The Rittenhouse incident

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  2 months ago  •  111 comments


The Rittenhouse incident
“I just killed somebody”

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17-year old Antioch, Ill., resident whom prosecutors have accused of fatally shooting two men & wounding another amid violent protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
A judge will decide at a hearing on Sept. 25 whether Mr. Rittenhouse will be extradited to Wisconsin, where he would be tried as an adult. Mr. Rittenhouse could face life in prison if convicted of first-degree intentional homicide.

Last night we heard from Kyle's attorney. The incident sounds like a case of self defense and his attorney seems to be using film/evidence from the New York Times - It seems that Kyle was guarding a store when he was chased by a mob and shot at.

This is that side of the story courtesy of Tucker Carlson:




In another video taken Tuesday by Richard McGinniss (the Daily Caller), Rittenhouse is explaining why he was there earlier that night -  “People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people”. ....Kyle Rittenhouse.

As with all of these riots police were either nowhere to be found or obviously ordered to stand down as the mayhem continued. Oddly enough, in this case - the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and the national ACLU called for the immediate resignation of Kenosha Police Chief Daniel Miskinis and Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth over their response to Tuesday night’s shooting. The ACLU only wants protection for rioters it would seem.

I believe Wisconsin has an open carry law. Store owners have a need to protect their businesses, so on it goes.

This is still a developing story.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Vic Eldred
1  author  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

I warned our friends on the left that this was coming!

Thoughts?


Trump and his supporters are off topic

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago
I warned our friends on the left that this was coming!

Yea, who could have ever figured out his Defense Attorney would claim self defense...?

From the videos i saw, the latter shootings could be deemed as such, but, all contingent on what sparked initial confrontation.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    2 months ago

It's always good to have a video that starts with where the incident really began. This time they may have one, from a strange source as well.

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago

It seems like whenever there is a video, we only see 'part' of it. It's usually the aftermath of what happened.  We never seem to see what happened before that. 

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Kathleen @1.1.2    2 months ago
It seems like whenever there is a video, we only see 'part' of it.

So true. That was what was so good about Police cameras. I read somewhere that since the Police have been wearing them, complaints of police misconduct have dropped. That could either be the Police acting differently or we are finally getting to see the entire incident from the beginning. I suspect it's the latter. No more cell phone videos beginning after the cop has been assaulted or spat upon!

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    2 months ago

Agreed, lets be fair and see the whole story.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.1.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    2 months ago

256

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

You warned? LOL. 

Rittenhouse is explaining why he was there earlier that night - “People are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business, and part of my job is to also help people”.....Kyle Rittenhouse.

He didnt have a job. He's not police or national guard, and he's 17 years old. He was at the very minimum violating curfew.  Did the protesters have a "job" on the scene? 

Rittenhouse was illegally carrying that gun. He is charged with it and the lawyer in the video admits as much when he mentions a Wisconsin law that he says is "unconstitutional". An "unconstitutional" law is still a law and Rittenhouse has been charged. 

Rittenhouse was not guarding a building as he said was his job when the protesters chased him toward that parking lot. He was instigating himself into the protest out of his own sense of self importance.  The lawyer says in the video that the police line had moved and was now in position to protect the building. Rittenhouse was without a "job" at that point and instead of going home he went toward the protesters to instigate himself into the protest. Carrying a long gun. 

No one shot at Rittenhouse. The shot was up into the air.  

The prosecutor's will lay out their case and I am quite sure it will be different than John Pierce's take. 

By the way, is the far right lawyer John Pierce the QAnon guy who is representing Rittenhouse, or the partner of the QAnon guy ? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    2 months ago
He's not police or national guard, and he's 17 years old.

Then why put him on trial as an adult?


He was at the very minimum violating curfew.

What about the animals who were rioting?


Did the protesters have a "job" on the scene? 

Good question. I wonder if they are being paid? I believe the government is taking a good hard look at that.


Rittenhouse was illegally carrying that gun.

You have to prove that, John.


