[W:423]Ritterhouse just got a bump by a good judge

[bullseyelqcs]

1) so were all the people who attacked him.

2) it is not established he was illegally carrying the gun. In fact Wisconsin law permits minors to carry firearms at 16

3) 1 and 2 are irrelevant to self defense justification which is based solely on the criminal actions of the three felons who were shot

1. So what we have here is a pick your flavor of criminal situation. Had your criminal of choosing not crossed state lines with an illegally purchases firearm, the criminals of the flavor you dont like may still be around. Now, we can aruge whether that would be good or bad, but we cant argue thats what happened.

2. Just not THAT firearm. You seem to keep missing that part of the equation.

3. This is why self defense needs to be seriously looked at in the future. As it stands, currently any ****ing idiot can put themselves in harms way by thier own choosing and then kill someone claiming fear of the harm that decision could lead to. As sickening as it is to me to say, I think the kid gets off as things currently sit. He SHOULDNT, but he WILL.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

1. So what we have here is a pick your flavor of criminal situation. Had your criminal of choosing not crossed state lines with an illegally purchases firearm, the criminals of the flavor you dont like may still be around. Now, we can aruge whether that would be good or bad, but we cant argue thats what happened.

2. Just not THAT firearm. You seem to keep missing that part of the equation.

3. This is why self defense needs to be seriously looked at in the future. As it stands, currently any ****ing idiot can put themselves in harms way by thier own choosing and then kill someone claiming fear of the harm that decision could lead to. As sickening as it is to me to say, I think the kid gets off as things currently sit. He SHOULDNT, but he WILL.

1a) crossing state lines is irrelevant. There is no law against crossing state lines, maybe you’re a commie from the SSSR and remember the internal passport system? I dunno
b) the rest is irrelevant drivel
2) again, not established. But even if it was it would be irrelevant since acquiring a firearm is different than possessing it. Something you would know if you chose not to be ignorant.
3) no, we do not need to amend self defense law so your political party’s SA can choose to summarily execute people whom you decide don’t belong in a certain city. Such a thing is a monstrous affront to the common law our system is based on

 

[bullseyelqcs]

1a) crossing state lines is irrelevant. There is no law against crossing state lines, maybe you’re a commie from the SSSR and remember the internal passport system? I dunno
b) the rest is irrelevant drivel
2) again, not established. But even if it was it would be irrelevant since acquiring a firearm is different than possessing it. Something you would know if you chose not to be ignorant.
3) no, we do not need to amend self defense law so your political party’s SA can choose to summarily execute people whom you decide don’t belong in a certain city. Such a thing is a monstrous affront to the common law our system is based on

1. Crossing state lines with a firearm is illegal in almost every situation. Its definitely illegal when you do so with a firearm you arent legally allowed to be in possession of to begin with. That you think my issue is with him simply leaving his house to go be a rabblerouser is funny though. When you can point to me ever implying crossing state lines alone is an illegal act, you go ahead and post it. Ill wait.

2. Yes, perfectly established. Even IF you were right about laws in WI allowing for it, his having brought it from his home in IL makes everything subsequent to that illegal as well. He came across the border from a state he wasnt allowed to own that gun in to one where he might have been able to. Crossing the border doesnt turn his action from illegal to legal all of a sudden. And you want to talk about people being ignorant.....laughable.

3. Yes, we need to amend self defense law to prevent vigilantees from either political side from roaming the planet starting shit and then crying scared because the shit got real.

Whether it was a requirement or not, nobody can argue that if Kyle had just stayed the **** home, he wouldnt have been there and scared for his life. Its not like this riot was happening in front of HIS house or even in his city. He had the time to consider his action and decided to take the risk. In my personal opinion, at that point you lose the right to self defense as you chose not to employ the simplest method of defending yourself, which would be to simply stay away.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

1. Crossing state lines with a firearm is illegal in almost every situation. Its definitely illegal when you do so with a firearm you arent legally allowed to be in possession of to begin with. That you think my issue is with him simply leaving his house to go be a rabblerouser is funny though. When you can point to me ever implying crossing state lines alone is an illegal act, you go ahead and post it. Ill wait.

2. Yes, perfectly established. Even IF you were right about laws in WI allowing for it, his having brought it from his home in IL makes everything subsequent to that illegal as well. He came across the border from a state he wasnt allowed to own that gun in to one where he might have been able to. Crossing the border doesnt turn his action from illegal to legal all of a sudden. And you want to talk about people being ignorant.....laughable.

