Kyle Rittenhouse not guilty

Originally posted by cdtm
Huh.

I know certain weapons don't require a pernit for home defense, but assumed there was a universal age requirement for ANY deadly weapon.

I mean, even a baseball bat is considered a weapon if not accompanied by a glove in some areas.

That, and the fact he was carrying around the thing in public. You'd think a law applied somewhere.

Because it was a very specific law brought in in 1991 for a very specific reason

Rittenhouse’s attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled. The language stems from a bill that then-Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson signed in 1991. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence around that time. Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini said the law was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns.
Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style rifle was not short-barreled.

The law is pretty hilarious. Here is part of it:

"In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); 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."

Nunchucks? Shuriken? Cestus?! WTF was going on in Wisconsin...

Originally posted by ares834
The law is pretty hilarious. Here is part of it:

"In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); 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."

Nunchucks? Shuriken? Cestus?! WTF was going on in Wisconsin...

Now we know where the Hidden Leaf Village is.

Here is a question: for those of you on Rittenhouse side here:. If Rosenbaum had, in the moment before he was shot, instead shot Rittenhouse to death, would he have been guilty of murder or would his act have been self- defense?

Originally posted by ares834
The law is pretty hilarious. Here is part of it:

"In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); 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."

Nunchucks? Shuriken? Cestus?! WTF was going on in Wisconsin...

Originally posted by truejedi
Here is a question: for those of you on Rittenhouse side here:. If Rosenbaum had, in the moment before he was shot, instead shot Rittenhouse to death, would he have been guilty of murder or would his act have been self- defense?

Here's the critical difference:

Rosenbaum was the one advancing on Kyle. Kyle was the one in retreat. Ergo, one was an aggressor, one was not.

But it really depends. A court may well find Rosenbaum reasonably defended himself, and reasonably thought Kyle was an active shooter he was performing a duty to nullify.

Both might be in the right, depending on circumstances.

YouTube video

SAY SOMETHING

Originally posted by cdtm
Here's the critical difference:

Rosenbaum was the one advancing on Kyle. Kyle was the one in retreat. Ergo, one was an aggressor, one was not.

But it really depends. A court may well find Rosenbaum reasonably defended himself, and reasonably thought Kyle was an active shooter he was performing a duty to nullify.

Both might be in the right, depending on circumstances.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
dur parading around with a gun is not aggressive.

Strawman is strawman.

Originally posted by cdtm
Strawman is strawman.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
That isn't a strawman, it isa larper who has stated he wanted to shoot people.

His words did not control their actions. Kyle fled; they ambushed.

Originally posted by cdtm
His words did not control their actions. Kyle fled; they ambushed.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
No, he fired. Shooting after provoking isn't fleeing, he created animosity, shot someone, created a frenzy and shot more people.

The trial debunked this. He was ambushed first, and then shot.

Had they let him go no one would have been shot. They chose to engage him.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
No, he fired. Shooting after provoking isn't fleeing, he created animosity, shot someone, created a frenzy and shot more people.

Apparently a plastic bag is grounds to murder someone.

Originally posted by cdtm
The trial debunked this. He was ambushed first, and then shot.

Had they let him go no one would have been shot. They chose to engage him.

Originally posted by Robtard
Apparently a plastic bag is grounds to murder someone.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abc7chicago.com/amp/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-joseph-rosenbaum-kenosha/11242392/

With images from FBI surveillance plane video, Richards highlighted Rosenbaum's movement behind a car, emerging as Rittenhouse ran past and chasing him down in the moments before Rittenhouse shot him.

The defense attorney, describing how Rosenbaum came out from behind a car to meet Rittenhouse before the shooting, said to the detective: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but this looks like the classic ambush."

Prosecutors quickly objected, and Richards said: "Mr. Rosenbaum is in hiding as my client arrives, correct?"

"It appears so, yes," Howard answered.

No amount of provocation justifies what Rosembaum did. His killing was a consequence of his own actions.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
they debunked shit. Yup, that said the bias from the Judge will get him off most things and a successful appeal will take place.

Cdtm and other Rightist argued that the capitol attackers were not really armed, because guns, clubs, knives, spears, chemical weapons and other makeshift bludgeoning and stabbing devices do not really count.

But Rosenbaum's plastic bag, woah.

While you've been jissin

YouTube video

May as well lump yourself in with other rightist, I'm a leftist.

I say Center left, friends call me a radical leftie.