[johnforbes]

KENOSHA, WI—Leftists are sounding the alarm that Kyle Rittenhouse—a notorious slayer of white communist pedophiles—may escape punishment through a little-known legal loophole known as a "trial."

The post appeared first on The Babylon Bee.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, an officer of the court such as yourself should not be condoning 17-year-olds breaking the law and illegally carrying firearms which are then used by the lawbreaker to kill and wound people.

This post appeared first in every courtroom in the U.S..

[sillydaddy]

Prosecutors were not prepared for the work the defense had for them...


What pissed me off was the liberal media calling him a Trump supporter
forgetting all the while Rittenhouse is still a minor....

[Clownkicker]

See, johnny? Even silly has admitted that Rittenhouse was illegally carrying his weapon, which crime is then compounded by the killings that never would have happened if he hadn't been in the process of committing a crime.

[johnforbes]

What should anybody do if there is a nearby riot?

Stay home.

That aside, it is clearly a self-defense case and the prosecutors were on some political mission.

[Clownkicker]

Now all of a sudden johnforbes says people don't have a right to use a gun against an active shooter in a public place.

That has been their whole argument for everyone being armed, so that they can take down illegally-armed active shooters like Rittenhouse.

[johnforbes]

No, I said no such thing.

If public authority had done its job, there wouldn't have been a riot there in the first place.

Kyle should have stayed at home, but he was a kid and didn't. He had the right to defend himself against 3 criminals, and all of them were indeed criminals.

[Clownkicker]

"Now all of a sudden johnforbes says people don't have a right to use a gun against an active shooter in a public place."-me

"No, I said no such thing."-johnforbes

"He [Rittenhouse] had the right to defend himself against 3 criminals, and all of them were indeed criminals."-johnfibs

See? You just said the people legally carrying firearms who used their guns against active shooter Rittenhouse who was illegally carrying a firearm are all criminals.

You just admitted that what I said you said is EXACTLY what you actually said.

[johnforbes]

No, Kyle bought that firearm legally in WI.

That is why even the prosecutor had to agree the charge was erroneous and the judge dismissed it.

The prosecutor, in holding up the weapon in an unsafe manner, was the one in violation.

[Clownkicker]

"No, Kyle bought that firearm legally in WI."-johnfoibles

No, the question is not whether he bought it legally. (He didn't buy it at all.) The question is whether he was legally CARRYING the weapon, which he was not, being only 17.

"Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had."-Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

[elklindo69]

From what I understand, the intent of law allows for minors to have possession of firearms for certain exceptions such as hunting and target practice.

However it's obvious that this boy didn't go to a riot zone with the intent to go hunting or target practice with an assault rifle.

Perhaps this judge should give this boy some milk and cookies and just tuck him into bed.

[johnforbes]

The judge assessed the local law and dropped that gun charge.

As for the rest, should Kyle have remained at home and not sought to clean up graffiti or put out fires?

Sadly, yes, he was naive to care about the community where his father lives.

But he defended himself against 3 people, all of whom had extensive criminal records.

[elklindo69]

Nobody just heads into some city with a military type assault rifle because they want to go out and protect some stranger's business out of the goodness of their heart. That's nonsensical bullshit

Who is going to think that it's their duty to arm themselves with an assault rifle to protect some gas station. Especially someone who is breaking the law by illegally possessing a firearm.

They are doing it because they are out looking to shoot someone......

[Clownkicker]

"The judge assessed the local law and dropped that gun charge."-johnforbes

Yes, johnny, as you keep telling us, judges make bad rulings all the time. Much like his equally bad ruling that two dead guys and a wounded guy could not be referred to as "victims" but COULD be called "rioters" or "arsonists" or "looters" which had not been proven they were any of those things. That judge really needs to get a legal dictionary, much as johnforbes desperately needs one.

Also, Wisconisn law does not allow people to shoot people in order to protect property. If Rittenhouse was actually 'protecting property,' then he didn't need a gun in the first place because he would not be legally allowed to fire it to protect the property.

That's a crime in WI.

[johnforbes]

It was not, of course, an "assault rifle" and surely Elkin knows why that isn't true.

Was Kyle dumb for not staying at home, and was he looking for trouble by going to erase graffiti and trying to put out fires?

These are irrelevant issues even if Elkin and I might agree on them.

The prosecutors withheld high-def footage and the name of the jump kick guy, and withholding exculpatory evidence could bring a mistrial with prejudice.

It was a self-defense case under WI law.

[elklindo69]

The Republicans are the self declared party of "law and order" until some white boy goes out an illegally possesses an assault rifle, then crosses state lines with said assault rifle....and then goes out to "protect property" and then somehow ends up running down a street and with an itchy trigger finger kills a couple of protestors.

[johnforbes]

No, he legally possessed the AR, and the prosecution admitted that, and the judge thus dismissed that gun charge.

Crossing the state border was meaningless in this case, and young leftists like Elkin loved it when 1.7 million illegal aliens crossed state borders into America.

[Clownkicker]

"Crossing the state border was meaningless in this case, and young leftists like Elkin loved it when 1.7 million illegal aliens crossed state borders into America."-johnflubs

Wow, johnny's strongest argument is that 1.7 million illegal aliens crossing state borders is "meaningless".

Go figgur...

[johnforbes]

Even if he had crossed a state border with a gun, it wouldn't have been material.

But the rifle was already in that town anyhow.

And he owned the rifle legally, as even the prosecution admitted to the judge before the charge was dropped.