He admitted he had a gun IIRC. If not, then im wrong.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Oh, possibly, I cannot recall.

I guess its like asking why the government doesn't arrest everyone smoking a blunt on a video? Maybe (hopefully) we will see something come out later at least giving him some level of consequence for having a gun he isn't supposed to have.

I watched way too many videos when this happened.

If defense is good, videos clearly show:

- attacker 1 - attacked and cornered Rittenhouse on private property even though he tried to retreat. Justified.
- Mob Rules. Rittenhouse runs down the street toward police.
- Rittenhouse stumbles in street followed by mob.
- attacker 2 cracks him the head with a skateboard while he’s down. Tries to grab his weapon. Justifiably shot.
- attacker 3 draws a weapon and continues to approach. Justifiably shot.

The whole minor is legal to possess because of hunting laws is a slippery slope I’m not sure I’d go down.

The one problem with that angle is that Rittenhouse can't be judged for the misconceptions #2 and #3 had. So even if #2 and #3 were trying to be heroes, Rittenhouse is judged by why he did what he did when he shot them.  Rittenhouse couldn't know what they were thinking, couldn't know how much they knew, he only knew that they were attacking him as he was retreating. If #3 were on trial for attacking Rittenhouse then this argument might have more weight.

SNIP

Misconception?

Assuming you are referring to #2 as SkaterBoy, I think his intention was CLEARLY made when he whacked Rittenhouse with the skateboard.  I mean it seems like you are emotionally attached to playing devil's advocate or thought experiments, but to me, that one is pretty clear. 

As for BicepGuy, didn't he have a gun and raised it toward Rittenhouse?  It's been a LONG time since i watched that, so that is from memory. 

Why does charges or judgement of behavior or #3 have anything to do with Rittenhouse.  I mean on paper, I get what you're saying.  But I am pretty sure that's not how the court of law works. . .

#notanattorneyatheart 

I watched way too many videos when this happened.

If defense is good, videos clearly show:

- attacker 1 - attacked and cornered Rittenhouse on private property even though he tried to retreat. Justified.
- Mob Rules. Rittenhouse runs down the street toward police.
- Rittenhouse stumbles in street followed by mob.
- attacker 2 cracks him the head with a skateboard while he’s down. Tries to grab his weapon. Justifiably shot.
- attacker 3 draws a weapon and continues to approach. Justifiably shot.

The whole minor is legal to possess because of hunting laws is a slippery slope I’m not sure I’d go down.

Why is it a slippery slope?

It was legal for the minor to posses the rifle in public because he was hunting ?
At night ?
During a riot ?
Not so sure that helps his case.

I don’t know their exact laws wording though.

It was legal for the minor to posses the rifle in public because he was hunting ?
At night ?
During a riot ?
Not so sure that helps his case.

I don’t know their exact laws wording though.

From what I remember, he was legally allowed to posses the rifle.  I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in previous post. I'm just lazy to look thru them again. 

"Open carry of long guns and handguns, without a permit is allowed in Wisconsin.
Open carry is allowed in vehicles as long as the firearm is "visible to ordinary observation".
 If not a concealed carry permit is needed."

For minors ?

For minors ?

Yes, law applies to SBR's and short barrel shotguns.Rifles OK. Is what his lawyers are arguing.  I did a quick google and clicked on the first story.  Very limited research.

So if this is true, then that means the state is going after him even though he broke no law.  So BS IMO.

A 2nd part to this is about hunting.  But the 1st part should be more than sufficient if true.

*edit

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

So unknown.

Yup.
It’s the most ticky-tack thing they can get him on but might be the only thing so they’ll pursue it.
And good article posted above.

“
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. 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.
 (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. (c), 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. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
 (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. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. 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. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).”

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

I’ll let you folks decide if it was legal possession.
His friend who gave him the weapon could be more screwed under part 2 (b) and (c)

Part 3 (c) does muddy the water though with reference to 941.28.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/941/iii/28

I'm just gonna wait to see what the courts decide and the arguments because I'm not going to spend much time looking more into this myself

Yup.
That’s as far I’m going.
Farther than I went before.
Got curious though.

I think reasonably, that’s the only charge they got a chance to win.
Unless he’s a social justice victim.

I think reasonably, that’s the only charge they got a chance to win.
Unless he’s a social justice victim.

And it's a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Misconception?

Assuming you are referring to #2 as SkaterBoy, I think his intention was CLEARLY made when he whacked Rittenhouse with the skateboard.  I mean it seems like you are emotionally attached to playing devil's advocate or thought experiments, but to me, that one is pretty clear. 

As for BicepGuy, didn't he have a gun and raised it toward Rittenhouse?  It's been a LONG time since i watched that, so that is from memory. 

Why does charges or judgement of behavior or #3 have anything to do with Rittenhouse.  I mean on paper, I get what you're saying.  But I am pretty sure that's not how the court of law works. . .

#notanattorneyatheart 

I am thinking through the various arguments and counter arguments that could be made in court. No emotion involved Of course Skaterboy's intentions were clear in the sense that he intended to hit Kyle with a skateboard, but we can only speculate why he was trying to hit Kyle with a skateboard. Was he just angry at Kyle for defending property or did he think Kyle was an active shooter?

I was trying to explain that Bicep dude could claim he was trying to be a good samaritan by trying to stop Kyle but that even if Bicep dude's intentions were noble, his actions are judged on what he knew at the time. I think Bicep dude might try to make the argument but it really doesn't do much to hurt Kyle, it just goes to try to defend his own actions. But Bicep Dude isn't on trial. I think a lot of the people who will watch the trial news might not understand that difference.

