Kenosha edition. Second Third person who got shot was armed.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1298501182382473216

Kenosha edition. Second Third person who got shot was armed.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1298501182382473216

Multiple domestic violence history. Oh well.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Should have had a bullet proof skateboard..... now that actually gives me an idea...

So bicep guy still wasn't charged with any kind of crime.  Even though video shows him trying to assault Kyle, holding a glock, which he's a felon so not supposed to have, made a statement that he should have lit Kyle up.

Yet he's invited to speak at events and interviewed, all while Kyle sits in Jail.  On a plus note, IL will not file any firearm charges on Kyle.

This bodes well for Kyle, adding facts to his claim he was in fear for his life.



Kenosha protester charged with firing gun right
before Kyle Rittenhouse began shooting

A Racine man has been charged with firing a pistol during unrest in Kenosha, a shot 
Kyle Rittenhouse's defenders think was a factor in the 17-year-old fatally shooting a
man two seconds later.

Joshua Ziminski, 35, was charged last week with disorderly conduct - use of a dangerous
weapon, a misdemeanor, in the Aug. 25 incident.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/10/15/kenosha-protester-charged-firing-gun-prior-rittenhouse-shots/3667399001/

So bicep guy still wasn't charged with any kind of crime.  Even though video shows him trying to assault Kyle, holding a glock, which he's a felon so not supposed to have, made a statement that he should have lit Kyle up.

Yet he's invited to speak at events and interviewed, all while Kyle sits in Jail.  On a plus note, IL will not file any firearm charges on Kyle.

If they don't recover the firearm it would be a hard case to prove unless he admitted to having a firearm.

If they don't recover the firearm it would be a hard case to prove unless he admitted to having a firearm.

Really?  Can't prove he had a gun?

Are you telling me the object in his RIGHT hand was picked up after his RIGHT BICEP was ... no longer a bicep?

Gaige Grosskreutz was armed with a pistol when 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse blew his bicep apart
with a semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In a Facebook post that's gone viral, Grosskreutz
regrets not killing the teen.

Rittenhouse has been arrested and charged with murder after he shot three people during the rioting
in Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Tuesday night. Two died, and a third, Grosskreutz, has had surgery to repair
a massive bullet wound to his bicep.

Grosskreutz was one of two men caught on video attacking Rittenhouse, who was apparently fleeing
the scene of the first shooting. As gunshots rang out from an unknown source, Grosskreutz moved in on
Rittenhouse, who at this point was lying on his back after shooting the second man. When Rittenhouse
aimed his rifle at Grosskreutz, the man backed off. However, when Grosskreutz moved in again, this
time apparently with a pistol drawn, Rittenhouse unloaded a round into his arm.

https://www.rt.com/usa/499259-kenosha-victim-facebook-killing-kid/

Who you going to believe .... the lawyer, or your lying eyes?

Really?  Can't prove he had a gun?

Are you telling me the object in his RIGHT hand was picked up after his RIGHT BICEP was ... no longer a bicep?

A prosecutor would have to prove that wasn't an airsoft gun (for example)

A prosecutor would have to prove that wasn't an airsoft gun (for example)

Really?

Suppose, hypothetically, that  you're a Cop, and someone is charging you with a pistol drawn.  Are you seriously telling all of us on this forum that the Cop should not use his weapon because IT MIGHT BE A REPLICA OR AIRSOFT PISTOL??

Please be very specific in your answer, because I need to have you clear up your "prosecutor would have to prove that wasn't an airsoft gun" statement.

Dont forget the statement be made that he should have unloaded on kyle. Maybe he meant unload his plastic BBs


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Dont forget the statement be made that he should have unloaded on kyle. Maybe he meant unload his plastic BBs


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Unloaded harsh language. Because, ya know, peaceful protests and all.

Unloaded harsh language. Because, ya know, peaceful protests and all.

Maybe he meant "remove the magazine from the firearm?"

You know --- "unloaded".   

Unloaded harsh language. Because, ya know, peaceful protests and all.

mostly peaceful

Suppose, hypothetically, that  you're a Cop, and someone is charging you with a pistol drawn.  Are you seriously telling all of us on this forum that the Cop should not use his weapon because IT MIGHT BE A REPLICA OR AIRSOFT PISTOL??

You are confusing a justified use of force based on what a cop reasonably believed at the time with proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show a crime occured. They aren't the same and are not interchangeable. The gun being real or not has no bearing on Kyle's justification for shooting at him but it absolutely has bearing on whether the man in the photo committed a crime in possessing a firearm.

If a person is brought up on drug charges do you think an officer just shows a picture of a white powder and says it looks like cocaine therefore it is? Of course not, they test it. So if the guy in that photo were brought up on a firearm charge and he told the jury that it was just an airsoft gun then how do you think the prosecutor is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had a firearm and not just an airsoft gun?

You are confusing a justified use of force based on what a cop reasonably believed at the time with proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show a crime occured. They aren't the same and are not interchangeable. The gun being real or not has no bearing on Kyle's justification for shooting at him but it absolutely has bearing on whether the man in the photo committed a crime in possessing a firearm.

If a person is brought up on drug charges do you think an officer just shows a picture of a white powder and says it looks like cocaine therefore it is? Of course not, they test it. So if the guy in that photo were brought up on a firearm charge and he told the jury that it was just an airsoft gun then how do you think the prosecutor is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had a firearm and not just an airsoft gun?

Do you have evidence or information that causes you to suspect the gun isn't an actual firearm?

If not, this is just more pointless, tangential BS.

You are confusing a justified use of force based on what a cop reasonably believed at the time with proof beyond a reasonable doubt to show a crime occured. They aren't the same and are not interchangeable. The gun being real or not has no bearing on Kyle's justification for shooting at him but it absolutely has bearing on whether the man in the photo committed a crime in possessing a firearm.

If a person is brought up on drug charges do you think an officer just shows a picture of a white powder and says it looks like cocaine therefore it is? Of course not, they test it. So if the guy in that photo were brought up on a firearm charge and he told the jury that it was just an airsoft gun then how do you think the prosecutor is going to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the man had a firearm and not just an airsoft gun?

I have to say eye has a point here.  Though I would argue that enough pictures and what he said that would be a hard sell to the jury.  Many convictions have happened without a murder weapon.

I have to say eye has a point here.  Though I would argue that enough pictures and what he said that would be a hard sell to the jury.  Many convictions have happened without a murder weapon.

 

Do you have evidence or information that causes you to suspect the gun isn't an actual firearm?

If not, this is just more pointless, tangential BS.

It isn't the accused victim to prove they didn't commit a crime, it is the prosecutor's job to prove he did. The prosecutor would have to prove he had a firearm.

It isn't the accused victim to prove they didn't commit a crime, it is the prosecutor's job to prove he did. The prosecutor would have to prove he had a firearm.

Another non-answer, full of generic, unrelated gobbledygook.

Accused victim?  LOL!  Victim of what?  Self defense?

Your Liberal mindset is on full display.