Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

[Bob Gray]

How is it debatable? It was illegally purchased and he was underage.

Its been brought up in the thread a number of times, but reading through the statute you can see how it can be argued that a 17 year old isnt, technically, violating any statutes. My understanding was the purchase was legal, but it wasnt Kyles gun. But there could be info I missed.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

To exercise his second amendment rights rights self defense? He doesn’t need any qualifications. The argument is there that he didn’t yet earn his second because he was under 18, but that still does not matter. Even a convicted felon with a firearm has the right to self defense-they simply get charged with felon with a firearm after the fact. I have proven this with several cases throughout this thread. There are no requirements to “interact with protesters and rioters.” None.

I don't dispute that. But this is still like some kid stealing a car and getting hit by a drunk driver. Mayne he drives like Andretti but he should never have been there.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

How is it debatable? It was illegally purchased and he was underage.

Odd that no one has been charged with illegally purchasing a gun.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I am not partisan and I see this as completely justified self defense. No reason to think others can’t think that way as well. And while I don’t vilify the second two, what they did was deadly force and it was met with deadly force. That has nothing to do with politics and for me, is 100% based upon many years of experience in law. Absolutely, there are many on both sides that see this issue in black and white because of politics, but reasonable people when presented with the facts of this case will see it as self defense. I am betting a few will end up on the jury and we will have either an acquittal or hung jury, but definitely not a conviction for the shootings

My post was a joke. I agree he was defending himself but a lot of blame still lies at his feet. Do you think this might be a case like OJ's where he gets off on the criminal trial but would be harder to defend in a civil trial?

 

[Timmahhhh]

I didn’t bring up gun laws not being enforced. I brought up conservatives saying the ones on the books should be enforced more often and more strictly and then turning around when a conservative kid breaks one and saying he should walk scot free. It’s a double standard and it’s not complicated so not sure why you’re so confused.

If he violated gun laws he should be charged with that, not first degree murder because he was justified in defending himself.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Certainly not the smartest thing the kid ever did, but at that age you assume the sight of a gun is the deterrent; which it is in most cases.

By at that age you mean not mature enough to understand the consequences of his decisions.

 

[Bob Gray]

My post was a joke. I agree he was defending himself but a lot of blame still lies at his feet. Do you think this might be a case like OJ's where he gets off on the criminal trial but would be harder to defend in a civil trial?

OJ murdered people. For Kyle to lose a civil trial youd have to argue that his presence somehow was the catalyst of the events, yet at the same time agree that if it were 3 months later, hed have zero fault at all. Thats sort of an odd pretzel logic. Rosenbaum caused all this. Not Kyle. Rosenbaum was trying to start fights before he even saw Kyle.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Its been brought up in the thread a number of times, but reading through the statute you can see how it can be argued that a 17 year old isnt, technically, violating any statutes. My understanding was the purchase was legal, but it wasnt Kyles gun. But there could be info I missed.

Just going from memory it was only legal if he was out hunting with an adult. Kyle gave his friend who was 18 or 19 his stimulus check money to buy it for him. It was a straw purchase. Like some HS kid standing outside a liquor store and having an adult buy him booze.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Odd that no one has been charged with illegally purchasing a gun.

I'm pretty sure his buddy that bought and stored the rifle for him is fucked.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

OJ murdered people. For Kyle to lose a civil trial youd have to argue that his presence somehow was the catalyst of the events, yet at the same time agree that if it were 3 months later, hed have zero fault at all. Thats sort of an odd pretzel logic. Rosenbaum caused all this. Not Kyle. Rosenbaum was trying to start fights before he even saw Kyle.

What does this mean?

 

[Bob Gray]

I'm pretty sure his buddy that bought and stored the rifle for him is fucked.

I think one of the things that doesnt get taken into account is just how pro second amendment Wisconsin is. I live in California and this stuff would practically be the death penalty. But in Wisconsin stuff like this isnt a big deal at all. Guns and firearms are practically fashionable attire in states like this. The thought of purchasing a gun for a minor here is very different than one of the super pro gun states. Guns and firearms simply arent a big deal there. Theyre practically fireworks from a legal standpoint.

 

[shockaholic12]

Certainly not the smartest thing the kid ever did, but at that age you assume the sight of a gun is the deterrent; which it is in most cases.

