2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Carfacemandog · 02-09-2020 11:33AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

thats the purpose of the rule not the text of it. I was trying to explain that there are legal ways for a 17 year old to open carry somebody elses gun there.

ofcourse his defence won't be hunting.

I which your claim that it is ok to carry such a weapon under 18 for this purposes of hunting has zero relevance. Literally the only way it wouk have relevance is if he went to that riot with that rifle to hunt.

Eric Cartman · 02-09-2020 11:35AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The line of duty is the bit you seem to be ignoring.

But hey I get it. You think it is reasonable for him to have gone there with a loaded weapon.

I assume that when BLM turn up with loaded weapons and start shooting you will be as understanding.

he was there to defend a building, not attack it. BLM have been showing up with weapons, including that felon who pointed a handgun at Kyle and was popped in the arm, that man was illegally carrying a weapon.

clubberlang12 · 02-09-2020 11:36AM

It's almost as if people are forgetting there is numerous video footage of Rittenhouse being chased and attacked prior to both acts of dispersing of the firearm.

He clearly states in an interview prior to the incidents that he is there to assist in any medical capacity he can, to both sides of the protest, in his capacity as a trained EMT to some level(shows his medi-bag), as well as to help protect a local business that was attacked the night before.

So trying to perpetuate the idea that he was a gun-totting , right ring vigilante who was hell bent on going there to shoot some "lefties" might fly in the court-room of public opinion, but probably won't have a leg to stand on in a proper judicial setting. The fact he was charged really means very little, as yes there has been 2 people killed by a fire arm, so the due diligence unless completely certain that the deaths were death s by accident, would be to let a court of law decide upon the evidence brought forward.

There also seems to be a lot of experts here who seem to know the state laws regarding fire arms in Wisconsin, when it's obvious some don't have the foggiest notion. But i suppose that is the landscape in general when it comes to internet forums.

ohnonotgmail · 02-09-2020 11:36AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

what was he hunting for?

Penn · 02-09-2020 11:38AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you are allowed carry a friends gun, he was missing an FOID card and theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there.

What was he hunting?

Eric Cartman · 02-09-2020 11:41AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what was he hunting for?

Penn wrote: »

What was he hunting?

I love how both of you glossed over my explanation that that was the statutes intention, not text, but if you go to my last post on this you'll see a quote from the actual statute that explains that somebody over 16 being loaned a rifle is absolutely legal.

Leroy42 · 02-09-2020 11:43AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

he was there to defend a building, not attack it. BLM have been showing up with weapons, including that felon who pointed a handgun at Kyle and was popped in the arm, that man was illegally carrying a weapon.

Those BLM people are probably looking to defend their fellow protestors, isn't that reasonable?

And you can have no qualms with them having weapons, since you are perfectly fine in this case.

You see, I don't think BLM should have weapons any more than you do. The difference is that I can put aside my political views and bipartisanship and look at the reality rather than looking to defend him because he is on 'my team'.

If you accept a society that allows people to carry loaded weapons into already troubled areas, then you cannot decide that one side is right and the other wrong.

joeguevara · 02-09-2020 11:52AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I love how both of you glossed over my explanation that that was the statutes intention, not text, but if you go to my last post on this you'll see a quote from the actual statute that explains that somebody over 16 being loaned a rifle is absolutely legal.

Was the rifle registered in that state, as the law you have posted is state law and specifically relates to owner of said rifle having registered in that state loaning it. If not registered there, federal law applies and must be transported in compliance with federal law by the registered owner and not the borrowee.

Secondly, the hunting argument seems to be finished after his attorney made it clear that if Rittenhouse didn’t bring it into city he would die.

This case will be solely on 2nd amendment and self defence. Self defence is difficult to argue as protection of a third party is not self defence and knowingly going into a dangerous situation with a rifle falls outside it.

2nd amendment argument is much more complex. And at this stage impossible to know what exactly could happen.

Carfacemandog · 02-09-2020 11:57AM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I love how both of you glossed over my explanation that that was the statutes intention, not text, but if you go to my last post on this you'll see a quote from the actual statute that explains that somebody over 16 being loaned a rifle is absolutely legal.

actually your exact words were: "theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear there."

The only way that is applicable is if he went to the riot for hunting.

