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

SPM said:
The "privilege" of self defense?

You have the Right to Life. Logic and reason dictates if you have the unalienable Right to Live, you logically and reasonably have the unalienable Right to protect and preserve that Life.

That statue is immoral and unconstitutional prima facie.
Click to expand...

Just posting WI law and he will have a long fight ahead of him.
 
kcult said:
17 year olds can't possess long guns? They can't cross state lines with them?
Click to expand...
Most are forgetting about that US 10 Code s46 about 17-45 males being part of the unorganized militia. Minute man bring their own arms. The 18 yo requirement for owning a gun has always been counter to this. As far as crossing state lines he was 20 miles away from the town. Like I would be if I went into Myrtle Beach SC and live across the state line in NC

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

CD
 
Last edited:
Seems Kyle may have Lin Wood as an attorney or other high profile lawyers. Lin was Nicolas Sandmans lawyer that received settlements from the Washington Post and CNN.

ZBzWdCtl.png



CD
 
Oneofsix said:
I have to wonder, were they out protesting again last night in honor of their fallen komrads?
I saw that the guv authorized 250 more troops deployed, and another curfew set but no news of anything else.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

They should deploy 10k in battle rattle with shoot to kill orders.
 
Timfoilhat said:
I watched the press conference yesterday.
The sheriff said that the group the kid was with had contacted his office asking to be deputized prior to the events of that evening. That's what made the sheriff react with that quote posted.

In nearly the same breath he also praised the BLM movement, and stated he kneeled with the protestors. I'm not sure if the good sheriff believes in their movement or is just quick to cave to the mob in some effort to maintain "peace" or following orders from his superiors. My read on him says he's a totalitarian though.
Click to expand...

Sheriffs are elected, so all he has to do is satisfy voters; it sounds like he is doing a good job of pandering.
 
gc70 said:
Sheriffs are elected, so all he has to do is satisfy voters; it sounds like he is doing a good job of pandering.
Click to expand...
Yeah. He's one of those wishy washy types. He's run as both a Republican and a Democrat in sheriff's races.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_8a531376-7f63-5348-8814-3c9fbf5e4651.html
"In 2002, Beth, who had previously run as a Democrat, became a Republican..."
So the ends justify the means for this guy. Caving to the mob wouldn't be out of character for someone like this.
 
Last edited:
Sigequinox220 said:
Well this is rich....a quote from Sheriff regarding citizenry handling the situation(s) that our governments and/or police clearly are NOT...

"The sheriff called it a 'scary thought' that untrained members of the public might ever be given the same duties or privileges as police. 'Oh, hell no. What a scary, scary thought that would be in my world,' he said."
Click to expand...


MAYBE if you were doing YOUR JOB, this wouldn't happen, Einstein !
 
Timfoilhat said:
Yeah. He's one of those wishy washy types. He's run as both a Republican and a Democrat in sheriff's races.
https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_8a531376-7f63-5348-8814-3c9fbf5e4651.html
"In 2002, Beth, who had previously run as a Democrat, became a Republican..."
So the ends justify the means for this guy. Caving to the mob wouldn't be out of character for someone like this.
Click to expand...

I’m apprehensive of folks who put their finger in their mouth, hold it up in the air and then make decisions based upon which side is the coldest.

Principles of convenience are not principles at all.
 
Sigequinox220 said:
sorry dude, I hope your elbow remains mashed potatoes for remainder of your Useless, provocative, bully life. I will however donate to the medical expenses for removal of your testicles to guarantee you don’t breed.
Click to expand...

Ruined his Molotov arm, he did!
 
Combat Diver said:
Ruined his shooting arm. He was pointing a Glock at Kyle at contact distance. Seems the docs saved his arm. However, last night was a peaceful night in Kenosha, wonder why?

CD
Click to expand...

He’s damned lucky his arm is all that got ruined...needs to go buy a lottery ticket.
 
Shooter was a Police Youth Cadet. Just adds to the complexity. How much is the chief going to turn on their own.