Rittenhouse was not guarding a building as he said was his job when the protesters chased him toward that parking lot. He was instigating himself into the protest out of his own sense of self importance.  

His lawyer said he was putting out fires and that's what enraged the leftist mob.


No one shot at Rittenhouse. The shot was up into the air.  

Sort of a warning shot?  How did you come to that conclusion?


The prosecutor's will lay out their case and I am quite sure it will be different than John Pierce's take. 

Of course it will. Then a jury will have to decide.


By the way, is the far right lawyer John Pierce the QAnon guy who is representing Rittenhouse, or the partner of the QAnon guy ? 

Sorry, I don't know much about QAnon. I don't waste my time watching CNN.

He is a lawyer. That's what matters.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
1.2.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    2 months ago
The shot was up into the air.

Not agreeing or disagreeing here. I'm just pointing out that what goes up, must come down and when shots are fired in the air, who the hell knows where it's coming down. It could kill an innocent person in the neighborhood 1/2 a mile away. Yes, chances are slim, but let's be real too... discharge of a firearm is illegal within city limits anyways. And yes... they're all guilty of that in some way, including that 17 year old.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 months ago

Most 17 year olds charged with murder are tried as an adult. It would take very mitigating circumstances for a murder charge to be juvenile. 

The rioters were subject to curfew too, of course. 

He is charged in the indictment with illegally carrying a gun.  Take your complaint up with the Wisconsin prosecutors, who probably know their law better than John Pierce does. 

There will be witnesses who will say that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at them and made inflammatory comments such as I could shoot you. 

I dont know why the shot was fired straight up into the air, but that was in a NYT account of what happened. 

Rittenhouse has two lawyers as of a day or two ago, one of them is known QAnon because he has their slogan in his twitter profile. The other one is his partner on this case. Both of them, including Pierce, are far right politically. 

I dont believe you dont know anything about QAnon. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    2 months ago

By the way Vic, have you seen the video of Rittenhouse beating up a girl earlier this summer?  It was posted here yesterday.  That will be an interesting addition to his "character witnessing" . 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.2.5  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.3    2 months ago

Top secret alien pedophiles are opening pizza joints all over.

Is this the end of America?

Should Chucky Cheese be investigated?

Stay tuned to Days of our Newstalkers......

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.2.5    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.7  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.3    2 months ago
Take your complaint up with the Wisconsin prosecutors

What complaint?


There will be witnesses who will say that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at them and made inflammatory comments such as I could shoot you. 

And I'm sure there will be some of those bearing false testimony, just as in the Michael Brown case, but things have a way of sorting themselves out. We had a lot of radical leftists on the scene. On the other hand is the film footage, which is objective.


I dont know why the shot was fired straight up into the air, but that was in a NYT account of what happened. 

I'm sure that Kyle felt reassured at that moment.


Rittenhouse has two lawyers as of a day or two ago, one of them is known QAnon because he has their slogan in his twitter profile. The other one is his partner on this case. Both of them, including Pierce, are far right politically. 

Do you object to lawyers having political views?   I don't recall your indignation over the Mueller team.


I dont believe you dont know anything about QAnon. 

I'm sure you think that I'm the founder of the organization, as your statement sort of implies.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
1.2.8  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.6    2 months ago

The entire media pitched a fake Russian collusion hoax narrative and got busted. You bit hook line and sinker.

No one believes fake news more than you do. You still believe it even after its been debunked 10 times over.

The Q has nothing on you.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.9  r.t..b...  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @1.2.2    2 months ago
discharge of a firearm is illegal within city limits anyways. And yes... they're all guilty of that in some way, including that 17 year old

In AZ they enacted 'Shannon's Law' after a 14 -year old was killed by a stray bullet fired recklessly, but that is rather immaterial to the discussion at hand. And yes, they are all culpable to some extent, though murder will trump any argument in attempting to conflate the damage done to property in these protests...and not to diminish that in any way. Break the law and let the system run it's course.