3. Yes, we need to amend self defense law to prevent vigilantees from either political side from roaming the planet starting shit and then crying scared because the shit got real.

Whether it was a requirement or not, nobody can argue that if Kyle had just stayed the **** home, he wouldnt have been there and scared for his life. Its not like this riot was happening in front of HIS house or even in his city. He had the time to consider his action and decided to take the risk. In my personal opinion, at that point you lose the right to self defense as you chose not to employ the simplest method of defending yourself, which would be to simply stay away.

The firearm was already in Wisconsin when he picked it up, so it never crossed state lines. Crossing state lines is still irrelevant.

In my personal opinion, at that point you lose the right to self defense as you chose not to employ the simplest method of defending yourself, which would be to simply stay away.

That about the worst case scenario I've ever heard. You would have never been robbed if you stayed at home...you would never got in a car accident if you never drove...you would never been raped if you didn't wear that bikini. But that's what the far left always do, blame the average citizen rather than the criminal.

Like Quote Reply

 

[RaleBulgarian]

both times you avoided answering the question:

Again, I’m haven’t avoided anything. I appropriately dismissed your irrelevant, deflection/obfuscation attempts.

there is a reason you refuse to answer that direct question

Yeah, irrelevancy.

the readers can now conclude what that reason would be

The “readers” can choose to believe whatever they want. Doesn’t change any of the facts.

could rittenhouse have loaned the money for the firearm purchase

Theoretically, Rittenhouse could have loaned Black the money to buy the M&P 15.

Theoretically, the M&P 15 could’ve been purchased by Black, and given as a gift to Rittenhouse.

Factually, neither of those things happened.

Factually, Black and Rittenhouse conspired to commit a federal felony known colloquially as a “straw man” purchase of the M&P 15.

Factually, both Black and Rittenhouse have admitted their roles in violating federal and WI state law.

A couple of questions for you; Why are you working so hard to insinuate an alternate reality into a conversation where certain facts are already known?

Is defending Rittenhouse by any means, including deflection and obfuscation, really more important to you than maintaining your integrity?

 

[justabubba]

Again, I’m haven’t avoided anything. I appropriately dismissed your irrelevant, deflection/obfuscation attempts.

Yeah, irrelevancy.

The “readers” can choose to believe whatever they want. Doesn’t change any of the facts.

Theoretically, Rittenhouse could have loaned Black the money to buy the M&P 15.

Theoretically, the M&P 15 could’ve been purchased by Black, and given as a gift to Rittenhouse.

Factually, neither of those things happened.

Factually, Black and Rittenhouse conspired to commit a federal felony known colloquially as a “straw man” purchase of the M&P 15.

Factually, both Black and Rittenhouse have admitted their roles in violating federal and WI state law.

A couple of questions for you; Why are you working so hard to insinuate an alternate reality into a conversation where certain facts are already known?

Is defending Rittenhouse by any means, including deflection and obfuscation, really more important to you than maintaining your integrity?

my integrity is maintained by being forthcoming about the realities of the matter
i recommend that approach to you

 

[RaleBulgarian]

my integrity is maintained by being forthcoming about the realities of the matter
i recommend that approach to you

Your attempts to distract from the known facts proves otherwise.

 

[justabubba]

And every one of those ways would have been just as illegal....still making his actions criminal. Any of us has the ability to go purchase a gun from a trunk illegally. Im not sure anyone argued otherwise.

I guess I just dont understand the nit you are trying to pick here.

here is what was included within my post, which prompted my inquiry about rittenhouse's legal ability to make a loan to the arms buyer:

... The minor, Rittenhouse had no legal right to purchase the firearm that he later used to kill two and seriously wound a third.

he had a mechanism available to him. a loan to the buyer. if that was a firearm he wanted, which was on the market before he was of age to purchase it, then his friend could and did purchase it so that the desired firearm did not get away
once he became of age, he would potentially be able to purchase the weapon legally from his friend

 

[justabubba]

Your attempts to distract from the known facts proves otherwise.

i applied arguendo
at no time did i state he ACTUALLY made a loan
i demonstrated one of numerous loopholes in the methodology available to transfer ownership of firearms which would be found legal

those who want to villainize a 17 year old guy for defending himself against a convicted perv felon seeking to take his weapon, a skateboarding vigilante wannabe who el kabonged the kid with said skateboard, and the final riot darwin award participant who was pointing his pistol in the direction of the minor had major heartburn when asked to answer a simple inquiry: was that 17 year old able to legally loan the money to the arms buyer to purchase the firearm that kid used to defend himself from those whe were out to do him harm




and that paragraph above deserves some kind of award for run-on sentence

 

