Kyle Rittenhouse 17 year Old Shoots 3 kills 2....

Pretty sure the CIA is not on Trump’s side. At least the leadership. When he says drain the swamp the CIA is part of that draining. And they know it.

Oh that’s right. I forgot they’re out to get him for that Russia collusion thing.:D

I edited my post that you quoted to correct my mistake that you rightfully pointed out.
 
Last edited:
Were some of y’all sitting at the bar in Que Onda tonight? I heard two guys comment about Kyle shooting three people. I piped in with “wish he would’ve shot a dozen more”...and it obviously went downhill from there.

One white guy, one black guy. Their side of the argument included many of the points here, including “why is a 17-year-old in possession of an AR-15“. But then it got fun. Argued the definition of assault rifle. White guy used “AK-15” multiple times, along with the “why did he have it” question. He also called it a machinegun ar the beginning. Black guy argued he was there to kill people because of the Blue Lives Matter on his social media. He also seemed to think the argument that the guy “shot them on public property” meant something. I told them they obviously haven’t seen all the videos. They didn’t believe a word I said about him being attacked with a bottle (or Molotov cocktail, whatever it was), or a skateboard, or a pistol. Black guy kept saying that wasn’t in the videos at all. I’m sure he was watching any of the MSM channels. I pointed out he defended himself in every case. He also mentioned “coming from another state”...but when I questioned him he did at least know it was only ~20 minutes away. They kept questioning his age. And why he was there. And why he had a rifle. And on, and on. I never even got to the point that he killed a sex offender and a felon.

they probably sat there and stewed about it and talked junk about me after I left...but it didn’t stop me from enjoying my tacos one bit :D
 
And these lawyers sure like to argue the meaning of these laws.

Lets start with the Supreme law of the land, shall we??

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Those are legal terms in bold lawyers, and they dont require an english degree to decipher.
 
Were some of y’all sitting at the bar in Que Onda tonight? I heard two guys comment about Kyle shooting three people. I piped in with “wish he would’ve shot a dozen more”...and it obviously went downhill from there.

One white guy, one black guy. Their side of the argument included many of the points here, including “why is a 17-year-old in possession of an AR-15“. But then it got fun. Argued the definition of assault rifle. White guy used “AK-15” multiple times, along with the “why did he have it” question. He also called it a machinegun ar the beginning. Black guy argued he was there to kill people because of the Blue Lives Matter on his social media. He also seemed to think the argument that the guy “shot them on public property” meant something. I told them they obviously haven’t seen all the videos. They didn’t believe a word I said about him being attacked with a bottle (or Molotov cocktail, whatever it was), or a skateboard, or a pistol. Black guy kept saying that wasn’t in the videos at all. I’m sure he was watching any of the MSM channels. I pointed out he defended himself in every case. They kept questioning his age. And why he was there. And why he had a rifle. And on, and on. I never even got to the point that he killed a sex offender and a felon.

they probably sat there and stewed about it and talked junk about me after I left...but it didn’t stop me from enjoying my tacos one bit :D

I don't have those conversations because I can't debate for crap. I know what I think, but I can't get it spoken well enough to persuade anyone.
 
I don't have those conversations because I can't debate for crap. I know what I think, but I can't get it spoken well enough to persuade anyone.
I knew I wasn’t gonna persuade anybody.

but I also know my wife has no interested in me spouting off about it, so it was just an opportunity for me to vent and stir something up and then walk away :D
 
The way you punish media is ignore them and put them out of business. That is happening, btw. PRAVDA became irrelevant, though it still exists.
My theory is that there is a ton of foreign money keeping our media afloat these days. Many if these newspapers and news orgs should have been out of business years ago.
 
Last edited:
They were so quick to jump out and charge this kid who was running for his life. Haven't seen yet where they have charged the one armed bandit with possession of a firearm by a felon.
Or most of the rioters, looters, or arsonists for that matter. Hell, they are clearing the violent felons out of the prisons to make room for the mask deniers.
 
Totally unrelated to this case. But this thread really had me wondering what some of the folks on this forum really think justifies self defence and which ones would join the Brownshirts when this all boils over.

As for the kid, Filter says it best: Hey man, nice shot.
I was thinking i had a couple tories picked out but yeah, brownshirts might fit as well or better.
 