Due process should never be denied to any alleged perpetrator, whether by LEOs or more importantly, at the hands of a confused 17-year old. That some, much less our POTUS, are spending any time and effort in defending the murder of two citizens by another citizen shows just how far the divisions have been sown.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.2.8    2 months ago
The entire media pitched a fake Russian collusion hoax narrative and got busted.

Are you saying the Russians are involved with BLM protests???

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.4    2 months ago
By the way Vic, have you seen the video of Rittenhouse beating up a girl earlier this summer? 

No, but you mentioned it yesterday, that was the first time I heard it.


That will be an interesting addition to his "character witnessing" . 

Actually, it won't. Defense attorneys religiously keep previous, unrelated matters out of the trial. It works for thugs, so I assume it applies here as well.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.2.8    2 months ago

Because it wasnt in Gateway Pundit, you may not know that the US Senate concluded that Paul Manafort, Trumps campaign manager at the time, colluded with a Russian agent named Kilimnik passing the agent material that could be used to interfere in the American election. 

One of the great disappointments of the Mueller Report is that it fails to provide narrative closure after building so much anticipation for the Kilimnik story line. Mueller did not fully explain why Manafort’s relationship with his Ukraine-based adviser so bothered his prosecutors. Why had Manafort passed along the documents? And what did the oligarchs want with them?

The committee fills in the gaps somewhat. It reports that Manafort and Kilimnik talked almost daily during the campaign. They communicated through encrypted technologies set to automatically erase their correspondence; they spoke using code words and shared access to an email account. It’s worth pausing on these facts: The chairman of the Trump campaign was in daily contact with a Russian agent, constantly sharing confidential information with him. That alone makes for one of the worst scandals in American political history.

The significant revelation of the document is that Kilimnik was likely a participant in the Kremlin scheme to hack and leak Clinton campaign emails. Furthermore, Kilimnik kept in close contact with the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, a former client of Manafort’s. The report also indicates that Deripaska was connected to his government’s hacking efforts. This fact is especially suggestive: Deripaska had accused Manafort of stealing money from him, and Manafort hoped to repair his relationship with the oligarch. Was Manafort passing information to him, through Kilimnik, for the sake of currying favor with an old patron?

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/russiagate-wasnt-a-hoax/615373/
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.2.8    2 months ago

There are 60 days or so left until the election. Time to get your fake news operation into high gear BF. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
1.2.14  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.9    2 months ago
but that is rather immaterial to the discussion at hand

I was replying to JR's statement that Rittenhouse wasn't shot at; that the person shot straight into the air. Even if that is the case, it's illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. Yes, there are circumstances in which one would have to protect themselves, their home, or their family; however, when a firearm is discharged, the person that discharged said gun within city limits [even if it's in their own home], they're taken into custody and their gun confiscated until a full investigation is performed and is deemed as self-defense. Trust me... a friend of mine, a legally carrying adult had to go through that process and once the investigation was complete, he got his gun back and charges dropped... because it was deemed that he was defending himself. He lost his gun and carry license for 2 months during that investigation and had a stay at the local jail for the first couple nights.

This KID should never have gone there in the first place. That's my opinion. Where were his parents? I have a 19, 17, and 12 year old under my roof. You think for one minute I don't know where they are and what they're doing? That's called being a parent. They know gun laws because my husband and I have taught them.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.15  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.3    2 months ago

It is more common than you think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_killers

Let me know if this does't work.  I have never inserted a link before.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2    2 months ago

Killer Rittenhouse is being charged with two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.  I don't see how the hell anyone could see what this killer did as self defense.  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.17  Jasper2529  replied to  Release The Kraken @1.2.8    2 months ago

On a different site, some people are still insisting that Schiff has "proof" of those pee videos!

 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.18  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.16    2 months ago

He is innocent till proven guilty so right now he is innocent.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.2.19  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MUVA @1.2.18    2 months ago

Riitenhouse ? or the guy gettin Pppp'd upon

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.20  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.9    2 months ago
discharge of a firearm is illegal within city limits anyways.

