Kyle Rittenhouse Speaks Out About Deadly Kenosha Shooting

Free Kyle Rittenhouse!

There is much more work to be done.

There IS self defense in his actions--


But from a legal perspective, he has 3 big issues.


1. In Wisconsin, him carrying a rifle that he wasn't legal to carry under law, can negate self defense.


2. As is so often said about other law breakers "Well.. if he hadn't broken the law, he wouldn't have had any problems". He chose to be there.



3. With the exception of the guy who got shot in the arm-- who had a gun? The original claim was that the first guy threw a molotov cocktail at him.. but that was proven to be a..... plastic bag. The second guy did come at him with a skateboard-- but that was AFTER he killed the first guy. With 1 and 2 above-- it does make a solid "self defense" claim much more difficult.




I still think he's ultimately walk on murder charges-- though he's likely to get some lesser charges before its all said and done (mostly linked to the possession of a firearm-- and perhaps discharge of that firearm). The only wildcard is that there are some claims that he had made social media posts about going to kill some protesters. If that can be proven... we're at another level. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

The totality of the whole situation has to be looked at. That's why Criminal Defense Lawyers go to Law School it's not to learn the Law but to manipulate it. Layman do what you're doing, trying pick Gnat Shit out of a Haystack.

"he crossed state lines" the same idiots who want open borders make a big deal about this. You should be able to defend yourself from attacking rioters wherever you are.

"He was 17". So he should just lay down and let his attackers kill him because he's young?

"He should've stayed at home". The rioters should've stayed at home. They shouldn't have attacked him.

What if he was a 17 year old black boy protecting black owned businesses? Then he would be a hero. When the shoe is on the other foot ....

What if he was a 17 year old black boy protecting black owned businesses? Then he would be a hero. When the shoe is on the other foot .... Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson ATX

Not to long ago a 70+/- Black man was killed by "rioters" while working security for a business. Merely a low speed bump for the LameStreamLiberalCommieMedia. Hardly a mention and certainly no outrage.

How many teenage Black guys are slaughtered annually in Chicago?

No biggie either for the LameStreamLiberalCommieMedia or Bitten/Harris!

Oh give 95 a break he only uses one brain cell at a time, lol. Originally Posted by Levianon17

L-17 - Thank you for a good laugh - i needed that.

I think You called it correctly!!!

What if he was a 17 year old black boy protecting black owned businesses? Then he would be a hero. When the shoe is on the other foot .... Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson ATX

Depends... does he or his family own the business? Is he in possession of a firearm that he is not allowed to possess at his age?



Yeah-- you're right that some wouldn't treat it the same if the shoe were on the other foot. I would.

The totality of the whole situation has to be looked at. That's why Criminal Defense Lawyers go to Law School it's not to learn the Law but to manipulate it. Layman do what you're doing, trying pick Gnat Shit out of a Haystack. Originally Posted by Levianon17

That is also why Prosecutors go to law school.


The DA intentionally overcharged the kid.. knowing full well he won't likely get the conviction. But charging him with murder helps save face with the mob.. while at the same time helping almost ensure the kid will ultimately walk.


He isn't the first to do such a thing.....

He didn’t cross state lines with a rifle, nor was he illegally carrying it.

That is also why Prosecutors go to law school.


The DA intentionally overcharged the kid.. knowing full well he won't likely get the conviction. But charging him with murder helps save face with the mob.. while at the same time helping almost ensure the kid will ultimately walk.


He isn't the first to do such a thing..... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Or the last.

That is also why Prosecutors go to law school.


The DA intentionally overcharged the kid.. knowing full well he won't likely get the conviction. But charging him with murder helps save face with the mob.. while at the same time helping almost ensure the kid will ultimately walk.


