Yeah there are a lot of liberties taken in that analysis. Are all militia groups white supremacists?. Again it would depend heavily on the facts involved.
Kyle Rittenhouse Case Against Joe Biden 'Meritless and Frivolous' | Law & Crime
An attorney for accused murderer Kyle Rittenhouse threatened to sue the presidential campaign of former vice president Joe Biden over a video posted on the candidate's social media feed on Wednesday.lawandcrime.com
NAACP reaction to Rittenhouse verdict
- Thread starter mushroomgod_1
- Start date
Sandman: “I set the record for a media defamation settlement”
Rittenhouse: “Hold my beer”.
Rittenhouse: “Hold my beer”.
The ad video from Biden is up. Truth is an ultimate defense to defamation claims. If that kid has no white supremacist affiliation I would sue the shit out of Biden.
So by definition, Grosskreutz was an armed vigilante.I'm not surprised by the verdict. Reading the facts of the case it's not difficult to understand the verdict on the serious charges as I understand them and how self defense is interpreted in the US. I can't comprehend the not guilty verdict on "Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Person Under 18" as well as the other weapons charges. Apparently an AR-15 isn't a dangerous weapon or Rittenhouse was over 18 (he wasn't).
This is just another classic example of guns exacerbating a volatile situation and doing the opposite of their intended purpose (Rittenhouse himself said he had no interest in shooting anyone and thought carrying the AR-15 was "intimidating" and "looked cool").
Gaige Grosskreutz, an EMT on the scene to provide medical help, is very pro-gun and very pro-Second Amendment (he was quoted as saying when he leaves the house, it's "keys, wallet, gun"). When he arrived on the scene, he was under the impression Rittenhouse was an "active shooter" and drew his weapon. Rittenhouse almost blew his arm off.
American gun culture is a disaster and a global embarrassment. Nothing positive was achieved by guns in Kenosha that night. Just more slaughter for no reason. Nothing more, nothing less.
Eh. I know about the Family Car Doctrine. I don’t know about the Family Gun Doctrine.
Do you think it will go that far? Teams of lawyers will comb his past to see if he has ever used the the N word or anything else. If I were him I would much prefer some settlement.
He didn’t buy the gun, you dolt.Rittenhouse was under the age of 18. It's illegal for him to possess an AR-15 under federal law.
Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
Yes. Under the Gun Control Act (GCA), shotguns and rifles, and ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals 18 years of age or older. All firearms other than shotguns and rifles, and all ammunition other than ammunition for shotguns or rifles may be sold only to individuals...www.atf.gov
He was legally allowed to carry that gun that night. That’s why the weapons charge was dismissed.
Why are you guys so adamant about doubling down on your stupidity on this?
A friend of mine opined that “they really can’t stand the fact that a scary AR was legally used in self defense. It shatters to many of their preconceived notions and biases”.
I’m starting to think he’s on to something.
It’s just bizarre.
Don't riot. It's just that simple.
Even a caveman.....
You can readily find the explanation for why the gun charge was dismissed. The law in Wisconsin changes according the barrel length of the gun. The gun was never entered into a proper chain of custody, and therefore couldnt be verified. Not a good look for Wisconsin, IMO.
Who, unlike Rittenhouse, was illegally carrying his weapon.
Five boys age 9-11.
Read the pos' record of his prison stay.
Kyle should become a spokesman for Orkin.
This is not correct. The state acknowledged that the barrel of the gun was longer than 16 inches. There was no debate on that.
That is when the weapons charge was thrown out. Rittenhouse was legally allowed to carry that gun that night.
Few things: I don't think the N word is dispositive of anything as it relates to white supremacy.
Watching KR in trial he looked like a young, sympathetic kid. Not sure many people would want to put him away for life in a close case. By the same token, Biden has a history of virtue-signaling idiocy, but I'm not sure a group of jurors would be excited about making KR rich. I wouldn't want to. He's not a doctor without borders doing good being defamed. He was out doing dumb shit.
So good case to settle.
76-1, you mentioned Rittenhouse as being a survivor. This conforms to my picturing him as not being too different from an young U.S. soldier in the battleground streets of Iraq, or the villages of Afghanistan.