And that is usually ( not always) waived if someone does so to protect ones life.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.20    2 months ago
We see the word "bravery" thrown around a lot.
You want to know what bravery looks like? Attacking a cold-blooded MURDERER armed with an AR-15 after you just saw him shoot someone in the head... and all you have is a skateboard.
Bravery, Hero, everything that can be said about someone who puts their life on the line to save others. A First Responder HERO!
Bravery looks like this.
Was on a train today overhearing conversation where folks were saying Rittenhouse was a hero, protecting his property from rioters trying to steal from him. Sickened. There are two narratives. One is reality, the other is distorted crap that half of America is willing to believe without question. I am disheartened, how deceived and divided America is.
We send prayers of comfort of the two slain victim-heroes to their families, friends and communities. Their lives mattered too!
Take your rest   #JojoRosenbaum   and   #AnthonyHuber !
118724573_789450588548876_112832404363717752_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=sg8g7WG8_n0AX-enh6d&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&tp=7&oh=40d1ca0f5a548305bb1a72c5c0eacaeb&oe=5F74C29F
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.22  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @1.2.21    2 months ago

I call that stupidity , not bravery, The ONLY real option and authority the last 2 had was keep eyes on him and guide the cops to him , funny how the kid was going directly to the cops without being attacked in the first place, the cops not doing anything is on the cops .

 that guy was shot through the heart , and he is the only one to blame( Thanx Bon jovi , it fits perfect) for that coupled with the actions the retarded , time out generational  temper tantrum throwing dumfuck.

 Your welcome for the still photo, notice anything about it? 

Instead of trying to pummel/bludgen  the kid , his weapon is underneath and behind him, why did the moron not just land on him , trap the rifle under both of them so it was unusable ? oh he was too caught up in his emotions and couldnt use his words other than explatives and had to get the aggression and anger out in a beat down, yeah he is dead , and still a dumb fuck. no sympathy OR empathy for him.

Lesson and warning I think Vic was talking about is , people will get real tired of this sort of shit , and they will take measures to mitigate and stop the damage and destruction , and if they are threatened with bodily harm , they will likely respond to violence with greater violence , so if peoples little chicklets want to go out on a wilding and act like destructive little temper tantrum throwing little fucktrophys , this can happen to them as well , thats something to keep in mind it all depends on how fed up the person they cross actually is .

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.23  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @1.2.22    2 months ago

So you're blaming the victim of a killer for his killing.  Got it.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
1.2.24  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @1.2.23    2 months ago

the dumb fuck did that to himself the second he thought he could use physical brute force against a rifle.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

stick him in general population until the trial. problem solved.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.3    2 months ago

Sounds like to wish him ill or should I say death?

 
 
 
devangelical
1.3.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.1    2 months ago

he's young, he'll need to interact and make some friends on the inside, just in case he doesn't get pardoned.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.3.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.3.2    2 months ago
I dont believe you dont know anything about QAnon. 

You've already got him convicted. I suppose that's how it's done in Beijing.

 
 
 
Sparty On
2  Sparty On    2 months ago

And the plot thickens.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3  Sunshine    2 months ago

He may be in trouble for an open carry under 18, other than that self-defense looks plausible.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sunshine @3    2 months ago

His attorney said he was covered as a 17 year old under Wisconsin state law, furthermore he claimed rights under the Second Amendment, Title 10, Section 246 US Code.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 months ago

Makes sense.  He was with adults.  I would hope they would not give him a gun if he was underage.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    2 months ago

By the way, the lawyer says Rittenhouse and his friends were asked to protect some business.  If I read right in another article I don't think Rittenhouse knew the other militimen he ended up with , let alone was their friend. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.1.3  Release The Kraken  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.1    2 months ago

You can join the military at 17, so why would one need permission to use a gun or carry one at 17?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    2 months ago
the lawyer says Rittenhouse and his friends were asked to protect some business. 

Yup, that's what I heard too!


 If I read right in another article I don't think Rittenhouse knew the other militimen he ended up with , let alone was their friend. 

What does that have to do with protecting a store?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
3.1.5  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Release The Kraken @3.1.3    2 months ago

Good question. In MI, one must be 21 to purchase a gun, tobacco, or alcohol.... but an 18 year old can join the military or the police academy right out of high school. Someone can purchase a long gun or a shot gun for a minor, which is intended for hunting purposes, but they cannot purchase themselves. 