Kenosha shooting suspect is a former member of a youth police cadet program, Illinois police say

In Grayslake, Illinois -- about 10 miles from Antioch and 30 miles from Kenosha -- Police Chief Phillip L. Perlini said the suspect in the shooting was a former Public Safety Cadet.
That program is described online as offering youth the opportunity to explore careers in law enforcement. Due to the person's age and state law, the chief said the department couldn't comment further.
 
TSConver said:
Some have said it already but he committed crimes by possessing a rifle in WI among other things like open carry. I know you say show me in the constitution but that really does not matter it will be the state law that is looked at and used to charge him. The facts are he broke laws before he used deadly force to protect himself. In most states you give up your right to use deadly force if you are in fact in the process of committing a crime yourself. I know that is the case in NC bet it is in WI to. Will he eventually get off in the higher courts maybe but he has a long and expensive road ahead of him.
Click to expand...

NO, that is WRONG. Even if you are a convicted felon, you do not give up the right of self defense even with a handgun. You may be charged with felon with a weapon. What you may give up is some of the special circumstances, such as stand your ground (the element of avoidance) or castle doctrine, the presumption of person breaking into your house being a deadly threat.

What you are thinking is the guy giving up the element of innocence. That is in regards to the confrontation that resulted in the use of deadly force. In this situation, unless the kid was sweeping and threatening the molotov cocktail thrower, in which case he was not innocent. On the other elements of self defense, he passes:

Proportionality: Molotov Cocktail is a deadly force threat
Imminence: the attack was happening at that time
Avoidance: No way to avoid the molotov cocktail at the instance it was thrown. In fact after he shot the first person he retreated to avoid further bloodshed, until he fell down and was unable to retreat.
Reasonableness: From Andrew Branca, "Everything that you perceive, decide, and do in defense of yourself or others must be reasonable and prudent, given the circumstances you faced, the information you knew, and your abilities (or disabilities)." Check
 
blewis3 said:
NO, that is WRONG. Even if you are a convicted felon, you do not give up the right of self defense even with a handgun. You may be charged with felon with a weapon. What you may give up is some of the special circumstances, such as stand your ground (the element of avoidance) or castle doctrine, the presumption of person breaking into your house being a deadly threat.

What you are thinking is the guy giving up the element of innocence. That is in regards to the confrontation that resulted in the use of deadly force. In this situation, unless the kid was sweeping and threatening the molotov cocktail thrower, in which case he was not innocent. On the other elements of self defense, he passes:

Proportionality: Molotov Cocktail is a deadly force threat
Imminence: the attack was happening at that time
Avoidance: No way to avoid the molotov cocktail at the instance it was thrown. In fact after he shot the first person he retreated to avoid further bloodshed, until he fell down and was unable to retreat.
Reasonableness: From Andrew Branca, "Everything that you perceive, decide, and do in defense of yourself or others must be reasonable and prudent, given the circumstances you faced, the information you knew, and your abilities (or disabilities)." Check
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read the law in NC and WI for that matter. In NC if you are committing a felony you cannot use the self defense laws to defend yourself. In WI I posted their law and it says you can give up your right to self defense with deadly force if you are committing a crime when you need to use deadly force.

I never said a felon gives up his right. Only someone in the act of a crime does. For instance if some ones steals your car and then some one tries to carjack them down the road they cannot claim self defense when using deadly force.
 
Last edited:
When I first read the story all that was reported was that a 17 year old who murdered 3 protestors fled the state and is now under arrest.

They made it sound as if this kid drove in from 400 miles away, walked into the crowd, killed 3 people and then hauled ass 400 miles away or possibly 600 miles away because they didn’t say he went home.

Then you watch the videos and see that he was being attacked by a mob who were intent on either maiming or killing him and after he shot enough of them to stop the attack he drove 20 miles back to his home, which just happened to be across an invisible state line.

While I’m not surprised by the biased reporting I have to say this is one of the worst examples I’ve seen in a while.

I hope that once they clear him of all charges John Lynn will sue the hell out of the news agencies again for false reporting.
 