Quin_Dub · 02-09-2020 12:00PM

joeguevara wrote: »

Was the rifle registered in that state, as the law you have posted is state law and specifically relates to owner of said rifle having registered in that state loaning it. If not registered there, federal law applies and must be transported in compliance with federal law by the registered owner and not the borrowee.

Secondly, the hunting argument seems to be finished after his attorney made it clear that if Rittenhouse didn’t bring it into city he would die.

This case will be solely on 2nd amendment and self defence. Self defence is difficult to argue as protection of a third party is not self defence and knowingly going into a dangerous situation with a rifle falls outside it.

2nd amendment argument is much more complex. And at this stage impossible to know what exactly could happen.

The 2nd Amendment argument is a defence against the charges relating to possession of the gun , it cannot be a defence against the use of the gun.

As Leroy42 said though , the very idea that it's legal for people of any age or political persuasion to wander around the streets openly carrying a weapon is just utterly bizarre. That it is deemed ok in the middle of a riot is even more insane.

I'm not anti-gun per se , but the utter disregard that there seems to be in the US for basic common sense when it comes to guns will never cease to baffle me.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:01PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you are defending him because you think he is right?

Really? You agree that he had no choice but to kill those people? That he had no choice but to turn up with a loaded weapon?

He had no business going there, he had no business bringing a gun.

I assume you would defend BLM or other protestors rights to assault police officers if they feel under threat? That is the logical conclusion of your position.

That pretty much anyone can do anything one they feel under threat.

I know you don't believe that, because you have said that the protestors are out of order. So what is the real reason you are out to defend this guy?

Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified.

He had plenty of business going there as he was helping to defend a local business owners property.

He had to bring a gun to protect himself from the violent mob that had burned down businesses and buildings the previous night.

How else was he supposed to defend himself from the violent mob?

He acted in self defense, BLM protesters are the agitators in the confrontations with the police so they can't be acting in self defense if they initiated the conflict so your twisted logic doesn't apply here.

Igotadose · 02-09-2020 12:03PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

you were phrasing that to imply that just handing a 17 year old a gun is a bad idea. Im explaining that this is handing a firearm to somebody experienced with firearms, id rather have had a gun handed to an enthusiast like Kyle with experience and training than a random person over the age of 21 with none of that.

What training did he have? Under what law could murderer Rittenhouse be requested to defend property? What style of property defense includes jumping into an attacking mob?

Eric Cartman · 02-09-2020 12:03PM

joeguevara wrote: »

Was the rifle registered in that state, as the law you have posted is state law and specifically relates to owner of said rifle having registered in that state loaning it. If not registered there, federal law applies and must be transported in compliance with federal law by the registered owner and not the borrowee.

Secondly, the hunting argument seems to be finished after his attorney made it clear that if Rittenhouse didn’t bring it into city he would die.

This case will be solely on 2nd amendment and self defence. Self defence is difficult to argue as protection of a third party is not self defence and knowingly going into a dangerous situation with a rifle falls outside it.

2nd amendment argument is much more complex. And at this stage impossible to know what exactly could happen.

the rifle was owned and registered in the state, it didn't cross state lines,

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

The gun didn't cross state lines, as it was a rifle over 16" barrel it was legal to be loaned to Kyle as he was over 16, he had police cadet firearms training and was there to defend a building which covers the first shooting under castle laws.

the second two shootings are the ones open to debate.

duploelabs · 02-09-2020 12:05PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the rifle was owned and registered in the state, it didn't cross state lines,

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

The gun didn't cross state lines, as it was a rifle over 16" barrel it was legal to be loaned to Kyle as he was over 16, he had police cadet firearms training and was there to defend a building which covers the first shooting under castle laws.

the second two shootings are the ones open to debate.

Was he an enlisted member of the cadet force?

Carfacemandog · 02-09-2020 12:06PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified..

Again, which city, state or federal body had hired hi ma's a "community lifeguard"? Or is this just a convenient job title his legal team have come up with that never formally existed/that he never actually held?

Leroy42 · 02-09-2020 12:08PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Yes I think he was right and his actions were justified.

He had plenty of business going there as he was helping to defend a local business owners property.

