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

Comments like the above only show since you have strong opinions as to the case and I won't agree you have decided to call me ignorant. It doesn't prove anything but you want me to agree wth you and will lash out when I don't. Might I suggest since you find my comments worthless you out me on ignore or just don't respond. Stating the above is pointless.

 

So are all of your assertions champ. At this point we are all guessing on the outcome of this idiocy. I can’t wait until all the relevant evidence comes out in court. My guesses and bets have been pretty much right on target in the past few years regarding the outcome of the 2020 election, the way Trump and his imbecile followers would react to the loss, the Chauvin verdict and many other events in progress. (Chauvin got a little more time than I predicted)I won $4500 on a bet I made in May of 2018 that Trump would be impeached in the year 2019. $500 at 9-1. I say Rittehouse will either plead guilty and get 2-5 and be out in around 18 months or be convicted of manslaughter and get maybe 4-8. I will also predict that if and when any jury convicts him of anything, you and other guys like you will be crying about it and saying the trial was rigged. Bookmark this post and we can come back to it at sentencing day sometime early next year.

Cheers

 

I didn't pretend you have made this personal you have demonstrated it now for the second time.

What I stated is neither you nor I have evidence. What we can do is go to an internet site to get media recounts of what eye witnessess said such as this one that said Rittenhouse pointed his gun:

https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1299155570352697345?lang=en

That does not make me a liar because you want to engage me in a piss match as to whose media reports you will believe. I am not here to entertain you.

I can not provide evidence of any fact for the same reason you can't. Neither of us was there, the full evidence is not available and it will not be until after the trial, until then all you are is an arm chair genius pronouncing judgement and I might say evidencing your ignorance.

Here is an article with eye witnesses including this statement they heard from Rittenhouse: source:

https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/w...gnored-by-police-as-he-left-scene-with-rifle/

“So people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business,” the young man said. “And part of my job is to also help people. If there is somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle — because I can protect myself, obviously. But I also have my med kit.”

What I can tell you is Hurricane in his response for me deliberately ignored the first sentence and called me a liar for stating Rittenhouse said he was protecting property. What I can tell you is business in law is a type of propertys o what Hurricane actually said was false and stupid since Rittenhouse's lawyer is using defense of property as a defense in the case.

I can also tell you in that same article another witness said:

"Sam Dirks, 22, from Milwaukee, said he had seen the gunman earlier in the evening, and he was yelling at some of the protesters. “He was definitely very agitated. He was pacing around, just pointing his gun in general. Not necessarily at anyone specifically,” Dirks said."

Here is an article stating the statement of a witness harassed by Rittenhouse's first lawyer:

https://www.motherjones.com/anti-racism-police-protest/2020/11/kyle-rittenhouse-witness-john-pierce/

So I again state your comments above are ignorant and ask me to engage in a piss match with you over statements neither of us can verify and if you can not understand why that is pointless don't.

One last thing to both of you two. Here is the distinct difference between us. You two see no double standard in supporting Trump and people smashing and destroying property if it suits your politics such as on Jan.6. You two see no double standard in calling out Antifa or Black Lives Matter for the very same tactics the Proud Boys engage in.

You define what is right and wrong not by the law but by your subjective political beliefs as evidenced in your comments on this legal matter.

I on the other hand use the same legal standards and principles to define Proud Boys, Black Live Matters and Antifa the exact same way when they choose to break the law.

 

I don't care if you are a Law Professor. You don't get to make crap up, claim it to whoever you are debating, and then attack what you made up. That's called a Straw Man. You're welcome.

As far as your legal prowess, it should remain in Canada. Your "points" are just opinions that don't track to reality. Rittenhouse had the legal right to defend himself and did. No red blooded Americans will ever convict a man/boy defending his own life. They may pull some weak gun charge, but that's about it. The rest is politics to get an evil doer that stands up against Fascists (ANTIFA) as they come to destroy, injure, and kill those that will not bow to them.

I would go into my legal background that I left behind at age 35. But, I am going to defer and not measure my e-peen on line.

