Kenosha Shooter Kyle Rittenhouse

[Irreligious Atheist]

Fair enough. Maybe he shouldn't have been carrying a gun going into a riot.

And maybe he shouldn't have been trying to intimidate people with it 

 At the same time, I can understand the frustration of so many that the police are being told to stand down and let the rioters burn down cities and businesses, that young guys like this get to thinking that they have to do the police's job for them because the police are not allowed to do their job for political reasons or whatever.

Lol no

I doubt the young man thought that the rioters would be suicidal and dumb enough to try to disarm him, though.

Smart no . Understandable wanting get a gun away from a potential lunatic yes 

 It takes a special kind of stupid to try to disarm someone like that. 

Smart no . Understandable wanting get a gun away from a potential lunatic yes 

And even if he did think there was a good chance something like this could happen, that still shouldn't matter when it comes to the law I don't think. 

Yes it very much does 

He either rightfully defended himself, or he broke the law and had no right to fire those shots. 

He didn't 

He appeared to be acting lawfully, at least in the video that I saw.

Nope he was a loon who was just there to stir up trouble and when it got to intense he pussied out and killed some people like a punk . His ass belongs in jail .

You said a couple of pages ago that it wasn't smart for the first person to try to grab his gun, but that it wasn't wrong either. It most certainly was wrong, because if they hadn't done it, they'd likely still be alive, as would the second person that he shot. If they thought based on his demenor that he might shoot someone, then you get the heck out of dodge. You don't grab at a firearm. That's suicide. If he pointed the gun at the person for no reason, and in the heat of the moment they tried to take it, I'd be on that guys side. If the others weren't chasing him and trying to knock him out, I'd be on their side as well, but that doesn't appear to be what happened. You don't get to grab someone's gun just because you see them as intimidating.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You said a couple of pages ago that it wasn't smart for the first person to try to grab his gun,

It wasn't 

 but that it wasn't wrong either.

It wasn't 

 It most certainly was wrong,

It wasn't 

 because if they hadn't done it, they'd likely still be alive,

No he's dead because Rittenhouse was there and shot him 

 as would the second person that he shot. 

No he's dead because Rittenhouse was there and shot him 

If they thought based on his demenor that he might shoot someone, then you get the heck out of dodge.

Or you confront him before he kills someone 

 You don't grab at a firearm. That's suicide. 

You do if the alternative is letting a potential killer wander around threatening people 

If he pointed the gun at the person for no reason, and in the heat of the moment they tried to take it, I'd be on that guys side. 

Rittenhouse was intimidating people with his gun and that's a fact 

If the others weren't chasing him and trying to knock him out, I'd be on their side as well, but that doesn't appear to be what happened. 

They chased him because they were sick of his shit and the pussy run because his tough guy routine backfired 

You don't get to grab someone's gun just because you see them as intimidating.

You do if he's using it to intimidate people and you believe he's a threat .

[Irreligious Atheist]

You said a couple of pages ago that it wasn't smart for the first person to try to grab his gun,

It wasn't 

 but that it wasn't wrong either.

It wasn't 

 It most certainly was wrong,

It wasn't 

 because if they hadn't done it, they'd likely still be alive,

No he's dead because Rittenhouse was there and shot him 

 as would the second person that he shot. 

No he's dead because Rittenhouse was there and shot him 

If they thought based on his demenor that he might shoot someone, then you get the heck out of dodge.

Or you confront him before he kills someone 

 You don't grab at a firearm. That's suicide. 

You do if the alternative is letting a potential killer wander around threatening people 

If he pointed the gun at the person for no reason, and in the heat of the moment they tried to take it, I'd be on that guys side. 

Rittenhouse was intimidating people with his gun and that's a fact 

If the others weren't chasing him and trying to knock him out, I'd be on their side as well, but that doesn't appear to be what happened. 

They chased him because they were sick of his shit and the pussy run because his tough guy routine backfired 

You don't get to grab someone's gun just because you see them as intimidating.

You do if he's using it to intimidate people and you believe he's a threat .

So giving him a legit reason to shoot you is better than letting him walk around threatening people? Threats are just threats. No one needs to die because of a threat. And basically anyone open carrying a gun can be seen as intimidating, depending on who you ask. When all the pro gun people have their open carry rallies, they are called intimidating and compared to terrorists and called far right gun nuts. But guess what almost never happens at those rallies? Shots are almost never fired. I wonder why that is? It's almost like it's safer having all those guns around, being carried out in the open.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So giving him a legit reason to shoot you is better than letting him walk around threatening people?

It wasn't legitimate 

 Threats are just threats. 

Threats are a serious matter that require action 

No one needs to die because of a threat. 

Your right Rittenhouse should not have shot him nor provoke the incident in the first place 

And basically anyone open carrying a gun can be seen as intimidating,

Accept he was actively trying to intimidate people with it 

 depending on who you ask.

No actively trying to intimidate people is intimidating,

 When all the pro gun people have their open carry rallies, they are called intimidating and compared to terrorists and called far right gun nuts.

Not the same as those people are not actively using those guns to intimidate people 

 But guess what almost never happens at those rallies? Shots are almost never fired. I wonder why that is? It's almost like it's safer having all those guns around, being carried out in the open.

Guns don't make anyone safer that a fact if they did then the US should be a crime free utopia by now . The fact one kind of event does not spark a mass shooting does not defend this point

[popeyespappy]

I think it is unlikely Kyle Rittenhouse will be convicted of murder. A significant portion of the US population considers him to be hero. The chances are pretty good at least one of those people is going to end up on the jury. If one of them does the prosecution is going to have a hard time convincing them to vote guilty.  

