Kyle Rittenhouse to go free!!!

[Murdy]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

 

[Biggie Smiles]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

 

[Oerdin]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

An yet you still can't come up with a single example of a law which makes the whole country "systemically racist"?

 

[Murdy]

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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

unless jurisdiction is waived under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
(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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or is not in compliance with ss.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or to an adult who is in violation of s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.


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?

you can’t even grasp the philosophy of torts…

and I don’t have time to school you on all the issues you’ve presented

 

[Biggie Smiles]

ugh.... we're back on the systemic racism boogey man so soon?

Jesus this shit gets redundant and predicable awfully quick

 

[Joe]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

We will see.

I don't have anything invested in either side. I'm neither a Proud Boy or Antifa supporter.

But I find this case is interesting because it's not entirely black and white.

There appears to be blame on either side.

Neither appears to be completely innocent nor entirely guilty.

So the judge will likely end up having to juggle all the facts to reach what looks like will be a compromised verdict.

 

[Murdy]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

Except I could buy an entire block of your neighborhood if I sold my house… which is in a neighborhood that has never been a Cuban refugee camp

 

[Murdy]

ugh.... we're back on the systemic racism boogey man so soon?

Jesus this shit gets redundant and predicable awfully quick

why do you think riots start….

or are you distracted like a crow now staring at all the shiny cars?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

unless jurisdiction is waived under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
(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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or is not in compliance with ss.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or to an adult who is in violation of s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.


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?

you can’t even grasp the philosophy of torts…

and I don’t have time to school you on all the issues you’ve presented

meanwhile, you haven't the slightest fucking clue on the difference between civil and criminal law

Tell me, oh yee who know so much but with so little time.. how is it that OJ walked on a murder charge but then was found financially liable on a civil wrongful death case?

take your time and don't forget to breathe while you post.

 

[Oerdin]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

The world could use some more moral and upstanding young men like him.

 

[Murdy]

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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

unless jurisdiction is waived under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
(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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or is not in compliance with ss.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or to an adult who is in violation of s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.


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?

you can’t even grasp the philosophy of torts…

and I don’t have time to school you on all the issues you’ve presented

meanwhile, you haven't the slightest fucking clue on the difference between civil and criminal law

Tell me, oh yee who know so much but with so little time.. how is it that OJ walked on a murder charge but then was found financially liable on a civil wrongful death case?

take your time and don't forget to breathe while you post.

please provide us some insight as to all your experience with both civil and criminal matters… will you be providing this on a first hand basis or will your “black friends” be involved lol

 

[Biggie Smiles]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

Except I could buy an entire block of your neighborhood if I sold my house… which is in a neighborhood that has never been a Cuban refugee camp

In your dreams dear. You'd wipe out 70% of your resale value attempting to buy my home alone

 

[Biggie Smiles]

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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

; 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

unless jurisdiction is waived under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.
(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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or is not in compliance with ss.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. 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.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

or to an adult who is in violation of s.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.


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?

you can’t even grasp the philosophy of torts…

and I don’t have time to school you on all the issues you’ve presented

meanwhile, you haven't the slightest fucking clue on the difference between civil and criminal law

Tell me, oh yee who know so much but with so little time.. how is it that OJ walked on a murder charge but then was found financially liable on a civil wrongful death case?

take your time and don't forget to breathe while you post.

please provide us some insight as to all your experience with both civil and criminal matters… will you be providing this on a first hand basis or will your “black friends” be involved lol

Loving the backpedal here murdy

proves you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about.

thanks for trying tho

 

[Murdy]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

The world could use some more moral and upstanding young men like him.

I’m going to say with 100% certainty this this child who dreamed of being a cop will never be one now. What a waste of a future. *SMH*

 

[Murdy]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

Except I could buy an entire block of your neighborhood if I sold my house… which is in a neighborhood that has never been a Cuban refugee camp

In your dreams dear. You'd wipe out 70% of your resale value attempting to buy my home alone

BS flag thrown… I know what you paid for it lol

But I would never move to a swamp…

LoL @ resale value… this isn’t cars… I could burn my house to the ground and still inflict a bidding war

 

[Murdy]

I’m dead at this accusation that Florida is better than Cali when it comes to real estate BWA!

 

[Biggie Smiles]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

The world could use some more moral and upstanding young men like him.

I’m going to say with 100% certainty this this child who dreamed of being a cop will never be one now. What a waste of a future. *SMH*

I'm still not see that cashapp info

you know what they say about putting your money where your mouth is? ANd since you can buy my entire neighborhood a mere 1000 bucks shouldn't be that much of a stretch for you

shall we define the parameters of what "this kid will fry" actually means or whould you like more time to filibuster nonsensically with irrelevant bullshit?

 

[Dove]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering he didnt break any laws he better.

 

[Oerdin]

ugh.... we're back on the systemic racism boogey man so soon?

Jesus this shit gets redundant and predicable awfully quick

why do you think riots start….

or are you distracted like a crow now staring at all the shiny cars?

Mostly due to ignorance and lies but in no small part lying race baiting politicians certainly contributed to causing riots under false circumstances.

The particular riot in question started because a black criminal broke into a black woman's house, beat her and raped her, then when she called 911 and the police responded he fought with the police, resisted arrest, tried to flee, then pulled out a knife to threaten law enforcement. He rightly got shot like the raping thug he is. Sadly, he didn't die but now he can't walk and will never piss standing up ever again.