Maybe we should all start carrying cross and compound bows. No one can complain that it's a gun problem anymore.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.6  Sunshine  replied to  Release The Kraken @3.1.3    2 months ago

Agree, just saying what the law maybe for Wisconsin.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Release The Kraken @3.1.3    2 months ago

You have to be 18 to join on your own.   Parental consent is required below that.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
3.1.8  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.7    2 months ago

And you still have to have graduated high school or gotten a GED.

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
3.2  Duck Hawk  replied to  Sunshine @3    2 months ago

the video tucker showed is only the last half of what was recorded. He was running from a "Mob: because he has just shoot and killed someone. they were trying to stop him. After all "Kenosha's Finest" let him walk through the police lines and they still wouldn't arrest him. There is video of him running up the street with people behind him pointing and yell to police that he had killed someone further up the block. That is not self defense.  Pay close attention to what happens at 1:38 in video...

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/08/27/kenosha-protest-shooting-video-jacob-blake-omar-jimenez-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Duck Hawk @3.2    2 months ago

Because he killed someone doesn't make it murder and a mob yelling it certainly doesn't make it murder either.

I bet none of them knew exactly what happened.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.2.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Duck Hawk @3.2    2 months ago

The video where Kyle was 1st assaulted by Left-wing cucks. I'm willing to bet something else will come out. The 1st attack sets the stage for the defense.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @3    2 months ago
other than that self-defense looks plausible.

How so?  He "heard" a gunshot.  In your mind that allows him to randomly shoot 3 people nearby in "self defense"?  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.3.1  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3    2 months ago

How do you know what he heard and all that happened?  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.3.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3    2 months ago

Two of those (although the jury is yet to be finished) were the skate board wielding dumbass that attacked him along with an "innocent observer" of that attack with a gun in his sock.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
3.3.3  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3    2 months ago
him to randomly shoot

Nothing random about it. He defended himself from Alt-left agitators who were trying to harm him. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.3.4  Sunshine  replied to  KDMichigan @3.3.3    2 months ago
He defended himself from Alt-left agitators who were trying to harm him. 

When you try to grab a gun out of someone's hand chances are you will not succeed.  Who would even approach someone and try and do such a stupid thing?  If he would have left the kid alone, he could have gone home to riot another day.

Big mistake on the agitators part.  A tragedy all around.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.3.5  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3    2 months ago
He "heard" a gunshot.  In your mind that allows him to randomly shoot 3 people

  Can you please explain why deceased was chasing Rittenhouse, then beating him and attempting to take his firearm? The shooting was not  random, if the person is dumb enough to chase, attack and try and take a weapon he unfortunately got what he deserved.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.3.6  Sparty On  replied to  gooseisgone @3.3.5    2 months ago

They've generally been embolden by law enforcements milktoast response to their lawlessness but i agree.

The picture of stupidity going after someone armed with an AR.   Clearly not the fastest puppies in the litter.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3.3.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @3.3    2 months ago
In your mind that allows him to randomly shoot 3 people nearby in "self defense"? 

If you are being threatened, run away, hear a gunshot behind you, and turn around and one of your pursuers tries to grab your gun, it's certainly feasible for a jury to believe it's self defense.

 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4  Jasper2529    2 months ago

I watched this interview, and it portrayed a very different view from what MSM has "reported". In its usual rush to accuse, condemn, and try someone before investigating and verifying all of the information, MSM once again provided us with shoddy journalism.  

I believe Wisconsin has an open carry law. 

According to the lawyer, yes, and it's also legal for a 17-year-old to own a gun.

We've seen other cases where media rushed to judgement, so perhaps some people should learn from those costly mistakes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @4    2 months ago
In its usual rush to accuse, condemn, and try someone before investigating and verifying all of the information, MSM once again provided us with shoddy journalism.  

Is that all it is?