He isn't the first to do such a thing..... Originally Posted by Grace Preston

law students go to law school. there they learn all aspects of law, criminal, contract, tort claims. no one is taught in law school specifically to be a prosecutor. in the same manner as medical school, the individual once they graduate chooses what specialty they want to pursue.


if this DA overcharged by going for first degree murder to appease the mob, what will the mob do when he's acquitted?

law students go to law school. there they learn all aspects of law, criminal, contract, tort claims. no one is taught in law school specifically to be a prosecutor. in the same manner as medical school, the individual once they graduate chooses what specialty they want to pursue.


if this DA overcharged by going for first degree murder to appease the mob, what will the mob do when he's acquitted? Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

My comment about the Prosecutor going to law school was in response to his statement regarding what defense attorneys learn in law school-- IE: both sides learn the same damned thing.....


The funny thing about the mob is-- they have an incredibly short memory. Give them another target to focus on, they generally forget the original point. Notice how the protests for Brionna Taylor have died down-- despite there being no real change in that situation. In Cincinnati-- some people thought there would be riots after Tensing got two mistrials-- but... it stayed quiet as they were too focused on the gentrification going on in the West End over the new soccer stadium.

whats stupid is constantly repeating an acronym of which no one knows the meaning Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Like DPST??

The right's culture war is no longer a sideshow to our politics – it is our politics


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...tasy-elections

The only mercy in this grotesque US election – which will only get uglier – is that the fearmongering is totally naked. It’s not about “making America great again” again, or the plight of the little guy. It is about order. The threats to order are always present, and always held at bay, just barely, by conservative leaders valiantly fighting the imminent deluge. This authoritarian populist strategy is founded on an essential fiction: the pretence of powerlessness among politicians, and their voters, who are very much in charge. The weak and the marginalised, and especially their fragile movements for racial and economic equality, are cast as a terrifying force, influential and deeply embedded – a shadow regime that will bloom into tyranny the instant the Democrats are elected.

The mob will note.

Then respond in escalation.

Here's the catch to self defense. In the state of Wisconsin, self defense cannot be used as an affirmative defense if you are breaking a law at the time. The legal question truly becomes whether or not his possession of that firearm is deemed illegal. If its deemed illegal-- since he was not on his own property then he may not be able to use self defense as an affirmative defense.



Had he been at his own home, or in a business owned by his immediate family, or in his own vehicle.. then the castle doctrine would kick in, making his actions 100% permissible. Him being 17 and none of the above being the case-- is where a lot of legal grey area kicks in.



Now.. above and beyond that-- the likelihood of getting a jury to convict reaaaally depends on the jury. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

Wisconsin law allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry such weapons when accompanied by adults. Rittenhouse is on video in the company of adults for most of the day. Reports are that the mob began chasing him and others when they attempted to put out fires started by the Marxist mob -- where upon he became separated from the others.

There IS self defense in his actions--


But from a legal perspective, he has 3 big issues.


1. In Wisconsin, him carrying a rifle that he wasn't legal to carry under law, can negate self defense.


2. As is so often said about other law breakers "Well.. if he hadn't broken the law, he wouldn't have had any problems". He chose to be there.



3. With the exception of the guy who got shot in the arm-- who had a gun? The original claim was that the first guy threw a molotov cocktail at him.. but that was proven to be a..... plastic bag. The second guy did come at him with a skateboard-- but that was AFTER he killed the first guy. With 1 and 2 above-- it does make a solid "self defense" claim much more difficult.



I still think he's ultimately walk on murder charges-- though he's likely to get some lesser charges before its all said and done (mostly linked to the possession of a firearm-- and perhaps discharge of that firearm). The only wildcard is that there are some claims that he had made social media posts about going to kill some protesters. If that can be proven... we're at another level. Originally Posted by Grace Preston

The insinuation that the "plastic bag" was empty is prima facie bullshit. It contained heavier objects.

What if he was a 17 year old black boy protecting black owned businesses? Then he would be a hero. When the shoe is on the other foot .... Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson ATX

Rittenhouse was a white kid trying to protect the property of American citizens -- such as naturalized citizen Anmol Khindri: an immigrant from India who lost a $2.5 million dollar business to the Marxist vandals.