- Messages
- 45,498
I love this meme tho
Kyle Rittenhouse to go free!!!
- Thread starter Blazor
- Start date
- Messages
- 12,023
- Location
- La La Land
The stupidity from the far right gun enthusiasts in this thread is alarming.
The Castle Doctrine in Illinois does not allow you to use deadly force against any intruder in your home. Illinois law allows a person to protect their home. But the use of deadly force is qualified by requiring much more than a simple trespass before deadly force is justified.
It’s going to be extremely difficult for this minor child to prove that his life was actually in danger when he has illegally obtained a semi automatic weapon that he used to carry out vigilante justice to unarmed and unsuspecting citizens that night.
Vigilante justice is against the law.
The Castle Doctrine in Illinois does not allow you to use deadly force against any intruder in your home. Illinois law allows a person to protect their home. But the use of deadly force is qualified by requiring much more than a simple trespass before deadly force is justified.
It’s going to be extremely difficult for this minor child to prove that his life was actually in danger when he has illegally obtained a semi automatic weapon that he used to carry out vigilante justice to unarmed and unsuspecting citizens that night.
Vigilante justice is against the law.
- Messages
- 46,189
- Location
- United states
There was once another Joseph Rosenbuam, married to a woman named Jennifer.
A woman who took her friends children as foster children while the mother dealt with recovery from drugs.
Two little girls. 2 year old Laila, and 4 year old Millie.
Jennifer Rosenbuam abused them. Covered the two year old in bruises. Forced her to eat her vomit. Punched the little girl in the stomach so hard, she broke the childs spleen and the child died.
Even with pictures of this childs injuries.....Jennifer's supporters passionately defend her and rationalize what she did. Even so much as to attack the victims families.
It's amazing how powerful beliefs are, isnt it? The things people are willing to justify, or excuse.
I'm genuinely convinced that this is a political cult that has been strengthening and becoming more radical for years. And they have been taught for years to hate certain other Americans. We are the devil in thier religion.
So anything done to "beat" us? It's going to be excused and justified. Like this is how they see it. These mobs are "blow back" against us in the heads of these people.
Its doesnt matter what reality is. They just get pissed when we scrutinize what they are saying. They say we just "dont get it". So it's like they know its complete bullshit and lies and if we dont "get it" and jump into this mass hysteria we become the forces of evil in thier delusions.
We cant really care what they think or believe anymore really. They are gonna twist things no matter what. We have to treat it like a divorce from a narcissistic abuser. I'm all about a national divorce. Growing numbers of others are as well.
We dont have to let them force us into this cult they formed where even government and law are weapons they use.
A woman who took her friends children as foster children while the mother dealt with recovery from drugs.
Two little girls. 2 year old Laila, and 4 year old Millie.
Jennifer Rosenbuam abused them. Covered the two year old in bruises. Forced her to eat her vomit. Punched the little girl in the stomach so hard, she broke the childs spleen and the child died.
Even with pictures of this childs injuries.....Jennifer's supporters passionately defend her and rationalize what she did. Even so much as to attack the victims families.
It's amazing how powerful beliefs are, isnt it? The things people are willing to justify, or excuse.
I'm genuinely convinced that this is a political cult that has been strengthening and becoming more radical for years. And they have been taught for years to hate certain other Americans. We are the devil in thier religion.
So anything done to "beat" us? It's going to be excused and justified. Like this is how they see it. These mobs are "blow back" against us in the heads of these people.
Its doesnt matter what reality is. They just get pissed when we scrutinize what they are saying. They say we just "dont get it". So it's like they know its complete bullshit and lies and if we dont "get it" and jump into this mass hysteria we become the forces of evil in thier delusions.
We cant really care what they think or believe anymore really. They are gonna twist things no matter what. We have to treat it like a divorce from a narcissistic abuser. I'm all about a national divorce. Growing numbers of others are as well.
We dont have to let them force us into this cult they formed where even government and law are weapons they use.
- Messages
- 12,023
- Location
- La La Land
When you commit a crime using an illegally obtained weapon, you are liable for everything that happens. That’s your Tort Law 101 lesson for today.
- Messages
- 45,498
Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?
- Messages
- 17,696
Except the long rifle was fully legal. It was legally purchased, it was legally possessed, and it was legally used for self defense. It was purchased in Kenosha, was never taken out of Kenosha, and was legally stored by its lawful purchaser in Kenosha. It is legal to lend a firearm to a friend and in Wisconsin it is legal for a 17 year old to open carry a long rifle if they have the correct certification which Kyle did have.
So what exactly are you talking about wrt "an illegally obtained weapon"?
- Messages
- 12,023
- Location
- La La Land
Wisconsin law prohibits anyone under the age of 18 to carry a weapon. He is FUCKED.
ps tort law is universal in this nation lol
- Messages
- 45,498
:facepalm:
- Messages
- 12,023
- Location
- La La Land
that’s what I’m doing while reading the hunting laws that they are using for his defense lolz
This kid is gonna fry. Mark my words.