There was a video that came out a while ago where someone tackled a man in Walmart who had a gun on his hip. It was clear by the video that the tackler thought he was saving the day from an armed bad guy. Luckily no one got shot but if the guy carrying the gun had fought back and shot the wanna be good samaritan it would have been a justified shooting because all he knows is that someone tackled him and was trying to steal his gun. The noble intentions of the tackler would not matter.

“While Assistant Kenosha County District Attorney Thomas Binger argued in his opening statements that Rittenhouse's use of force was unnecessary, Mark Richards, a member of Rittenhouse's defense team, argued that the teen had been forced to defend himself from one of the men he killed, Joseph Rosenbaum.

To drive home his point, Richards showed the jury a clip which depicts Rosenbaum taunting others the night of his death.

"Shoot me n---a, shoot me n---a. Bust on me for real," Rosenbaum says in the video.

A little more than a minute later, while referring back to the clip, Richards repeated what Rosenbaum said in the video: "Shoot me n----r. Shoot me n----r."”

Check the click bait headline.
“Kyle Rittenhouse's trial opens with his lawyer repeating the N-word twice in court”

 The hard R matters.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouses-trial-opens-lawyer-191146944.html

And he shot 3 white guys

more video, this time from FBI aircraft

https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-brand-new-footage-of-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-released?utm_campaign=64492&fbclid=IwAR12zNrNSRhEctPG0qsPyawGgmWxSt1UhyeIidRBP3JkCZHDcLg_rCrvmIE

for real?

2 Nov, 2021 22:12
‘Sounds about WHITE’: Skin color of Kyle Rittenhouse’s jury triggers Twitter
Kyle Rittenhouse is shown in court on Tuesday in Kenosha, Wisconsin, as opening arguments began in his murder trial. © Reuters / Sean Krajacic
Left-wing Twitter users are enraged that the legal fate of Kyle Rittenhouse – a white teenager who shot three white men in a predominantly white Wisconsin county – will be decided by a jury with only one non-white member.
Controversy over skin color arose after the 12 jurors and eight alternates for Rittenhouse’s murder trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, were selected on Monday. Media reports indicated that only one member of the 20-person jury group was a “person of color.”
“White supremacy is a hell of a drug,” self-described “Resistance” activist Andrea Junker tweeted on Tuesday.
The Kyle Rittenhouse jury includes only 1 person of color. White supremacy is a hell of a drug.

— Andrea Junker (@Strandjunker) November 2, 2021
Anti-Trump author Majid Padellan was similarly outraged, saying sarcastically, “Sounds about white.”

The Kyle Rittenhouse jury is set, and it includes ONE person of color.Sounds about White.

— BrooklynDad_Defiant! (@mmpadellan) November 2, 2021
Rittenhouse, then 17, was charged with murder and reckless endangerment, among other crimes, after killing two men and injuring a third at an August 2020 Black Lives Matter riot in Kenosha. Lawyers for the teenager have argued that he acted in self-defense after he was attacked while trying to protect lives and property. Prosecutors say Rittenhouse instigated the violence after coming to a protest with an assault rifle.
Both prosecutors and defense lawyers get to disqualify prospective jurors who they think will hurt their cause. Nevertheless, online critics have claimed there was racial bias and conspiracy in the jury selection, with BLM supporter Jack Brown calling its racial makeup a reflection of “white supremacy in America.”
White Supremacy in America: The jury for Kyle Rittenhouse’s double murder and assault with a deadly weapon trial includes only one person of color.

— Dr. Jack Brown (@DrGJackBrown) November 2, 2021
Others pre-judged that Rittenhouse will be wrongly acquitted because of the jurors’ skin color. In fact, some observers have long been making that argument on speculation. Author Magnus Anton said in August 2020, just one day after Rittenhouse was arrested, that the suspect would escape conviction because of race. “This is how justice works in a white supremacy. If you’re a proud white patriot, you get the breaks,” he said.
Rittenhouse and his three alleged victims are all white. Even so, some observers have argued that the Kenosha protests stemmed from a black criminal suspect, Jacob Blake, being shot in the back by a white policeman, so it’s not fair for a white-dominated jury to decide Rittenhouse’s case.
Other observers predicted that there may be more riots if the largely white jury acquits Rittenhouse. “Very telling,” one commenter said of the jury selection. “Kenosha may be seeing more unrest by the time it is all over. Brace yourselves.”
Democrats have been trying to frame the white-on-white Rittenhouse shootings as racist since last year. Even Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign tarred Rittenhouse as a white supremacist, although media outlets have failed to find any indication in the teen’s social media posts or otherwise that would link him to racism.

https://www.rt.com/usa/539211-kyle-rittenhouse-jury-white/

"The video that was just released was compiled by the FBI and had been buried until now… Really makes you wonder what else they are sitting on, especially when it pertains to January 6th."

https://teamtuckercarlson.com/news/watch-never-before-seen-fbi-footage-of-kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-released/

Apparently the FBI is working under some sort of barely hidden political agenda.

Maybe we should change their acronym to the FIB.

Still no weapons charges on Hunter Biden

Heavy picture

Edit: I believe picture is right before handgun guy got shot. Hand gun/bicep guy acted like he had is hands up and kept approaching while drawing his pistol.
Guy in black jacket in back kicked Rittenhouse the head just prior to attack from skateboard guy and retreated which emboldened skateboard guy.
Who can be seen holding his chest post “ Probably shouldn’t have done that”
How I saw it in the videos.

Heavy picture

I was amazed at Kyle's discipline at not shooting the guy who put his hands up after he shot skate board guy and bicep guy.  With all the stress, that's amazing.  Or he was out of ammo.