He had to bring a gun to protect himself from the violent mob that had burned down businesses and buildings the previous night.

How else was he supposed to defend himself from the violent mob?

He acted in self defense, BLM protesters are the agitators in the confrontations with the police so they can't be acting in self defense if they initiated the conflict so your twisted logic doesn't apply here.

BLM would say that they are defending themselves against the aggression of the state. You see how easy it is to justify whatever position if you try hard enough.

There is no justification for him going to that, there was no justification of him bringing gun. Self-defence is fine when you find yourself in a situation. Knowingly going into said situation, and bringing a gun because he was well aware of the risks, cannot be classed as self-defence.

under that logic pretty much any murder can be excused.

Carfacemandog · 02-09-2020 12:12PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

So are you now going back on your initial justification that: "theres a state loophole which allows 16 and 17 year olds to carry weapons for hunting if a sponsor agrees, if the guy who gave him the gun agrees to be a sponsor then he's in the clear"?

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:13PM

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Again, which city, state or federal body had hired hi ma's a "community lifeguard"? Or is this just a convenient job title his legal team have come up with that never formally existed/that he never actually held?

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

joeguevara · 02-09-2020 12:15PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The 2nd Amendment argument is a defence against the charges relating to possession of the gun , it cannot be a defence against the use of the gun.

As Leroy42 said though , the very idea that it's legal for people of any age or political persuasion to wander around the streets openly carrying a weapon is just utterly bizarre. That it is deemed ok in the middle of a riot is even more insane.

I'm not anti-gun per se , but the utter disregard that there seems to be in the US for basic common sense when it comes to guns will never cease to baffle me.

This is why I said it most likely will be a mixture of 2nd amendment right and self defence. Firstly he will need to prove that he was allowed to possess and then put forward a defence of why he used it. Based on known facts, self defence will fail but who knows. Common sense goes out the window in cases like this.

Quin_Dub · 02-09-2020 12:15PM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the rifle was owned and registered in the state, it didn't cross state lines,

the hunting rule , for the 5th time is the intention, not the text, the text just clarifies it has to be a rifle or a shotgun of a certain length, which it was. Posters are now intentionally misrepresenting me to be obtuse.

The gun didn't cross state lines, as it was a rifle over 16" barrel it was legal to be loaned to Kyle as he was over 16, he had police cadet firearms training and was there to defend a building which covers the first shooting under castle laws.

the second two shootings are the ones open to debate.

No , no it doesn't.

Castle Doctrine does not apply here - It's not his property and the shooting occurred in a public area.

If he had been inside the building , then maybe - He wasn't, he was on the street out in front.

Here are details on the Castle Doctrine in Wisconsin

Wisconsin does not have a "Stand your ground" law either , but it does have laws around the "Duty to Retreat"

Duty to Retreat in Wisconsin – Provocation
While there is no specific statute addressing stand your ground, a few court cases have addressed whether individuals have a duty to retreat in Wisconsin. The general rule is that there is no affirmative duty to retreat, unless the individual provoked the confrontation. This general rule mirrors the self-defense statute. Let’s assume the individual provoked the attack. He is generally cannot claim self-defense. The only exception is when he believes he exhausted all other means of escape from the death or great bodily harm.

For example, in Wisconsin, you started a fight. Shooter pulls out a gun in response to your physical and verbal actions. Again, you started the fight. Because of that, you must have a duty to retreat because you provoked the confrontation.

Duty to Retreat in Wisconsin – No Provocation
When the individual did not provoke the confrontation, the feasibility of retreat from the assailant is handled as an aspect of the general self-defense statute – specifically, whether the individual reasonably believed the force used was necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. A jury will be instructed to consider whether the individual had the opportunity to retreat, whether the opportunity was feasible, and whether the individual knew of the opportunity to retreat.

Upon a satisfaction of the statutory requirements, courts should instruct juries that there is no duty to retreat. The jury will be instructed to not consider evidence relating to whether the individual had an opportunity to flee or retreat.

So the self-defence argument might come down to "who started it"

duploelabs · 02-09-2020 12:16PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

I've worked many a summer as a lifeguard, never have I ever needed a rifle for my work

namloc1980 · 02-09-2020 12:18PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

Did you read the article?

1. It says: Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst. A YMCA spokeswoman told the Tribune that Rittenhouse was a part-time employee who has been furloughed since March because of the pandemic.

Uh oh. He hasn't worked there since March. Someone is telling lies.

2. Even better the YMCA is in Lindenhurst. Lindenhurst YMCA is in ILLINOIS. Not Wisconsin. https://g.page/HastingsLakeYMCA?share

Double uh-oh.

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:19PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

BLM would say that they are defending themselves against the aggression of the state. You see how easy it is to justify whatever position if you try hard enough.

There is no justification for him going to that, there was no justification of him bringing gun. Self-defence is fine when you find yourself in a situation. Knowingly going into said situation, and bringing a gun because he was well aware of the risks, cannot be classed as self-defence.

under that logic pretty much any murder can be excused.

BLM saying it doesn't make it true though.

He was 100% justified in the actions he took that night as he was in fear for his life from the violent mob that was attacking him and chasing him down the street.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Leroy42 · 02-09-2020 12:20PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

Where is Sunbaran Lindenhurst in comparison to Kenosha?

ohnonotgmail · 02-09-2020 12:22PM

duploelabs wrote: »

I've worked many a summer as a lifeguard, never have I ever needed a rifle for my work

not even for the people who pee in the pool?

duploelabs · 02-09-2020 12:22PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

BLM saying it doesn't make it true though.

He was 100% justified in the actions he took that night as he was in fear for his life from the violent mob that was attacking him and chasing him down the street.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

As QuinDud says, there's no castle doctrine in Wisconsin https://milwaukee-criminal-lawyer.com/castle-doctrine-vs-stand-your-ground/ so his actions were illegal

Carfacemandog · 02-09-2020 12:23PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

He worked as a lifeguard at the YMCA.

"Court records indicate that Rittenhouse worked as a lifeguard at a YMCA in suburban Lindenhurst"

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-20200826-xdww3peuj5ddbimcj4vikx63y4-story.html

Beyond the fact that that appears to be a pool/beach lifeguard at said YMCA who hasn't worked for them in about half a year (and who have also said they abhor the violence, support equality and protest, and offer their condolences to the families), and not a "community lifeguard", you're Lindenhurst is in another city and an entirely different state to Kenosha (Illinois).

You said "he was in Kenosha to work" as a "community lifeguard". Given that the YMCA of Lindenhurst, Illinois has no jurisdiction to unleash its swimming pool lifeguards on other cities in other states strapped with AR15s, nor from their statement would they ever even wish to, who was employing him, at the age of 17, to be heavily armed in Kenosha, Wisconsin that had the authority to do so (e.g. City, state, federal bodies)?

Leroy42 · 02-09-2020 12:23PM

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

BLM saying it doesn't make it true though.

He was 100% justified in the actions he took that night as he was in fear for his life from the violent mob that was attacking him and chasing him down the street.

Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Totally agree. But neither does.you claiming he was at work, or defending himself or any other claim you can think of.

You are spectacularly missing the point. The very claims you are making in defence of this guy can just as easily be used for pretty much anyone else. BLM or whatever.

But you don't think it applies to BLM, so you're entire position falls apart.

I could take it seriously if you applied it across the board, but you are not. You want to defend him and will find some excuse to do it. On the other hand, BLM or other protestors are wrong and as such deserve no benefit of the doubt.

duploelabs · 02-09-2020 12:26PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not even for the people who pee in the pool?

Only the (dive) bombers

LessOutragePlz · 02-09-2020 12:27PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally agree. But neither does.you claiming he was at work, or defending himself or any other claim you can think of.

You are spectacularly missing the point. The very claims you are making in defence of this guy can just as easily be used for pretty much anyone else. BLM or whatever.

But you don't think it applies to BLM, so you're entire position falls apart.

I could take it seriously if you applied it across the board, but you are not. You want to defend him and will find some excuse to do it. On the other hand, BLM or other protestors are wrong and as such deserve no benefit of the doubt.

It's the exact same as you and a bunch of other posters claiming he was a murderous vigilant that went out to murder some protesters.

You have no evidence or proof to back up those claims it's pure speculation just as I am speculating that he acted in self defense.

So for you to call me out on that is the pot calling the kettle black.

2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Comments