Authoritarian regimes know that repeating a lie over and over will eventually register as truth for some. How many Americans believe Micheal Brown had his hands up when shot?

 
 
 
Account Deleted
4.1.1  Account Deleted  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 months ago
Authoritarian regimes know that repeating a lie over and over will eventually register as truth for some.

Finally we can agree on something.

Remind me again - what country was Obama born in?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 months ago
How many Americans believe Micheal Brown had his hands up when shot?

I'd guess that anyone who is anti-police does. Michael Brown's family, along with others, attended George Floyd's funeral in "solidarity", even though the circumstances of their loved ones' deaths were vastly different from Mr. Floyd's.

Family members of other black people killed by police officers were also in attendance, including relatives of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Ahmaud Arbery and Eric Garner.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-floyd-funeral-burial-houston

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Account Deleted @4.1.1    2 months ago

As the entire American media told us - the US. No media lie on that one.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.2    2 months ago

There is solidarity in certain quarters for anyone killed by the police - regardless of the circumstances.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.1.2    2 months ago
by police officers were also in attendance, including relatives of Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin wasn't even killed by police. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
4.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Jasper2529 @4    2 months ago

It is legal in WI for a 17 year old to "own" a long gun / rifle, or shot gun, but cannot purchase as a minor (in MI, it's 21 I believe). However, the intention is that said minor is using said long gun / rifle or shotgun for hunting purposes and it's possible that even if he doesn't get charged with murder, he still could get charged with illegal discharge of a firearm within city limits.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @4.2    2 months ago

The only thing that 17 y.o. pisha was hunting were victims.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
4.2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.1    2 months ago

Love the word pisha! 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
4.2.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.1    2 months ago

Exactly. So... he was not doing anything legal [not like you need a long gun / rifle at 17 in the city limits... not allowed to hunt in the city]. I never said that wasn't his intention. I'm simply stating facts. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @4.2.2    2 months ago

I forget what movie I stole it from.

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2.5  Gsquared  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.4    2 months ago

It's "pisher".  It's Yiddish.  It's what Jews call their kids when they are scolding or teasing them.  Like: "You little pisher."  I would know.  I heard it enough growing up!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.5    2 months ago

I know that.  I just don't remember what movie I heard it in.

 
 
 
Account Deleted
5  Account Deleted    2 months ago

Wisconsin has no stand your ground law - just a Castle Doctrine type of law which would protect you to some extent if you were defending your own property - not necessarily the property of others. 

Some early reports seem puzzling. Supposedly he was part of a group of armed "militia" protecting a car lot. Why didn't they help him out if he was being chased? More information is needed. I'm sure more cell phone videos will show up.

So the only recourse is through the courts.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
6  Release The Kraken    2 months ago

The autopsy shows he shot the pedophile in the groin and that shattered the pelvis. Irony.

 
 
 
Duck Hawk
7  Duck Hawk    2 months ago

Kraken, there you go again with your support for extrajudicial killings in America. Whats next open support for lynchings?

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
7.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  Duck Hawk @7    2 months ago

Alex, Things no one said for 200?

(hopefully its a daily double)
 
 
 
zuksam
8  zuksam    2 months ago

While I don't think it was a good idea for him to even be there much less carry a firearm it's still self defense. He made a lot of mistakes as 17 year old's tend to do. It was a bad idea for him to go there. It was a bad idea for him to bring a gun. It was a bad idea for him to leave the property he was protecting and the group that was there. It was a bad idea for him to think he could act as a security guard against rioters and a medic for injured rioters at the same time, pick a side pick one job and try to do it well. So he made many bad decisions but he didn't break any Laws. He was attacked and he had no choice at that time but to defend himself, he is a dumbass but not a murderer. To me the whole situation was foreseeable. If I had met him before he went there and he told me where and what he was going to do I would have told him "don't go there because you don't walk through a crowd of thieves with a $1000.00 dollar bill in your hands (the value of his gun on the black market), they will try to take it and these criminals know what they're doing one will distract you while another bashes you in the head with a brick. I would have also told him he had no legal protection to act as a armed security guard or a medic, no insurance, no legal authority or employer to take the brunt of any legal claims against him should things go wrong. There's no arguing he's a dumbass who has written a new book on stupid shit you shouldn't do but he still had the right to defend himself and if making bad decisions is now a crime then that's a crime most of the people on the street that night are guilty of.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  zuksam @8    2 months ago