- Messages
- 45,498
- Messages
- 38,105
- Location
- Funk & Wagnalls
The question, is will "they" let Oerdin and Stubby et al. have conjugal visits with Kyle after he is convicted?
- Messages
- 12,023
- Location
- La La Land
Sure.
- Messages
- 45,498
They won’t let you suck his cock tho
Certain of it
But I’m sure you can find yourself a nice sailor with an insertion boat somewhere in Oregon who’s willing to abilge
- Messages
- 45,498
Your on
We’ll exchange cash app info as soon as you text me with a commitment that you’re serious
Christmas bonus early this year for me
- Messages
- 17,696
Funny because the judge in this case admitted that the law is unclear. One law say no one under 18 can own a firearm while another says that a person 17 years of age can legally possess a long rifle if they have a training certificate. Kyle did not own the rifle. His 19 year old friend owned the rifle and legally purchased it as well as legally stored it in his home.
The judge said in the next hearing he will decide whither to dismiss the prosecutions claim that possessing a firearm by a 17 year old was some how illegal.
- Messages
- 46,189
- Location
- United states
Perhaps shes talking about the rioters who were felons in possession of illegal firearms and attempting vigilante justice by going after Kyle to disarm him?
There is no such law anywhere that says if a person defends themselves with an illegal gun they are "responsible for everything that happens".
The law in every state is, if you defend yourself with an illegal gun? You ONLY get charged for having an illegal gun. You DONT get charged with "murder".
People need to back thier claims. Instead they just jump from one psycho partisan lie to the next like cultists.
- Messages
- 38,105
- Location
- Funk & Wagnalls
Discuss.
- Messages
- 11,161
It'll probably be a mixed verdict.
Guilty on some charges but cleared on others.
I suspect Rittenhouse will be convicted on some counts but end up under probation and house arrest as opposed to prison.
Obviously his movements will be restricted as will his ability to access and own firearms in the future.
The prosecution likely won't get entirely what it wants but neither will Rittenhouse supporters.
...but that's just my guess.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 12,023
- Location
- La La Land
Why would anyone on this site support someone like Kyle Rittenhouse? Shame on his parents for allowing him to go out during a global pandemic. Shame on the adult who was stupid and negligent enough to arm a child with a semi-automatic weapon. But a 17 yo with some wannabe hero complex thinks he did anyone a favor by ruining his life and killing 2 people? Seriously?!?!
I went to peaceful protests strapped because I’m a white woman and tensions are typically high during racially charged police inflicted brutality. But this you condone? This you are for???? He is a child!
You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos. It would serve you all right to have some lunatic with a semi automatic weapon living right next door.
I went to peaceful protests strapped because I’m a white woman and tensions are typically high during racially charged police inflicted brutality. But this you condone? This you are for???? He is a child!
You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos. It would serve you all right to have some lunatic with a semi automatic weapon living right next door.
- Messages
- 46,189
- Location
- United states
Clearly the judge is a right wing extremist and part of a cabal of white supremacists.
When Kyle walks that will be the narrative. Incurable hate and ignorance that allows violent riots and only gets mad about "murder" when someone defends themselves against leftwing terrorists are never gonna be reasonable.
- Messages
- 17,696
Discuss.
Are you even married? We will even accept gay married for you.
- Messages
- 11,161
He won't walk completely free, Dovey.
However I suspect the Judge will seek some sort of compromise verdict in order to assuage tensions on both sides.
- Messages
- 46,189
- Location
- United states
Discuss.
You got us. Wr all just really wanna fuck but no one will fuck us.
If we only just fucked more we certainly wouldnt care about any of this stuff.
You guys are SO clever and smart!
- Messages
- 17,696
His friend who owned two businesses in town, one of which was looted and burned the night before, asked him for help protecting his one remaining business. The first shooting took place on the property of his friend's business.
I would suggest you research some of the facts of the case because you clearly don't know them.
- Messages
- 45,498
- Messages
- 12,023
- Location
- La La Land
Who cares if he gets off… the whole country is going to burn eventually because of their denial on all things pertaining to racism…
The riots resulted from systemic racism while these epic tards cheer for a facist pig and support a totalitarian dictatorship.
THEY. STILL. DON’T. FUCKING. GET. IT.
- Messages
- 45,498
Let's examine the stat on the firearm charge, shall we?
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. ; metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. , any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. unless jurisdiction is waived under s. or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. .
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. or is not in compliance with ss. and . This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. and or to an adult who is in violation of s. .
Does the obvious escape hatch in this poorly constructed statute leap out any any of our more robust legal scholars who seem bent on blurring the lines between civil and criminal law or do I have to spell it out for you?
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. ; metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. , any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. unless jurisdiction is waived under s. or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. .
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. or is not in compliance with ss. and . This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. and or to an adult who is in violation of s. .
Does the obvious escape hatch in this poorly constructed statute leap out any any of our more robust legal scholars who seem bent on blurring the lines between civil and criminal law or do I have to spell it out for you?
Similar threads