[justabubba]

I am not avoiding anything, Rittenhouse and Black both stated what they did to purchase the rifle, it is not a mystery.

clearly you avoided the question:
but prove me wrong and identify the post number in which you did respond to the question i posed to you

 

[US&THEM]

here is what was included within my post, which prompted my inquiry about rittenhouse's legal ability to make a loan to the arms buyer:

he had a mechanism available to him. a loan to the buyer. if that was a firearm he wanted, which was on the market before he was of age to purchase it, then his friend could and did purchase it so that the desired firearm did not get away
once he became of age, he would potentially be able to purchase the weapon legally from his friend

Straw purchases are illegal.

 

[justabubba]

The fact that you won't even admit the 17 year had no business being there in the first place

of course i would not make such a stupid admission
that kid had the right to be there, together with the other assembled militia members, the rioters, and the arsonists
what would deprive him of that right?

and especially had no business being there with a gun says it all. He's a RW hero cause he killed, I your minds , LW protestors.

as a militia member, 2A authorizes his right to bear arms
but prove me wrong and show us where the second amendment was repealed

 

[justabubba]

Post# 494 Rittenhouse tells you in his own words

let's examine that post and see if it says what you would want it to say:

Rittenhouse is young and dumb.

In a phone interview with the Washington Post, Rittenhouse revealed the gun he used in the shooting was purchased using money he received from an unemployment check during the coronavirus pandemic. Rittenhouse, 17, could not legally purchase the weapon himself, so he gave the money to a friend to buy it for him, according to both Rittenhouse and police reports.

Kyle Rittenhouse Reveals How Gun Was Paid For in First Interview Since Arrest

Kyle Rittenhouse spoke publicly in his first interview since he was arrested and charged for shooting three protesters, two of them fatally, during unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over the summer.

www.nbcchicago.com

please point out the portion of your identified post which tells us rittenhouse loaned the money to the arms buyer

 

[SCrider]

of course i would not make such a stupid admission
that kid had the right to be there, together with the other assembled militia members, the rioters, and the arsonists
what would deprive him of that right?


as a militia member, 2A authorizes his right to bear arms
but prove me wrong and show us where the second amendment was repealed

As a militia member? Does that grant him some sort of special rights? He was a minor with an illegally purchased gun and it was illegal for him to carry it that night.

 

[justabubba]

1. Crossing state lines with a firearm is illegal in almost every situation. Its definitely illegal when you do so with a firearm you arent legally allowed to be in possession of to begin with. That you think my issue is with him simply leaving his house to go be a rabblerouser is funny though. When you can point to me ever implying crossing state lines alone is an illegal act, you go ahead and post it. Ill wait.

2. Yes, perfectly established. Even IF you were right about laws in WI allowing for it, his having brought it from his home in IL makes everything subsequent to that illegal as well. He came across the border from a state he wasnt allowed to own that gun in to one where he might have been able to. Crossing the border doesnt turn his action from illegal to legal all of a sudden. And you want to talk about people being ignorant.....laughable.

3. Yes, we need to amend self defense law to prevent vigilantees from either political side from roaming the planet starting shit and then crying scared because the shit got real.

Whether it was a requirement or not, nobody can argue that if Kyle had just stayed the **** home, he wouldnt have been there and scared for his life. Its not like this riot was happening in front of HIS house or even in his city. He had the time to consider his action and decided to take the risk. In my personal opinion, at that point you lose the right to self defense as you chose not to employ the simplest method of defending yourself, which would be to simply stay away.

another attempt to insist if rittenhouse had only been able to see into the future he would have known to stay away

you don't strike me as ignorant, so i assume you know that is not how the world really works, where we have any certain foreknowledge of what is about to happen

 

[jnug]

another attempt to insist if rittenhouse had only been able to see into the future he would have known to stay away

you don't strike me as ignorant, so i assume you know that is not how the world really works, where we have any certain foreknowledge of what is about to happen

If he had any brains or parents or both he would have stayed away to begin with. He did not need to see into the future to figure that one out. Less focus on trying to realize his own fantasies should have been enough.