The difference between Rittenhouse and a soldier is that Rittenhouse is a loner without the support of a team. In my estimation, this places Rittenhouse at an even greater risk than a soldier. Thus IMO Rittenhouse is a lucky survivor as compared to a soldier who minimizes his risks so as to live for another day.
As to Rittenhouse carrying a rifle, did this allow him to be a survivor, or did it make him a target ?
The Marines, Soldiers , Naval Aviators, and SEAL's I've met weren't exactly known for "minimizing their risks"...
I've already stated what I thought about the rifle but I'll attempt to explain my thoughts about it again...
I believe that he would have been attacked with or without the rifle because the four guys who attacked him were criminal thugs who once they identified him as not going along with the rioting attacked him with the intent to kill him. Without the rifle he'd be dead and the Left would be happy...
I'm fairly certain 12 other folk recently came to the same conclusion...
No, he’s wrong. There was no ambiguity and the state knew it. That’s why they didn’t really object to the one charge they may have gotten a conviction on being thrown out.
Explainer: Why did the judge drop Kyle Rittenhouse gun charge?
No one contested that Rittenhouse was underage with a gun. But defense experts had seized on a section of the state's law to argue that it was limited to short-barreled shotguns or rifles.
www.google.com
I wonder if someone wearing Antifa gear showed up to Jan 6 and was attacked and killed 3 how many here, on both sides, would flip their opinions?
Ok
Ok, thanks. I heard that explanation on a podcast and probably misremembered. I do recall there being a logical explanation to the dismissal, but I could have sworn the part about the mismanaged chain of command was true. I don't care to verify that, so I bid you "Good day!" 😆
Now that we’ve got that taken care of. Let’s get to eliminating the TSA. Time to start cutting spending
It was never about any state prosecution,No, he’s wrong. There was no ambiguity and the state knew it. That’s why they didn’t really object to the one charge they may have gotten a conviction on being thrown out.
Explainer: Why did the judge drop Kyle Rittenhouse gun charge?
No one contested that Rittenhouse was underage with a gun. But defense experts had seized on a section of the state's law to argue that it was limited to short-barreled shotguns or rifles.
it was to sell the "crossed state lines" narrative...
Why? So the Fed could be justified in their intervention in the State of Wisky.
No gun charge- no Fed intervention.
You are a damn liar.
One- armed Boi with a gun has his photos, WITH THE HANDGUN plastered everywhere!
You can't help but marvel at them... They truly appear to believe that if they repeat a Lie often enough it will become truth... 🙄
And then spend the rest of their time here wailing about how dangerous the Trumpsters and their disregard for facts are.
There is no duty to retreat in Wisconsin. But the jury was instructed to consider the availability of retreat in determining the reasonable use of force. I don’t think there is an overall message about retreat one way or the other.
Read the Jury Instructions
The 36-page document, released by the court clerk as the jury began deliberations, details the legal principles, definitions and criteria jurors should use while reaching verdicts on the charges.
www.nytimes.com
He went to prevent trouble. Obviously was a bad decision, but he was on the right side of things, just as the jury found. Don’t burn or loot, don’t attack or try to take the gun from an armed man, & you won’t get shot, as evidenced by who did & didn‘t get shot in Kenosha.
Harris right on cue w/ an inane tweet about the justice system still needing more work re KR verdict.
I’m pretty much fed up with Democrats. The right to trial by jury is deeply imbedded in our judicial system yet they undermine it and the credibility of the judicial system. The Chairman if the House Judiciary Committee called for the DOJ to investigate the verdict. Maybe have the FBI raid the jurors’ homes?
The Democrat President and Vice President are in record law approval territory. The Democrat-led congress polls worse. Yet these clowns think they have the chops to impugn a jury of citizens and an experienced judge?
What concerns me isn't the jury trial system, but the lack of expertise which all too often exists for those representing either the defense or the prosecution.
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. I‘ve been consistent whether George Floyd, Ashley Babbit, Breonna Taylor, these Kenosha degenerates, or whoever. These People put themselves in a position of danger, & some of you can play the blame game all you want, but the root cause is always the same. I’ll shed no tears for criminals & conspirators getting killed in the act of committing crimes.
Similar threads