I don't doubt that he might get off because both killings were a little murky.  But that hardly makes him innocent. He was in a a volatile situation  trying to be a badass. Both of the people he killed were unarmed. He can put that on his mantle next to the video of him beating up a girl a few weeks ago. This kid is off to a horrible start in life. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    2 months ago
Both of the people he killed were unarmed.

As were the 24 people killed at the hands of the violent mobs since May.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/07/30/24-people-killed-george-floyd-riots-protests/

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    2 months ago

It’s pretty much a Rorschach test on your view of the legitimacy of riots. What you think about the riots probably determines if you Think the kid was acting in self defense. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8.1.2    2 months ago

Although he was carrying an illegal gun, and thus had no right to be on those streets, if he had stayed in one place in front of the building he said it was his "job" to protect one could at least say he served some purpose. When he started wandering around and instigating himself into the protest he was begging for trouble. 

He's not an innocent person in all this. The law will decide if he belongs in prison. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.4  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    2 months ago
he was begging for trouble. 

From the moment he logged on to a site recruiting vigilantes. From the moment he took a weapon out of the closet and loaded it. From the moment he got into a car and drove across state lines directly into an obviously volatile situation. From the moment he justified all the previous moments in thinking he had some legal right and responsibility to protect others people's property. From the moment he hit the streets wandering about with a locked and loaded long rifle.

And sadly, all those ill-informed impulses culminated in a tragedy no one should deny or attempt to defend in the moment he pulled the trigger. At least he will get his moment in court

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9  author  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Allow police to put down violent protests and you won't have vigilantes trying to do what police should be doing!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10  Mark in Wyoming     2 months ago

256256

So much  for the unarmed claim about 2 that got shot.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10    2 months ago

Oh boy! Mark, you did your research!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
10.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10    2 months ago

Both people he killed were unarmed.   A skateboard in your hand does not constitute being armed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2    2 months ago

Used to fracture someone's skull, clearly turns it into a weapon. Look at that picture.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @10.2    2 months ago
 A skateboard in your hand does not constitute being armed. 

swinging it as a bludgoning melee weapon with intent to disable , DOES make it being armed  as dipicted in the still of the video, or would you rather he picked up a pipe off the street and used it? Either way he is caught in the act of physical battery.

 I would say the one with the skateboard made a very POOR choice of weapons for the actions he chose to partake , the proverbial knife to a gun fight thing, only this is actually worse.

 and how do you think a jury would view that image with no spin? Im looking at it as a potential juror. as i have the whole time, ignoring all the spin.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
10.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.2    2 months ago
A skateboard in your hand does not constitute being armed.

It does if it connects your hand action to his head.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
10.2.4  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.2.2    2 months ago

That's a new phrase... don't bring a skateboard to a gunfight. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.2.5  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @10.2.4    2 months ago

unless one plans to use it to vacate the area....

and bowels

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @10.2.4    2 months ago

That's a new phrase... don't bring a skateboard to a gunfight.

Y knot ? If your coordinated , you can carry a gun while riding your skateboard to the Gunfight.

It's a Green Friendly way to arrive.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.2.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.2.6    2 months ago

Unfortunately , none of the 3 except the kenosha kid could legally be in posession of a gun , the other 3 were all convicted felons , thus prohibitted by law from having or even TOUCHING one , such as to try to take action to disarm someone that does have a firearm.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
10.2.8  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.2.7    2 months ago

personally, i believe the mother should share some blame, as he was too damn young to be put in this type of situation by himself. Need to see what happened to initiate the first shots before i can declare  self defense myself.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.2.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  igknorantzrulz @10.2.8    2 months ago

COC will not let someone link  to another NT article on someone elses article , but rest assured there is an article , with video , that shows going into the parking lot before the first shots are fired , and goes all the way to the end where the kid tries to get the cops attention after the last 2 were shot. all 3 shootings , one video.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.2.1    2 months ago

He didn't fracture the killer Rittenhouse's skull, did he?

