was charged under does not apply.

Sure, but there are other statutes that DO apply, like the one I posted. The prosecution are apparently dumbass 1L's who don't know their ass from their elbow.

 

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If they want to ban 16 and 17 year olds from open carrying rifles, they need to amend the statute.

Again, there's already a statute that covers people <18yo carrying rifles openly or no.

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.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yes, I am well aware that the judge who has been favoring rittenhouse has continued to rule in his favor.

Sure, but there are other statutes that DO apply, like the one I posted. The prosecution are apparently dumbass 1L's who don't know their ass from their elbow.

 

Again, there's already a statute that covers people <18yo carrying rifles openly or no.

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.

The state did charge him under 984.60.  Subsection 3(c), which you did not quote, is what got him off.  You can read section II of his Motion to Dismiss the 948.60 charge for the discussion of subsection 3(c) which provides the exception to the general rule you partially quoted.  In sum, the statute you cited does not prevent 16 or 17 year olds from openly carrying rifles so long as they are not a SBR do the the exception contained in 948.60(3)(c)

https://quincy-network.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/12/Rittenhouse-Motion-to-Dismiss.pdf

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ag with kids

Ag with kids 581

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Captainant said:

cmon man, you're not this dumb... The workaround for "not SBR" SBR's is to put a "wrist brace" on the rifle and then pwommmmise to never shoulder it 😉. And besides, anyone can just buy a new upper online, ship it to their door, and presto-change-o you got yourself an SBR without the government knowing

 

But either way - if you're under 18, you MUST be under adult supervision while handling the rifle. Not sure why you refuse to acknowledge this. Unless of course, your boy was out hunting - which would again severely tarnish a self defense claim.

Wouldn't this exempt him?

(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 is the SBR part...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes he was.  It's why the judge dismissed the unlawful carrying claim.  A 17 year old can openly carry a rifle in Wisconsin, so long as it is not a short-barreled rifle. 

 

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes he was.  It's why the judge dismissed the unlawful carrying claim.  A 17 year old can openly carry a rifle in Wisconsin, so long as it is not a short-barreled rifle. 

No he wasn’t and that’s not why the judge dismissed the claim.

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

 Federal age restrictions also apply

Edited by Satchel
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11402

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You have anything substantive to add?

i already did. you ignored it. 

enjoy rooting for the killer to get acquitted. and i'll say, probably rightfully so.

but man, you are fucking around with gun control. enjoy your short term victory.

your celebration and vigorous defense of this kid is borderline psychotic.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34751

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

It does make one wonder if Rosenbaum himself was abused

he was.

Quote

The weeks leading up to Rosenbaum’s death had been as chaotic as his life. Raised in Texas and Arizona, Rosenbaum met his father only twice and told his mother that he was molested by his alcoholic stepfather “on an almost daily basis,” according to court documents.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/03/kenosha-shooting-victims/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19305

Posted
Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

i already did. you ignored it. 

enjoy rooting for the killer to get acquitted. and i'll say, probably rightfully so.

but man, you are fucking around with gun control. enjoy your short term victory.

your celebration and vigorous defense of this kid is borderline psychotic.

It isn’t borderline, it is completely psychotic.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i already did. you ignored it. 

enjoy rooting for the killer to get acquitted. and i'll say, probably rightfully so.

but man, you are fucking around with gun control. enjoy your short term victory.

your celebration and vigorous defense of this kid is borderline psychotic.

I am rooting for him because he acted lawfully and is the victim of a political hack DA and our awful media/politicians.  I'd like them to all eat a big shitburger.  And for the media to get the shit sued out of them.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19305

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I am rooting for him because he acted lawfully and is the victim of a political hack DA and our awful media/politicians.  I'd like them to all eat a big shitburger.  And for the media to get the shit sued out of them.

I know you suck at the teat of Trump, but this crying about the media is fucking absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

 And for the media to get the shit sued out of them.

Oh that will happen. And his lawyers will get on the news a little bit after they ask for 485 million in the complaint.
 

Since it’s a frivolous case they’ll settle for 50k, make it confidential, and then life will move on until the republicans nominate incel women beating doughboy for president in 25-30 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Hey guys good news! I just filed a class action complaint against the sack and his grocery store chain for defaming all of us on surly.
 

The complaint asks for 485 million but I bet we can settle for around half that amount.

Once the check clears I’m throwing the biggest party with more cocaine and hookers then even Charlie sheen ever dreamed about! More updates to come. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9973

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

I’ve never seen a more clear cut case of self defense. The witness clearly stated that he pointed a gun directly at the kid before he had his arm vaporized. 
 

that said, this prosecutor is the biggest clown shoe I have ever seen. 

"Initial aggressor loses right to claim self-defense" is the prosecution argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 34106

Posted
Posted

since the constitution does not define what "arms" are, I'm going to start wearing explosive vests everywhere I go. It's my right to explode myself and everyone in a 2 block radius if I feel threatened. and it clearly doesn't matter than I am the only one armed, as it is my gawd-given right to arm myself. and I certainly would not expect any provocation or harassment from anyone since I am simply exercising my rights.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
UTHornFan014

UTHornFan014 755

Posted
Posted

This has been a fascinating case to follow as I do think there has been a bit of a disconnect with media coverage/headlines vs. the actual evidence presented.

Do I think Rittenhouse is a privileged white asshole? Yep

Do I think he went there with the purest of intentions? Nope

Do I think a 17 year old should be open carrying at protest? Nope

Do I think he should be acquitted? Yes, based on the evidence presented

Do I like typing that? Not at all

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29579

Posted
Posted

I think the only argument left in favor of a guilty conviction, based on the evidence admitted, is that he didn't sufficiently retreat before shooting his first victim. 

The moment the judge excluded the evidence of his desire to shoot people, this was the only way this trial was ever going to go. The law on self defense is poorly drafted and somehow the law on underage carrying is even worse. 

On the plus side, plenty of other people who were convicted on charges under a statute that is unconstitutionally vague are going to get their convictions overturned, right?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...