Chdamn said:
When I first read the story all that was reported was that a 17 year old who murdered 3 protestors fled the state and is now under arrest.

They made it sound as if this kid drove in from 400 miles away, walked into the crowd, killed 3 people and then hauled ass 400 miles away or possibly 600 miles away because they didn’t say he went home.

Then you watch the videos and see that he was being attacked by a mob who were intent on either maiming or killing him and after he shot enough of them to stop the attack he drove 20 miles back to his home, which just happened to be across an invisible state line.

While I’m not surprised by the biased reporting I have to say this is one of the worst examples I’ve seen in a while.

I hope that once they clear him of all charges John Lynn will sue the hell out of the news agencies again for false reporting.
Click to expand...

don't forget that's AFTER he presumably tried to call the police before being interrupted by more attempted attacks on his person AND after trying to DIRECTLY present himself to the police on scene who told him to scram...I wouldn't be waiting around for more trouble after all that.
 
TSConver said:
Maybe you should read the law in NC and WI for that matter. In NC if you are committing a felony you cannot use the self defense laws to defend yourself. In WI I posted their law and it says you can give up your right to self defense with deadly force if you are committing a crime when you need to use deadly force.

I never said a felon gives up his right. Only someone in the act of a crime does. For instance if some ones steals your car and then some one tries to carjack them down the road they cannot claim self defense when using deadly force.
Click to expand...

Not a Wisconsin lawyer obviously and definitely not going to look for case precedent, but I would bet ya a Glock that the referenced forgoing of self-defense protections doesn't apply to a misdemeanor charge.

That law, so far as I can reasonably tell, would prevent someone who is in the middle of stabbing someone from being able to claim 'self defense' because the victim started to fight back. The idea that he forfeits his right to defend his own life because he's 17 instead of 18 open carrying a rifle is quite a stretch. I don't doubt libtards will WANT TO make that stretch, but I can't imagine judge not throwing. that case in the garbage. If ANYTHING, the 3 perps who were actively trying to attack Kyle would be the ones who align closer with forfeiting right to self defense because they were themselves the instigators of life-threatening violence against the kid.

as of right now, the kid technically doesn't even need to prove self defense so far as I know. He needs only to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't premeditate the murder of those 2 individuals (he was charged w/ 1* murder). that should be pretty easy damn case for even a half competent defense attorney
 
Last edited:
Sigequinox220 said:
Not a Wisconsin lawyer obviously and definitely not going to look for case precedent, but I would bet ya a Glock that the referenced forgoing of self-defense protections doesn't apply to a misdemeanor charge.

That law, so far as I can reasonably tell, would prevent someone who is in the middle of stabbing someone from being able to claim 'self defense' because the victim started to fight back. The idea that he forfeits his right to defend his own life because he's 17 instead of 18 open carrying a rifle is quite a stretch. I don't doubt libtards will WANT TO make that stretch, but I can't imagine judge not throwing. that case in the garbage. same with 1st degree murder.

as of right now, the kid technically doesn't even need to prove self defense so far as I know. He needs only to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he didn't premeditate the murder of those 2 individuals (he was charged w/ 1* murder). that should be pretty easy damn case for even a half competent defense attorney
Click to expand...
I think this will hinge on the kid not getting an activist judge.
 
The only thing the Kenosha Kid MAY be guilty of is littering. For leaving those POSs laying in the roadway.

He ought to be given a medal, or three. As far as him ever being convicted, even a Guilford County Public Defender could make a case for him resulting in dismissal of all charges. Put me on his jury. Regards 18DAI
 
hp468 said:
This is why I fear we will lose.

Lose our county, lose our freedom, lose our lives.

Our side screams, "Someone needs to do something."

Well, someone shows up (a kid no less), does work, every bit of the timeline recorded. Our side picks apart every little detail and screams about laws that were broken.

This is why we lose. We can't organize and we can't agree on anything. God help us.

I'd buy the kid a coke and a pack of candy cigs... I'd love to buy him a couple fingers of brandy and cigar but I'd be crucified for that as well.
Click to expand...
Got that right.
 