Exactly why the state had enacted laws so kids wouldn’t carry guns like that. Because in this case they correctly assumed they aren’t smart enough to do so responsibly. He broke that law, carried a gun to the stupidest place ever, a riot, and then when these bad choices ran into others making shitty choices he had to shoot his way out. He should be punished harshly for his stupid choices. Not saying he’s a murderer, but his choices seem criminally irresponsible.

 

[Bob Gray]

What does this mean?

His 18th birthday was a few months later. So all the talk about whatever danger it was becomes moot in a relatively short amount of time from the event. The entire argument of any fault whatsoever that Kyle has is entirely under the notion that wasnt a few months older. Which is one of those things that might be legally binding, but at the same time sort of not a big deal. Like an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old a few months from their birthday.

 

[shockaholic12]

If he violated gun laws he should be charged with that, not first degree murder because he was justified in defending himself.

Well he didn’t just violate the gun law, he violated it and chose to do so in an environment which had a high probability of leading to people getting shot. It’s not like he violated the law on a solo Sunday stroll through the woods, he purposely brought the illegal weapon to the one of the most contentious and out of control environments possible and then had to shoot his way out when going to that dangerous environment put him in danger.

 

[Bob Gray]

Well he didn’t just violate the gun law, he violated it and chose to do so in an environment which had a high probability of leading to people getting shot. It’s not like he violated the law on a solo Sunday stroll through the woods, he purposely brought the illegal weapon to the one of the most contentious and out of control environments possible and then had to shoot his way out when that shitty decision had consequences.

What law do you think he broke in your scenario?

Like, just for the sake of argument lets assume guilt and conviction for the illegal carry. He pays the fine and goes home.

What other law do you think is broken here?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

His 18th birthday was a few months later. So all the talk about whatever danger it was becomes moot in a relatively short amount of time from the event. The entire argument of any fault whatsoever that Kyle has is entirely under the notion that wasnt a few months older. Which is one of those things that might be legally binding, but at the same time sort of not a big deal. Like an 18 year old having sex with a 17 year old a few months from their birthday.

I don't know about that. His behavior sure seemed negligent. If he was mature enough to handle the situation he put himself in this wouldn't have happened. At least not the follow up shootings. If he had been there as part of a competent group this might not have happened at all.

 

[shockaholic12]

Should does not mean does.

As it is, carrying the weapon is at worst a misdemeanor with a fine attached to it. As has been said ad nauseum, even if carrying an illegal weapon you can use it in self defense so long as your actions are justified and it carries no added penalty.

This is what the law says. If youy want to argue to change it, go for it. But as it stands, Kyle is on the hook for at worst a misdemeanor, and a highly debatable one at that.

He wasn’t just illegally carrying and walking home
from the grocery store and got jumped. He made a choice to travel across state lines to a riot and illegally carry in the most likely place he would find danger. He sought danger while illegally carrying a gun. The context of where he decided to carry and why matters.

 

[Bob Gray]

He wasn’t just illegally carrying and walking home
from the grocery store and got jumped. He made a choice to travel across state lines to a riot and illegally carry in the most likely place he would find danger. He sought danger while illegally carrying a gun. The context of where he decided to carry and why matters.

Lets frame it a different way.


Lets say he made the choice to illegal carry in order to save and/or protect people and property from a large group of criminals, all the while rendering first aid to those in need.

Now tell me the law that he broke outside of the illegal carry.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

He wasn’t just illegally carrying and walking home
from the grocery store and got jumped. He made a choice to travel across state lines to a riot and illegally carry in the most likely place he would find danger. The context of where he decided to carry and why matters.

If he had stuck to target practice with his buddy he wouldn't be in this situation. Although it's questionable how bad a situation it is based on most of the posts here. He's a conservative darling now that racked up $2 million in donations and all he's guilty of is a misdemeanor.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

By at that age you mean not mature enough to understand the consequences of his decisions.

No. I mean usually the sight of a gun is all the deterent that's needed, but alcohol, machismo, or a suicidal pedo can change that in a heartbeat.

I'd say Kyle hadn't lived enough experiences to realize that. I wouldn't characterize that as you do unless we characterize all the others for the same.

BTW, it's odd hearing everyone describe Rittenhouse as a vigilante, but don't see Huber or the guy that drew his pistol the same.