 

He was armed illegally by law [up for statute debate]
through an illegal straw purchase [demonstrable fact]
while violating curfew [demonstrable fact]
while brandishing a weapon [up for statute debate]

The prosecution will likely secure a conviction as self defense claims typically go out the window when engaged in other crimes

 

No I’m in the “he was attacked by 3 felons who got exactly what they hilariously deserve” camp known as reality. If you try and murder someone with a Molotov, a pistol, and a bludgeoning weapon to the head, you get dealt with in the most spectacular fashion. This should happen every day.

 

He was armed legally, the curfew was not being enforced, and he brandished the weapon when confronted.
The law is on his side and has been all along. Were you a fan perhaps of the pedo, the wife beater and the burglar he shot?

 

You are apparently having trouble following the flow of the thread. That comment was in reply to another user's posts, not one of yours.

 

In reality, he crossed state lines with his weapon to be a to a judge jury and executioner. That's a premeditated crime.
You can't go from that position to one of being the victim when others rightfully object to your premeditated criminal enterprise.
Your conclusion is wrongfully based by dishonestly leaving out what the guy was doing there.

 

he was allowed to use that weapon when he arrived. You’re entire premise is at odds with what the law actually states, but if it means you get to defend the attempted murder of a 17 year old by a pedo, a wife beater and a burglar I can see why you’d choose that path.

 

This never happened. We covered this yesterday.

 

This is the first I've ever heard of this claim. What's your source?

 

I would think it was pretty clear. I was responding to the person I quoted. Apparently you've decided that you're included in, "Those who think like you," so I guess you want me to respond to you too. So...


Yes. They're attempting to change venue, but by polling, not simply by passing out a questionnaire. The attorney in the Chauvin trial failed to do this, so he had no evidence to present to the judge that would compel a change of venue.

You're making a lot of false assumptions, "professor." One, Rittenhouse has no affiliation with "The Proud Boys" and claims of previous "violent behavior" consist of him defending his sister. These things are likely inadmissible, since prior bad acts generally are, unless the probative value outweighs any prejudice. Considering the fact that any claims have nothing to do with shooting anyone, any claim that these things show a propensity to perpetrate these shooting are a stretch, at best.


There's no evidence that Rittenhouse "knowingly placed himself in a position of harm to use his gun." There's no evidence that Rittenhouse shot anyone, "to engage in protection of property." That's also not to mention that defending property does not convert anyone into a "peace officer" According to Wisconsin law, a "peace officer" is, "any person vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for crime, whether that duty extends to all crimes or is limited to specific crimes. "Peace officer" includes a commission warden and a university police officer." If you notice, private security person is not included in said definition. A, "'Private security person' or 'private security personnel' means any private police, guard or any person who stands watch for security purposes.", according to Wisconsin law. Rittenhouse was originally engaged by the owner of the car lot to assist in security. Simply possessing a gun, while working as a "private security person" does not transform someone into a "peace officer", "professor."


Rittenhouse was there to protect property. That statement explains why he was there, in the first place.


The claptrap you're spouting about a citizen's right to "apprehend" someone is simply that. Claptrap. There are two circumstances under which a "citizen's arrest" is warranted. The first is when a citizen has probable cause to believe that the person they are arresting has committed a felony. An example would be if you are standing outside a bank and someone with a mask comes out of the building with a bag of money. That gives you enough reason to believe that the person committed a felony. The second is when someone witnesses a misdemeanor and the misdemeanor is a breach of the peace. That means you can’t arrest someone for public intoxication alone, but you can arrest someone for public intoxication if they’re throwing punches or objects at people. (https://www.johnsflaherty.com/blog/how-to-perform-a-citizens-arrest-and-why-its-best-not-to) But you knew that, right "professor"?


Rittenhouse was not defending property when he pulled the trigger. If he simply started shooting people when they stepped onto the property, this would be a different story. Rittenhouse waited until the last minute to take each and every shot. Attempting to grab someone's gun does, in fact, justify them shooting you. That's what the first assailant was doing, when he was shot. The second assailant just tried to smash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard, after Rittenhouse fell to the ground. The third, who was a felon in unlawful possession of a firearm, committed what is considered a war crime by pretending to surrender then attempting to shoot Rittenhouse, while he was on the ground.


Simply possessing a weapon, in this country, does not mean that you intend to use it. That may be how it works, in Canada, but not here.


There absolutely are places in this country where you can legally be shot for trespassing, especially when the place that is being trespassed upon is one's home. Again, "professor", you are wrong.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/castle-doctrine-states

 

If you are in fear of seriously bodily harm, or death, you do get to shoot the aggressor. Wisconsin law specifically states, "A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself."