NO HE DIDN'T.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.2.11  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @10.2.10    2 months ago

still on video trying to beat the Kenosha kid into submission, Like i said i think he chose a pissah poor improvised weapon to arm himself with , at least STUMPY , had the forethought to arm himself with something equivalent , even if he could not legally do so.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.2.11    2 months ago

NOPE.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10    2 months ago

256256

Couple more of "STUMPY" the "innocent" observer, pretty much tell its the same person because of the clothes details , and being a convicted felonious burglar , what BY law is he NOT suppose to be in possession of? and , in the pic with the Kenosha Kid  on the ground, what does it appear he is in the act of attempting? could it be he is attempting to point a firearm he is prohibitted by law from having at the kid? credable threat to ones safety.

At least STUMPY brought an actual gun to a gunfight . and lost

Side note , i have read STUMPY is also being charged for a firearms violation , felon in posession of a firearm. which actually if ANY of the 3 had actually been able to disarm the kid they would have all been charged as felons in possesion of firearms since all 3 were in fact convicted felons and thus prohibitted by law from even touching one. But their past has no real bearing on what happened , except for the fact that they by law couldnt touch the firearm themselves , AND they had no legal authority  to attempt to do so.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.3    2 months ago

That photo on the left looks doctored.  Plus, how can you tell it's a gun?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.3.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @10.3.1    2 months ago

Different lighting , and different angles , unfortunately its not doctored or photoshopped., except for the red circle , with the arrow and word GUN

I think the photo on the right is the exact moment this guy earned the nickname STUMPY, see the cloud/ mist behind and effects of hydrostatic shock as it happens on the arm?

I told people i had even more gruesome stills from the video.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.3.2    2 months ago

No, doctored/edited.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.3.2    2 months ago

So you think it's amusing that he lost his arm due to a psycho killer?

 
 
 
GregTx
10.3.5  GregTx  replied to  Tessylo @10.3.1    2 months ago

What do you think it is?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
10.3.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Tessylo @10.3.3    2 months ago

the still is taken from the same video on the article  that you started a couple days ago, through the video run , you see it is in fact a gun ( nothing else, not a cell phone ) , and is ordered to put it down along with his backpack by police before he can get med tech treatment . pictures might be worth a 1000 words but running video , seldom hides much if it sees it .

 i think the nickname STUMPY ( my preference) or lefty is appropriate for his poor choices in the matter. of course his being charged with illegal firearms poss  by a convicted felon is also just sauce and gravy and rather sardonic.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
11  r.t..b...    2 months ago

Akin to the Stockholm Syndrome, a new disorder has arisen in the Rittenhouse Effect. A pathological condition where political partisanship becomes an obsessive, driving motivation in discussing any incident anywhere. Myopia and agitation are initial symptoms, but can rapidly lead to irrationality and even violence to total strangers if left unchecked. Evidence, facts, or adherence to any established laws or societal norms become moot in the rush to judgement (the most common manifestation of the disorder).

No party is immune, no incident is too trivial, and no solutions are ever proffered.  The only remedy seems to be patience, avoidance of all cable 'news' outlets, and a daily dose of empathy. Speaking less, listening more, and actually respecting opinions from all sides are long lost homeopathic treatments that will minimize the highly contagious and rapidly spread Effect.

Be safe and be well, all.

 
 
 
Sparty On
11.1  Sparty On  replied to  r.t..b... @11    2 months ago

Man, you just described TDS to a "T"

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @11.1    2 months ago

And I thought she was talking about those defending the rioters.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
11.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @11.1    2 months ago

And I thought she was talking about those defending the rioters.

 
 
 
Sunshine
11.2  Sunshine  replied to  r.t..b... @11    2 months ago
Rittenhouse Effect.

More like the Chop Zone Effect 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Old Hermit
Krishna


55 visitors