 

[justabubba]

Straw purchases are illegal.

but the making of loans is not (unless they are usurious)

 

[justabubba]

As a militia member? Does that grant him some sort of special rights?

yep, the second amendment right to bear arms

He was a minor with an illegally purchased gun and it was illegal for him to carry it that night.

not according to the second amendment. here it is:

"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."

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[RaleBulgarian]

i applied arguendo
at no time did i state he ACTUALLY made a loan
i demonstrated one of numerous loopholes in the methodology available to transfer ownership of firearms which would be found legal

To what end?

The facts of Rittenhouse and Black’s conspiracy aren’t disputable.

those who want to villainize a 17 year old guy for defending himself against a convicted perv felon seeking to take his weapon, a skateboarding vigilante wannabe who el kabonged the kid with said skateboard, and the final riot darwin award participant who was pointing his pistol in the direction of the minor had major heartburn when asked to answer a simple inquiry: was that 17 year old able to legally loan the money to the arms buyer to purchase the firearm that kid used to defend himself from those whe were out to do him harm

More obvious personal bias.

I am not villainizing Rittenhouse. I am stating facts.

One of those facts is that your “simple inquiry” is completely irrelevant to the ongoing debate.

and that paragraph above deserves some kind of award for run-on sentence

And a heavy dose of deodorizing spray.

 

[justabubba]

If he had any brains or parents or both he would have stayed away to begin with. He did not need to see into the future to figure that one out. Less focus on trying to realize his own fantasies should have been enough.

^ the comments of a monday morning quarterback explaining how the game would have been won if only
rittenhouse did not have the same benefit of knowing what was going to happen that you now know
it amazes me that such basic understanding about how life actually works even needs to be explained

 

[uptower]

Judge Mandates Prosecutors Only Refer To Kyle Rittenhouse As ‘Hero’

www.theonion.com

 

[jnug]

^ the comments of a monday morning quarterback explaining how the game would have been won if only
rittenhouse did not have the same benefit of knowing what was going to happen that you now know
it amazes me that such basic understanding about how life actually works even needs to be explained

Apparently you are unaware of the comments Rittenhouse was caught making that are on video from the night of the shootings. He was living out his absurd fantasies. He is a delusional dunce cap and his parents don't deserve the distinction.

 

[justabubba]

To what end?

to illustrate that rittenhouse was a 17 year old kid without much worldly experience to keep him from screwing up
he had legal alternatives he did not use ... because he was not sophisticated enough to use them
leading to your next 'point', to demonstrate he was not a sophisticated conspirator ... one would only have to look at the january 5-6 players to see an example of what that looks like

The facts of Rittenhouse and Black’s conspiracy aren’t disputable.

i will come back to this when the trial is completed ... color me dubious as to the legitimacy of your observation at this date

More obvious personal bias.

really?
the perv was not a convicted child molesting felon?
said perv had not just been released from a mental health facility?
said perv did not chase rittenhouse while that kid was retreating from his advances?
said perv did not attempt to seize rittenhouse's firearm?
skateboard dude did not smash said skateboard into rittenhouse, while rittenhouse had done nothing to him to provoke such an assault?
guy who raised his arms in surrender signal did not then lower his firearm in rittenhouse's direction immediately before being shot by rittenhouse?
those are referred to as facts - NOT personal bias

I am not villainizing Rittenhouse. I am stating facts.

no, i have shown immediately above that you view the actual facts to be perceived bias. your objectivity in this matter does not exist

One of those facts is that your “simple inquiry” is completely irrelevant to the ongoing debate.

my simple inquiry exhibited that rittenhouse is actually a simple fellow and not a devious, sophisticated conspiracist as appears to be how he is painted by the cohort who villainize him for taking his self defense actions

And a heavy dose of deodorizing spray.

yep, that would be a prize worthy of the length of the run-on sentence being awarded

 

[justabubba]

Apparently you are unaware of the comments Rittenhouse was caught making that are on video from the night of the shootings. He was living out his absurd fantasies. He is a delusional dunce cap and his parents don't deserve the distinction.

what are the comments that you find so damning? and why are they so found?

 

[jnug]

what are the comments that you find so damning? and why are they so found?

I did not say they were damning. Those are your words. They were clear indications that Rittenhouse was attempting to live out his fantasies, a delusional kid that had been set off on the wrong path and never set right. Rittenhouse should NEVER have been there that night and he did not need a crystal ball to figure that out. He either needed a functioning brain or good parents. He apparently had neither.

As for the video I am not responsible for you not have seen the video footage that had been widely distributed at the time. Maybe you should research more before posting.