Legally speaking Rittenhouse can’t claim self defense because he was committing another crime when he shot Joseph Rosenbaum. It is a misdemeanor for a 17 year old to be carrying a gun in public like he was. That isn’t going to stop his defense team from arguing that it was self defense though. They are going to try to make a case that it is wrong to send a 17 year old to jail for the rest of his life for doing something that an 18 year old would be allowed to do.

Whether or not it actually was self defense is going to hinge on what happened immediately before Rosenbaum started chasing Rittenhouse through the parking lot. If Rittenhouse initiated the aggression he was wrong, but it is pretty clear he was trying to disengage from the situation. In some places that is all it takes to allow for self defense. In others everything that happens after the initial aggression is the fault of the person that initiated it. I'm not sure where Wisconsin law says about that issue. And no, just walking around with a rifle doesn’t qualify as aggressive behavior. Once again, if Rittenhouse had been 18 years old walking around with a rifle is legal, and it doesn’t in and of itself constitute aggressive behavior.

In any case the defense team is going to argue Rosenbaum initiated the aggression. They going to show the jury videos of how Rittenhouse spent much of the day. The jury going to see him interacting non aggressively with others. Interviews with the press. Being thanked by the police for being there. Cleaning graffiti off walls.

Then then the jury is going to see a video of a highly agitated Joseph Rosenbaum shouting, “Shoot me n***a!” at a group of armed men. This will be followed with a video of Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot throwing something at him. A chase that ended with Rosenbaum getting shot.

They might even be told Rosenbaum was a pedophile who spent 12 years in prison for molesting two children and had an extensive history of violence again others.

They are also going to hear an audio clip recorded at the scene of a witness to the shooting saying someone other than Rittenhouse fired the first shots. Someone armed with a handgun. They are going to say Rittenhouse stopped running when someone else starting shooting then shot Rosenbaum after Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse’s rifle.

What happened after that isn’t even going to matter. If the jury buys into the self defense claim for the first shooting the next two people that got shot are going to be self defense too.

Huber doesn’t get shot until after he hit Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard.



He won't shoot Gaige Grosskreutz



until after Grosskreutz pulls a gun.



Kyle Rittenhouse was an idiot. His choices led to the deaths of two people. Convincing 12 people it was murder, especially if an 18 year old could have gotten away with it, is going to be an uphill battle for the prosecution though.

[Rev. Rye]

Okay, I just checked because my bullshit alarms were going off when I.A. claimed that trying to disarm a shooter was justifiable grounds for homicide. Turns out that if the guy with the gun was reasonably convinced the disarmer was going to use that gun on him, then it would be justifiable. If not, then it wasn’t. And if you carry a gun around illegally (like, say, if you were a 17-year-old kid carrying around an AR-15 that you just shot some guy with), you probably don’t even have that justification. At least not in the eyes of the law.

[onlinebiker]

Okay, I just checked because my bullshit alarms were going off when I.A. claimed that trying to disarm a shooter was justifiable grounds for homicide. Turns out that if the guy with the gun was reasonably convinced the disarmer was going to use that gun on him, then it would be justifiable. If not, then it wasn’t. And if you carry a gun around illegally (like, say, if you were a 17-year-old kid carrying around an AR-15 that you just shot some guy with), you probably don’t even have that justification. At least not in the eyes of the law.i

Point of law - 

It is NOT illegal for a 17 year old to carry or otherwise be in possession of a firearm.


It is illegal for them to PURCHASE one.

[popeyespappy]

Okay, I just checked because my bullshit alarms were going off when I.A. claimed that trying to disarm a shooter was justifiable grounds for homicide. Turns out that if the guy with the gun was reasonably convinced the disarmer was going to use that gun on him, then it would be justifiable. If not, then it wasn’t. And if you carry a gun around illegally (like, say, if you were a 17-year-old kid carrying around an AR-15 that you just shot some guy with), you probably don’t even have that justification. At least not in the eyes of the law.i

Point of law - 

It is NOT illegal for a 17 year old to carry or otherwise be in possession of a firearm.


It is illegal for them to PURCHASE one.

I believe that in Wisconsin a 17 year has to be accompanied by an adult to legally be in possession of a gun unless they are hunting and have passed a hunter's safety course.

[Rev. Rye]

Here's the law on minors and guns for Wisconsin:

Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

Full text here, with additional links to the actual statutes.

Also, since he's an Illinoisan, here's the law for that state as well.

Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun.1 State law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any person under age 18.2

However, Illinois also prohibits individuals from possessing firearms if they do not hold a FOID card,3 and prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to a person who does not hold a FOID card.4

You'll notice that none of these conditions for gun use apply to Rittenhouse, since he was under 18 and was not hunting in any legal sense of the word.

[onlinebiker]

Here's the law on minors and guns for Wisconsin:

Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

Full text here, with additional links to the actual statutes.

Also, since he's an Illinoisan, here's the law for that state as well.

Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun.1 State law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any person under age 18.2

However, Illinois also prohibits individuals from possessing firearms if they do not hold a FOID card,3 and prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to a person who does not hold a FOID card.4

You'll notice that none of these conditions for gun use apply to Rittenhouse, since he was under 18 and was not hunting in any legal sense of the word.

I stand corrected.

I assumed the law was the same in Wisconsin as Michigan and Illinois - allowing those under 18 to possess long guns (but not handguns).

One of those state by state things. Federal law does not prohibit underage ownership....