I think it was CD that pointed out that under current law, a male of 17 is considered part of the unorganized militia
I looked it up for myself - usc title 10 section 246
Under consideration of that, the kid acting as part of a militia to contain violence from people who have admitted wanting to overthrow the government and are actively engaging in violent attacks against govt buildings...
well, you get what you get
 
I think it was CD that pointed out that under current law, a male of 17 is considered part of the unorganized militia
I looked it up for myself - usc title 10 section 246
Under consideration of that, the kid acting as part of a militia to contain violence from people who have admitted wanting to overthrow the government and are actively engaging in violent attacks against govt buildings...
well, you get what you get
The people themselves. Paid police cannot enforce our Highest Law(The Constitution), they answer to the hired help, aka criminal mayors. The Constitution...
The Militia Clauses
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

All that being Facts. What do We the People do when the hired help fails to do their jobs? See the Declaration of Independence. Like I've said before, this is an insurrection. Criminals have found themselves in our highest offices of government. Long bought and paid for by big corporations. That's just the truth too. So who's gonna arrest DC organized crime? It'll have to be the people themselves.
 
Last edited:
I knew I wasn’t gonna persuade anybody.

but I also know my wife has no interested in me spouting off about it, so it was just an opportunity for me to vent and stir something up and then walk away :D
You should have waited 8 minutes until those tacos passed through you and then took a turd in their drink...ugh I hate liberals
 
The howling blubbering class here screeching out HE WAS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD AND HAD UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A RIFLE AND CROSSED STATE LINES!! THIS IS TERRIBLE FOR US! HE IS RUINED AND WE ARE RUINED AND THIS IS A DISASTER! OH GOD!! OH NO!! (they come out wailing EVERY time on this kind of stuff) Need to (ahem) educate themselves before the normal dithyrambs and hand wringing caterwauls of doom and illegality. Not that I expect that to happen...... I am just saying......

Anyway, the law in WI (I looked it up.... Imagine that!) states the following in https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60:

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. (this emphasis bold and underlined is mine alone)

There is the further issue which someone has cited above of 10 U.S. Code § 246 which states clearly that a 17 year old is a part of the unorganized militia. When you cite that pesky 2A which specifically references a well "regulated" ("equipped" in 18th century parlance), it is fairly certain that this is a Constitutional backstop safety on the issue.

I have been around this forum long enough to have noted the howlers who wail on cue about this stuff, and am content to just let them howl and wail every time something pops up on the national media hype focus. However, I will not stop telling you "you are being silly, and a tool of the leftist media loons." And you are.
 
Last edited:
Legal to own a rifle or not? Transport across state lines or not? Should have been there or not? We can all keyboard lawyer about should or should not have. Fact is, this kid has some titanium balls. To keep his head about him during all of that. To not have random rounds flying all over the place. To be able to clear a malfunction. Maybe he was extremely lucky who knows, but the kid dang sure handled himself probably better than most of us on here. I don't see any chance of him getting convicted.
 
And a grumpy old man couldn’t have done all that running.

Yep. A grumpy old man would have had to stay there and pick off a few more who came after him. Do not mess with grumpy old men. Do not even consider in your wildest dreams of messing with a grumpy old woman. She will hurt you real bad before she kills you.


edit: Do any of you remember when you were 17. I know it is over a half century ago for some of us, but I still remember being able to do amazing things back then. I thought I was invincible and almost was. I was near my peak of athletic abilities. My mind was sharp and crisp. I had been shooting for over a dozen years and was a crack shot on doves, squirrels, ducks, and quail. The boy did a good job handling himself, and I think many of us could have performed at about that same level when we were his age. Some rather ruthless and evil people are now out to get him, and I hope, from all the evidence that I have seen so far, that he is as successful in the legal fights to come as he was when he was alone on that street.
 
Last edited:
Until there is a revolt and the current system is overthrown it is still law.
One really great insight I got from living for a bit out of the country is how Latinos view "the law." To them, they take it for granted that it is corrupt, tyrannical, and designed to oppress. They don't waste time or effort in "marching" or "petitioning" or "voting" (excuse me while I laugh). They just ignore the laws. Good AND bad people simply are driven by their own willingness to do what is right. If they are bad people, they wind up doing bad stuff...... just like here. America in some respects is like cult zombie who desperately needs deprogramming from this delusional idea that being a "good citizen" means painstaking observance of whatever "law" some wonk in civil government decides is good for us. It is toxic, but fortunately it is fading away. Whether that results in civil unrest and NO rule of law remains to be seen.
 
Hopefully he'll get the best legal "Dream Team" out there. It seems that he will.
IMO, the chicken chit DA and ruling bodies are piling on these charges to satisfy the masses who feel this kid is a vigilante.
They piled on more charges yesterday knowing they won't stick. Why? To satisfy the media's thirst for blood for this act.

Yesterday I saw several articles who portrayed the killed as "heroes" for trying to disarm this mad killer (said with sarcasm) and who paid with their lives. Really, I read this. This just shows how spinning an act can make it look any way they want to portray it.