Tarowah said:
This kid has shown more balls than 90% of the “patriots” bitching, pissing and moaning about the state of things our country is dealing with.

He properly armed himself for the possible threat and used his tools just enough to survive the encounter, if more people would actually get involved rather than letting someone else handle it, the majority of this BS would have been quelled by now, but at the end of the day, the path of least resistance and all that.....


The videos clearly show he was defending himself, ok he was a minor with a long gun, give him his ticket, give him the key to the city and send him on his way.
Click to expand...
Amen! You hit the nail on the head!
 
The memes for this kid/incident are priceless!!

As for his legal troubles, he better have a great attorney. I believe a great attorney who can’t be bullied or bought will get him off scott-free, aside from illegal possession by a minor and maybe disorderly conduct just because.
 
I may have missed it, but I have to ask. Does he have a gofundme yet? Although I'm sure they would take it down.
 
kcult said:
I may have missed it, but I have to ask. Does he have a gofundme yet? Although I'm sure they would take it down.
Click to expand...
His gofundme and fundly were both taken down. I saw another one that was up to $36k around lunchtime. Can’t remember the name of it though, gun something.

Edit: here it is
https://www.givesendgo.com/GUCZ
 
Last edited:
TSConver said:
Maybe you should read the law in NC and WI for that matter. In NC if you are committing a felony you cannot use the self defense laws to defend yourself. In WI I posted their law and it says you can give up your right to self defense with deadly force if you are committing a crime when you need to use deadly force.

I never said a felon gives up his right. Only someone in the act of a crime does. For instance if some ones steals your car and then some one tries to carjack them down the road they cannot claim self defense when using deadly force.
Click to expand...

I did, apparently you did not. In Wisconsin the appropriate statue is 939.48. I will post the relevant portions below:

" In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
​
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:

1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.​

2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
​
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time."
​
Being involved in a criminal activity is NOT relieving a person of the duty to retreat (and I would say that there is some question there the way the statue is worded), and losing the presumption of reasonableness and proportionality if you are in a "dwelling" or "place of business that the actor owns or operates"

These are the concepts of "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine." As I stated in my previous post, Kyle did not have an opportunity to retreat as I saw it on the video and he was facing a deadly force threat or severe bodily injury, so proportionality is met, and I think a reasonable person would perceive that he was facing a threat of deadly force or severe bodily injury.

Another point is did he provoke the first encounter. Part 2 of the above Wisconsin statue also states:

 Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.​

Basically if you provoke the attack you are not relieved of the duty to retreat. The only point I think that would cause him trouble if he could be shown to have reasonably threatened the first person he shot with deadly force. I.e., I pull a gun and shoot you vs. I pull a gun and shoot you because you are coming at me with a baseball bat in a threatening manner.

The North Carolina laws are similar, you can look them up if you want the relavant statues are G.S. 14-51.2, G.S. 14-51.3, and G.S. 14-51.4.
 
Last edited:
The big events of the case are all going to come down to a few key points.
1) did the kid act in self defense with the first shooting?
2) were the other 2 that were shot aware of the situation leading up to shooting, or can it be construed that they were responding to an apparent active shooter type situation?

The kid ran, did not report to the police immediately after he shot 3 people and crossed state lines. None of that looks great by any means from a court defense point of view.

Meanwhile the first guy shot is on video shouting racial slurs telling people to shoot him, and can be seen chasing the kid immediately before getting a canoe installed on his head.
All things considered the kid did good, but shooting people is expensive even under the best of circumstances
Timfoilhat said:
I think this will hinge on the kid not getting an activist judge.
Click to expand...

Or a community scared of being burned down again if they let him off
 
Last edited:
A close range shot into soft tissue really messes up that soft tissue. Many non-hunters may never have seen the destruction a bullet causes. I do wonder whether Lefty was able to release his grip on the pistol before the LEO took it from him. The muscles that work the hand did not seem to be involved, but the nerves to the hands may have been affected. He did fare better than the moron who took a skateboard to a gun fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom