I for one do not believe he shot them people out of self defence and never meant to kill them. I think he intended to kill them and thought he would get away with it. The Judge as well is a joke. What a very strange trial. Only in America.
A lot of posters here watching too many action films and having a Rambo complex.
It's about as significant as crossing from Westmeath into Meath, but the US media thought it sounded good.
Back when the story broke I don't think they were certain that they had sufficiently propagandised their base as to have them repeat a narrative in obvious contradiction to all evidence. So "crossed state lines" acted as a placeholder until they realised that actually their audiences were that brainwashed after all, but by the time the media could fabricate and introduce such corkers as "he went there to hunt black people", it had already stuck with (particularly) Twitter's extremist left.
It's a red herring thrown in for no reason. To make it sound as if he travelled miles to get involved.
I believe that every state has different gun laws and in some circumstances it can be illegal to bring a gun across state lines without the proper authorisation.
It was originally believed that Rittenhouse had brought the gun across state lines but investigations proved this didn't happen. If Rittenhouse brought the gun across state lines on the night of the Kenosha shootings, he would have been guilty of an offence.....but this didn't happen. The gun was already in Wisconsin.
Wasn't Rambo unfairly targeted as well?
Gaige Grosskreutz is suing the state because of his lost arm, for I believe something like 30$million(it was mentioned in the trial)
His case rests on the outcome of the Rittenhouse case.
This is the same guy who said he was following Rittenhouse, in the direction of Rittenhouse, because of Rittenhouse but not chasing Rittenhouse. The double speak in his testimony was truly something to behold. Not once in his lawsuit suing the city did he mention that he had a gun or that he pointed it at Rittenhouse, not in his police statement either.
While undefire from rittenhouse ???
Infowars?
The ones so angry about him crossing state lines are also the ones usually so upset when you talk about the need for borders and walls. They are funny like that.
I can think of a few alright. People claiming that Kyle was a bad shooter and under the pressure he was under should have only hit centre mass in order while being assaulted to be a proficient shooter.
Oh.... That's not what you mean?
You mean that people defending someone who attempts to help a city under siege from "mostly peaceful" looters are somehow suffering from a Rambo complex?
And some say it's all a conspiracy theory 😂😂😂
Lost boy in a strange city packing a Ar15 loaded with 5.56/.223 of FMJ
I don't believe there is any charge of "crossing state lines with a gun" with or without authorisation. Certainly I've never encountered one and I've done a reasonable amount of interstate travel (Air and land) with firearms.
The gun is either lawfully possessed in whatever state they are in with the gun, or it is not. The origin of the owner is never a factor in any law I'm aware of. The closest thing to 'authorisation' would be an exception to policy, such as a soldier assigned to a base in California who wants to import and keep a personally-owned rifle which meets the California criterion of "assault weapon", but it's an exception to possess (which is written into the law) which, not an exception to transport.
I notice the Reddit mods, are really disturbed if you mentioned that Kyle shot dead a paedo, a domestic abuser and wounded a burglar with 'think of the human' the operative phrase. I suppose they say to themselves or on Discord: 'that could have been me.' He withdrew yet they kept advancing on him, the convicted pederast (four boys) shouting for Kyle to 'shoot me n-word,' so we will soon see what the jury thinks. The prosecution is terrible, pointing a gun with a finger on the trigger, which is wholly unsafe, bad practice. They cannot be that desperate for a mistrial.
Rambo probably investigated for his connections to the Mujahideen
They're right though. Whoever the person is has nothing to do with the case. The law will decide their punishment separately and as far as I'm aware they were convicted and served their time. The question is whether Rittenhouse executed these people or not because nobody has a right to execute anyone no matter who or what they are.
One of them, the convicted sex offender, did try commit suicide / take his own life, but that's informative but not of legal moment. However, criminal convictions, particularly can be relevant. A domestic abuser often has difficulties with his or her temper. Charging a man with a gun suggests men who were brimming with adrenaline.
Rambo - friend of the Taliban. Or the man who helped bring down the evil Soviet empire. Delete as necessary.
"Executed"
He have them up against a wall. Give them a final smoke.
No. 1 got shot grabbing the gun
No. 2 got shot attacking him on the ground
No 3 got shot after following him down the road, backing off and then advancing again this time with his own gun aimed at Rittenhouse.
It's amazing how in a case like this people will pick a "team" and do everything they can to try and influence their "team" winning at all costs.
Did anyone on this thread learn anything throughout this case? Did anyone change their mind about anything? Does anyone still trust the mainstream media after this?
I said it's a question that will be answered legally. Not a fact. You seem to have made up your own mind.
What a world we live in - looters and rioters are 'protestors' 😢 Police don't do a damn thing, apart from watching on, while these peaceful folk cause mayhem.. Someone shoots someone in self defence, and they're being called murderer by all and sundry..
Hope Rittenhouse gets justice, and sues the fcuk out of all the shíthouses that slandered him all over TV; on the normally unbiased (supposedly) news stations.
Reddit turned to **** during the 2016 US election and never recovered. Default subs are just a play den for extreme left "supermods" now, but some of the minor subs and those related to hobbies/professions are still decent.
Literally nobody has said that apart from you.
Another "Gatling original" incorrect statement.
Please you chose your own word and you chose execute.
The trial will decide if it was homicide, murder, manslaughter, self defense ect.
Illegal execution not one of them
He killed them, that's a fact. Idiot 1 grabbed the gun as shown by the prosecutions' own witness, we've all seen the video of the second shot, and idiot 3 own testimony.
"The Jury has just been retired to consider their verdict"
"We'll be back with the verdict of 'not guilty' after this commercial break..."
It’s nowhere near the same as going from Westmeath into Meath. The separation between states in the US is quite significant, and you know that.
I'm not convinced he will walk from this despite the overwhelming evidence.
But we live in such a polarised world now where it takes just a couple of jurors who are willing to ignore evidence and follow the media instructions and the propaganda by the sitting president (like some on this thread) to make an example of Kyle Rittenhouse.
I'm hoping common sense wins out.
I haven't trusted the corporate media in a long time and I was pretty certain of the facts of the case before the trial started.
I did drink the corporate media Kool-Aid about Rittenhouse possibly being guilty on the weapon misdemeanour, so I was surprised by that dismissal. And I was actually surprised by how weak the prosecution's case was, as witness after witness came along and confirmed the case for self defense. I'd be interested in exactly how weak a prosecution's case has to be to amount to malicious prosecution.
Ultimately I still feel the same as I felt the day after it happened: I'm glad I live in a country where regional and national political actors letting cities burn for political gain is not a thing, I'm glad I live in a country where guns are not the norm and the idea of a 17-year-old being out in the streets with a rifle is completely alien, but I think that in this situation, at this time, in that place, Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent of murder on grounds of self defense.
You should tell that to all the state border dwellers in the US who cross state lines every day to go to work or buy milk.
The fact that Rittenhouse himself "crossed state lines" is absolutely irrelevant to the legal case, and that's why it's only been introduced in the court of public opinion. Trying to press the "state lines" narrative to a jury full of people who live near and probably cross over a state line multiple times a week would not have been a good move.
It is indeed which is why the different states can have their different laws on possession. However, now I think about it, the only law with regards crossing into other states with a gun is actually a protection for the gun. For example, if I'm driving from Maryland (Assault weapon legal) through New Jersey (Assault weapon illegal) to Pennsylvania (Assault weapon legal), then federal law protects the owner from prosecution for having an assault weapon in New Jersey as long as it's purely a transit.
In itself, 'crossing state lines with a gun' is about on the same level as 'crossing from Ireland into the UK with a leafblower'. Hardly remarkable.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c9236bc67b608c3603b1ed089c896282.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/86b2bf519a78c14958c9040117dc4dc1.svg)