I believe this kid will get the best defense possible. If he gets 1 juror who knows what is truth and what is propaganda he should be fine.
Imagine the country if the DA drops all charges now? Pure bedlam and many more similar shootings will occur. The "protesters" have no fear of the law across the country. The spineless city and state governments have given control of their states to the "protesters. We may have a civil war on our hands sooner than we thought possible.
 
Are we still talking about Kyle and the incident in this thread?

I think Donut Operator did a pretty good job of fact checking and investigation.
 
Have you noticed that its been quiet in Kenosha last 3 nights after the shooting? It isn't because of the NG there. Its also with protests in other cities. They do NOT fear the police or NG when they have DAs and Mayors that drop all charges and let them out. What they fear the most is people that have had enough and been pushed around that will just fight back. Where armed counter protesters have shown up in force that they lose their gusto, wind is out of the sails. They know that police and NG have rules to follow. They know when pushed we will strike back. There's a term floating around of just that. Called the "Kenosha Effect" So stay armed and vigilant.

CD
 
Last edited:
Hopefully he'll get the best legal "Dream Team" out there. It seems that he will.
IMO, the chicken chit DA and ruling bodies are piling on these charges to satisfy the masses who feel this kid is a vigilante.
They piled on more charges yesterday knowing they won't stick. Why? To satisfy the media's thirst for blood for this act.

Yesterday I saw several articles who portrayed the killed as "heroes" for trying to disarm this mad killer (said with sarcasm) and who paid with their lives. Really, I read this. This just shows how spinning an act can make it look any way they want to portray it.

I believe this kid will get the best defense possible. If he gets 1 juror who knows what is truth and what is propaganda he should be fine.
Imagine the country if the DA drops all charges now? Pure bedlam and many more similar shootings will occur. The "protesters" have no fear of the law across the country. The spineless city and state governments have given control of their states to the "protesters. We may have a civil war on our hands sooner than we thought possible.
I was talking about this last night. The DA had to press charges to placate the masses. If he wins and convicts, all hell is going break loose. If he loses or drops the charges, all hell is going to break loose. His only real hope is a prolonged court battle to drag it out and keep it in limbo. :rolleyes:
 
Something else that is a double standard. They want to try him as an adult but then as an adult he can carry. Can't have both ways.

CD

ahhh haha. I didn’t catch that...that only drops a class A misdemeanor though...fortunately the others are 1st degree murder which is absurdly disconnected from reality.
 
Well, doesn't not charging him as a minor possessing a rifle then allow his self defense defense to be valid with no illegal activity causing his need for self defense? According to some and the verbiage, a defendant cannot claim self defense if he was performing an illegal act before the shots were fired?
 
Last edited:
Drag it out long enough and people will forget/stop caring.
Hell, many of these people dont really CARE now, just looking for a reason to destroy
I mentioned in another thread and as somewhat evidenced by the history of some of the individuals shot, these events have brought out sociopaths to run freely under the guise of protest.
 
Well, doesn't not charging him as a minor possessing a rifle then allow his self defense defense to be valid with no illegal activity causing his need for self defense? According to some and the verbiage, a defendant cannot claim self defense if he was performing an illegal act before the shots were fired?
Did you watch the Colion Noir video? He’s a lawyer and made a good point. In broad terms, self-defense is allowed even if breaking a law.

His example was a felon shooting an intruder. He could be charged with possession by a felon, but not murder, assuming it was judged to be self defense.
 
CNN wrote an article calling skateboard boy a hero who tried to protect innocent protestors from an armed murderer.

They also wrote this about the guy who got shot in the arm (omitting the fact that he drew a handgun and pointed it at Kyle):

When the suspect shot Huber, Grosskreutz froze, ducked to the ground and took a step back, according to the complaint. He puts his hands in the air and then began to move toward the suspect, the complaint says. The suspect fired one shot, hitting Grosskreutz in the arm, according to the complaint.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/us/kenosha-wisconsin-protest-shooting-victims/index.html
 
Didn’t have the skills to swap the ak for a ar.
 
CNN wrote an article calling skateboard boy a hero who tried to protect innocent protestors from an armed murderer.

They also wrote this about the guy who got shot in the arm (omitting the fact that he drew a handgun and pointed it at Kyle):

When the suspect shot Huber, Grosskreutz froze, ducked to the ground and took a step back, according to the complaint. He puts his hands in the air and then began to move toward the suspect, the complaint says. The suspect fired one shot, hitting Grosskreutz in the arm, according to the complaint.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/28/us/kenosha-wisconsin-protest-shooting-victims/index.html

Maybe that is why Lin Wood decided to get involved. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom