|
Post by Admin on Nov 20, 2021 12:27:30 GMT -5
After Kyle #Rittenhouse was found not guilty, #antifa in Portland organized an attempt to break inside the Justice Center to burn it down. They attacked police & also smashed up a passing driver's vehicle & targeted nearby buildings. Police declared a riot t.co/KhALOWp8AC t.co/EA8nVZMPg1
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 20, 2021 12:29:34 GMT -5
Tulsi Gabbard Says ‘Government Was Motivated By Politics’ In Rittenhouse Trial, Which ‘Should Be Considered Criminal’ t.co/6VMmp6A8xn via @dailycaller
|
|
|
Post by windy on Nov 20, 2021 13:41:24 GMT -5
I think the verdict sends the wrong message, there'll be more people carrying assault weapons to protests, and more will use them at the slightest provocation. Biden should keep his mouth shut about the verdict. Regardless of if you agree or disagree, the POTUS shouldn't say anything to fan the fires, as Rittenhouse was tried in a US court of law. You can be assured that Trump's followers will be totally fired up, we sure haven't heard the end of this yet.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 20, 2021 14:32:05 GMT -5
They should stay out of it, but what has interested me is all the lies perpetuated by the media, while we don't want people carrying weapons to a protest, this is the U.S. so they can, and do. Really incredible how almost every one of these outraged people gets basic facts in the case wrong. It’s almost as if they start with a conclusion and don’t actually care about what happened. sports.yahoo.com/amphtml/kyle-rittenhouse-didnt-illegally-bring-043226324.htmlA bigger question is, why are convicted felons carrying weapons at a protest Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 20, 2021 15:15:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by peeves on Nov 22, 2021 16:14:23 GMT -5
After Kyle #Rittenhouse was found not guilty, #antifa in Portland organized an attempt to break inside the Justice Center to burn it down. They attacked police & also smashed up a passing driver's vehicle & targeted nearby buildings. Police declared a riot t.co/KhALOWp8AC t.co/EA8nVZMPg1It certainly seems that there was a construct of falsehoods if not outright lies.
There is one aspect that seems to need clarification. I read the gun was at a friends house, not transported from out of state. I also read that 'the gun was not illegal'? I don't see where he could legally carry a gun. So what is the factual determination? Was he carrying a gun illegally at his age?
I read, "Earlier this week, Judge Bruce Schroeder threw out a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 after Rittenhouse's defense argued the rifle was not short-barreled, capitalizing on an exception to the Wisconsin statute involving the barrel length of a gun."
Seems the law was stretched on this point.
|
|
|
Post by campy on Nov 23, 2021 18:04:13 GMT -5
After Kyle #Rittenhouse was found not guilty, #antifa in Portland organized an attempt to break inside the Justice Center to burn it down. They attacked police & also smashed up a passing driver's vehicle & targeted nearby buildings. Police declared a riot t.co/KhALOWp8AC t.co/EA8nVZMPg1It certainly seems that there was a construct of falsehoods if not outright lies.
There is one aspect that seems to need clarification. I read the gun was at a friends house, not transported from out of state. I also read that 'the gun was not illegal'? I don't see where he could legally carry a gun. So what is the factual determination? Was he carrying a gun illegally at his age?
I read, "Earlier this week, Judge Bruce Schroeder threw out a count of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 after Rittenhouse's defense argued the rifle was not short-barreled, capitalizing on an exception to the Wisconsin statute involving the barrel length of a gun."
Seems the law was stretched on this point.
He was 17 and got his friend to buy the gun for him at a hardware store. He was too young to buy it for himself. The law says you have to be 18 to carry or possess a dangerous weapon. There are exceptions to the law for minors. Wisconsin is a hunting state. A minor can carry a weapon under adult supervision for hunting, training, or other activities. The exemption the judge ruled on was not only for minors, it applied to everyone. It was designed to curtail sawed off shotguns. That's were the law comes in. So it meant the gun he carried was legal. That to me does not negate that he carried it as a minor.At pretrial, the defense wanted the charge dropped. The judge refused and said he would revisit it later. So he sits on it and 12 days later just before the closing argument he dismisses the charge.That was too late for the prosecution to appeal without stopping the trial. The judge says he had trouble with the statute and it could have gone to the appeals panel but that he sat on it, so "shame on me".The prosecution could have launched an appeal, but why would they after he had ruled against dropping the charge, The whole trial was a media circus like the OJ Simpson trial. I'm suspicious of the actions of this judge. Seems to me expertly crafted to be a coincidence. I'll post the statute later. Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." The subsection that defense attorneys relied on: "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28. I read it over and over again. But he wasn't in violation of 941.28. The rifle was legal length.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 23, 2021 21:05:45 GMT -5
The possession was thrown out due to the wording of the law, other than that the whole internet story was a falsehood. People are still claiming he shot 3 black guys and Jessie Jackson is marching.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 24, 2021 16:04:27 GMT -5
I didn't write this but it is worth discussing:
A Wisconsin jury finding Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense, when he shot three people at a BLM protest in Kenosha last year, makes more apparent the dangerous powers of Big Tech. Within days of the August 2020 shootings, Facebook labeled Rittenhouse a mass murderer, telling Breitbart: "We’ve designated the shooting in Kenosha a mass murder and are removing posts in support of the shooter." It also blocked search results on "Kyle Rittenhouse."
In September 2020, Twitter suspended the account of Rittenhouse's attorney for attempting to raise funds for the teenager's defense. GoFundMe cited its policies against supporting those charged with violent crimes when thwarting efforts to pay for Rittenhouse's legal fees, despite plenty of similar fundraisers remaining live. Only after the verdict of innocence was reached would GoFundMe allow campaigns to help pay for the teen's legal fees and living expenses.
During Rittenhouse's trial, Facebook again blocked search results on his name, leaving users to converse about it only on their profiles or in their subscribed feeds. And YouTube suspended live streams about the trial hosted by independent legal analysts.
In America, alleged criminals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court of Big Tech social media, however, is anything but impartial. And their actions regarding this particular case should concern us all.
Dan Gainor, VP of the Media Research Center, said Big Tech's attempts to stifle discussions about Rittenhouse proves how much control it has in societal and political issues. “It's dangerous that they have this much power over what can be discussed in a public forum,” he said. “They could prevent free elections in every free country in the world if they wanted to.”
|
|
|
Post by campy on Nov 25, 2021 8:05:59 GMT -5
In my opinion. Self defense against someone armed is easy to satisfy. But he shot an unarmed man four times.
In my opinion, the judge in this case was biased for the defense. The kid got away with murder. No different than O.J. Simpson.
|
|
|
Post by campy on Nov 25, 2021 8:12:28 GMT -5
Tulsi Gabbard Says ‘Government Was Motivated By Politics’ In Rittenhouse Trial, Which ‘Should Be Considered Criminal’ t.co/6VMmp6A8xn via @dailycaller Definitely. Rittenhouse visited Trump in Mara Lego. Recently.They are going to use the kid for the cause. This trial was paramount to the white supremacist cause. They raised 2M for bond . I'm glad I don't live there. They are a corrupt nation.
|
|
|
Post by campy on Nov 25, 2021 8:17:13 GMT -5
Now let me see. An underage kid with an AR style weapon obtained surreptitiously shoots three people and kills two and the AG shouldn't have brought charges?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 26, 2021 13:55:03 GMT -5
Now let me see. An underage kid with an AR style weapon obtained surreptitiously shoots three people and kills two and the AG shouldn't have brought charges? The only valid charge was having a weapon underage but if you read the evidence they had to throw it out because of the wording of the law. Their laws, not ours. the statute clearly requires a weapon to be short-barreled to apply, and the judge made the right call.
“There doesn’t seem to be much ambiguity here,” he said. “(The charge) should have been dismissed earlier.”
|
|
|
Post by campy on Nov 29, 2021 10:31:40 GMT -5
Stay tuned. There's more to come. There is a charge against Dominick Black who bought the weapon for Rittenhouse. That's covered in the statutes as a strawman purchase. That trial will come up in January. The defense tried to get that dismissed as well but the judge refused so it will go to trial. It's a serious charge because the weapon caused deaths. My opinion is that there will be a plea bargain so he doesn't go to jail. I'm not in favor of teenagers wearing their hats on backwards and thinking they are 'cool' roaming around at 2 a.m. after a curfew had been declared. That's how he described the gun. His mother thought he was buying a hunting rifle. They couldn't prosecute the curfew law because of another loophole dealing with who announced it. The U.S. is a lawyer's heaven.
|
|
|
Post by wildbill on Nov 29, 2021 19:58:10 GMT -5
In my opinion. Self defense against someone armed is easy to satisfy. But he shot an unarmed man four times. In my opinion, the judge in this case was biased for the defense. The kid got away with murder. No different than O.J. Simpson. This is something I have always had trouble understanding, this idea that you can't use a gun to defend yourself unless your opponent is armed. Rittenhouse was lying on the street with a guy kicking him in the head and smashing him with a skateboard. This is more than enough to kill him. Myself, I would have done the same thing to defend myself. His attackers were animals, not human beings. Kyle Rittenhouse's life was worth more than his attackers'. Wild Bill
|
|