Oh, I forgot. Blake also tried to kidnap a child. What a wonderful man you defend.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

Except I could buy an entire block of your neighborhood if I sold my house… which is in a neighborhood that has never been a Cuban refugee camp

In your dreams dear. You'd wipe out 70% of your resale value attempting to buy my home alone

BS flag thrown… I know what you paid for it lol

But I would never move to a swamp…

LoL @ resale value… this isn’t cars… I could burn my house to the ground and still inflict a bidding war

You might know what I paid for it you but have you fancied a look at the current resale value now that people are literally fleeing shitholes like Cali and Ny?

 

[Joe]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering he didnt break any laws he better.

Kyle broke laws but it appears his attackers did to.

So they're both at fault.

None should be given a blank cheque to walk free nor be totally absolved of liability or guilt.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering he didnt break any laws he better.

Kyle broke laws but it appears his attackers did to.

which law did he break?

 

[Dove]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering he didnt break any laws he better.

Kyle broke laws but it appears his attackers did to.

Cite the laws he broke.

He didn't break a single law.

 

[Murdy]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

Except I could buy an entire block of your neighborhood if I sold my house… which is in a neighborhood that has never been a Cuban refugee camp

In your dreams dear. You'd wipe out 70% of your resale value attempting to buy my home alone

BS flag thrown… I know what you paid for it lol

But I would never move to a swamp…

LoL @ resale value… this isn’t cars… I could burn my house to the ground and still inflict a bidding war

You might know what I paid for you but have you fancied a look at the current resale value now that people are literally fleeing shitholes like Cali and Ny?

Sweetheart, I could burn my house to the ground and I would still invoke a bidding war. The house across the street is listed @ 6.5 lolz

 

[Murdy]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering he didnt break any laws he better.

Kyle broke laws but it appears his attackers did to.

which law did he break?

it is against the law for a minor child to carry a gun in Wisconsin. You truly should have taken the Illinois bait… you might have stood a chance lol

 

[Dove]

I love how Kyle broke "laws".....but it's "possible" these mobs broke some.

Cuz it's totally fine to destroy communities and terrorize the public if its leftwing.

These people think they own everything. Smh.

 

[Biggie Smiles]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

Except I could buy an entire block of your neighborhood if I sold my house… which is in a neighborhood that has never been a Cuban refugee camp

In your dreams dear. You'd wipe out 70% of your resale value attempting to buy my home alone

BS flag thrown… I know what you paid for it lol

But I would never move to a swamp…

LoL @ resale value… this isn’t cars… I could burn my house to the ground and still inflict a bidding war

You might know what I paid for you but have you fancied a look at the current resale value now that people are literally fleeing shitholes like Cali and Ny?

Sweetheart, I could burn my house to the ground and I would still invoke a bidding war. The house across the street is listed @ 6.5 lolz

Well then, 1000 bucks should be a drop in the bucket for you then


So, this kid "frying" means a conviction on all charges then? Including the laughably desperate Intentional homicide?

 

[Biggie Smiles]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering he didnt break any laws he better.

Kyle broke laws but it appears his attackers did to.

which law did he break?

it is against the law for a minor child to carry a gun in Wisconsin. You truly should have taken the Illinois bait… you might have stood a chance lol

Funny tho.. how when I quoted the actual statue you had nothing to say

SIt down dear, you'll never be as good at this as I am.

Ever.

 

[Murdy]

You are all INSANE and I hope your neighborhoods are full of these psychos.

Kids like Kyle?

My neighborhood has a few thankfully.

of course you do… it’s a white trash neighborhood staple to have this lingering

How do you know that? Is that what your TeeVee tells you?

Because, I hate to break it to you but people in my neighborhood drives cars that are worth more than your soul

Except I could buy an entire block of your neighborhood if I sold my house… which is in a neighborhood that has never been a Cuban refugee camp

In your dreams dear. You'd wipe out 70% of your resale value attempting to buy my home alone

BS flag thrown… I know what you paid for it lol

But I would never move to a swamp…

LoL @ resale value… this isn’t cars… I could burn my house to the ground and still inflict a bidding war

You might know what I paid for you but have you fancied a look at the current resale value now that people are literally fleeing shitholes like Cali and Ny?

Sweetheart, I could burn my house to the ground and I would still invoke a bidding war. The house across the street is listed @ 6.5 lolz

Well then, 1000 bucks should be a drop in the bucket for you then


So, this kid "frying" means a conviction on all charges then? Including the laughably desperate Intentional homicide?

OH GAWD… I should have known you would get all obsessive and try to change the rules now on what should have been a friendly bet *rolls eyes*

 

[Joe]

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.

Uh. This case is being tried in Wisconsin hello? Anyone home?

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering he didnt break any laws he better.

Kyle broke laws but it appears his attackers did to.

Cite the laws he broke.

He didn't break a single law.

Well 3 people are dead.

Plus he was a minor carrying a firearm being in a place he shouldn't have.

And yet his attackers were vicious assailants.

So it's a mixed bag.

I'd say not entirely guilty but not entirely innocent either.

And if Kyle is found guilty on some charges his parent (s) should be too.