Attempting to grab Rittenhouse's gun, smash him in the head with a skateboard, or shoot him all fall under this.

Confession through projection. You are the one that is jumping to conclusions.

Your bias is clearly showing through your statements. You are not examining anything apolitically.

You accusing anyone of ben an "arm chair judge" is laughable, at best. The motives of said people can be inferred, through their actions. Your claim that they thought that he was rushing at them to shoot them is clearly refuted by the videos of the event. Rittenhouse is clearly fleeing from the assailants until he is no longer able to do so.

You are now gas lighting. You have stated, as is quoted above, that Rittenhouse was defending property. That statement is just as false now as it was when you originally posted it. You're also straw manning Rittenhouse's defense attorney's argument. The statement that he was originally there to defend property is not the justification to shoot.


You're the one that is is only looking at part of the sequence. The entire sequence pretty clearly shows that Rittenhouse was defending himself, and retreating, the entire time.

None of this is relevant to Rittenhouse.

Running after someone and hitting them with a skateboard is not self defense. Rittenhouse was not threatening anyone when Anthony Huber attacked him with a skateboard, after Rittenhouse fell on the ground. Rittenhouse was, in fact, retreating towards the police officers that were responding to the scene.


Gaige Grosskreutz, the felon who pulled a gun and attempted to murder Rittenhouse, again, was shot after committing a war crime (false surrender). If he was an undercover police officer, Rittenhouse would still have been justified in shooting him. He did not identify himself as a police officer, had no badge, and was not in uniform.

Already addressed above.

Again, confession through projection. Your "advice" is pretty much worthless, "professor."

 

You have no idea what you're talking about. This event has nothing to do with vigilantism.

There is no evidence of any pre-existing membership in "The Proud Boys." Being there to protect property has nothing to do with Rittenhouse's ability to defend himself.

He only pointed his rifle after he was no longer able to retreat. It's pretty clear in the videos.

You should stop answering good questions, you have no idea what you're talking about.

No. He retreated until he could no longer do so, then he pointed his gun.

You don't get to put words or thoughts in Rittenhouse's mouth or mind.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The videos are pretty clear.

The DA is a partisan hack that should be prosecuting the Gaige Grosskreutz for being a felon in possession of a gun, not Rittenhouse, who is clearly defending himself, after retreating, the entire time.

It's clearly on video that he doesn't point his rifle until the last second.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about, "professor."

You don't know the legal standards, so stop pretending that you do.

 

He was not allowed to judge who is a looter and who is not, and subsequently use his gun like that. He aint no cop. In fact, he wasn't allowed to have that gun even. They also arrested the person who sold the gun to him.

You're defending a white far right wing racist.

 

The trial and shooting happened in Wisconsin. He shot two locals there. The guy lives in Illinois. The end.

 

You were wrong when you wrote "he crossed state lines with his weapon". That didn't happen. You should get better-informed about the case.

Also, in Kenosha he shot three criminals that attacked him (no idea how "local" any of them were), not just two.

 

Yup.

A matter of record that he first obtained the gun after he was in WI:

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/

 

Their criminal status is irrelevant
The law seems to be disagreeing with you and we will see how a jury rules.

 

I guess you're going anal where he got his weapon... as if it mattered. Thing stands that he crossed state line... and got himself armed... to be that judge, jury and executioner. He doesn't got that right. He aint no cop.

He started shooting with his gun, that he illegally obtained, when he heard a gunshot that wasn't aimed at him at all. So he reacted out of an irrational fear, and killed a person because of that. Other people got their rights to detain such a killer and protect themselves. He resisted and killed an other person and shot a 3rd. Them are the facts of a criminal who travelled over state lines to start that criminal practice of being judge, jury and executioner. I noticed you left out what the guy was doing for the sake to come up with a different conclusion. Rather dishonest.

 

I'm not being anal, I'm being accurate & correct. It's something you ought to strive for too.

wrong

and wrong

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicago.com/amp/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-kenosha-protest/7808894/

 

Yes it is relevant. He smoked three total @holes who deserved it for trying to murder him. I’m pretty sure I know what the law states as far as defending your life.
That kids a hero.