ANSWERS: 8
  • It was a trial that never should have been. Kyle Rittenhouse should sue the media AND the families of the victims - if the families can sue him for wrongful death in the event he was found guilty, then he should have the same right to sue them since it was the victims that put him in a situation where he had to defend his life both on the night of the killings and in the courtroom.
    • Charin Cross
      you are soooo right!!
    • mushroom
      It was a trial that never should have been. Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha carrying a weapon he was not allowed to purchase legally, believing he could protect other people's property there during a riot. The resulting deaths by his hand were a direct result of Rittenhouse's lack of maturity and poor decision to place himself in such a dangerous situation. What sort of sense was he supposed to have learned in gun safety lessons?
    • 1465
      "Kyle Rittenhouse went to Kenosha carrying a weapon he was not allowed to purchase legally." This part was thrown out because with it being a long-barreled rifle, that particular law didn't apply - thus, his owning the weapon was NOT illegal. If you're going to debate, at least do your due diligence and bring actual facts to the table and not fantasies that you want to believe just because they were reported by the fake media.
    • mushroom
      @1465 Incorrect. The gun was purchased in Wisconsin by Rittenhouse's friend. Must be 18 to purchase a long gun in WI, but long gun exception permits carry at 16. The carry charge was dismissed. "Nov. 19 (UPI) -- A Wisconsin commissioner said Thursday a Kenosha man will stand trial on charges that he bought the firearms police say Kyle Rittenhouse used to kill two protesters and injure a third almost three months ago. Dominick Black, 19, was arrested earlier this month and charged with two counts of intent to sell a dangerous weapon to a person under age 18 causing death. He posted $2,500 bond and was released from Kenosha County Detention Center." https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2020/11/19/Man-accused-of-buying-guns-in-Kenosha-Wis-shooting-to-stand-trial/3271605810316/
    • DancesWithWolves
      Yeah I see
    • 1465
      948.60 explains possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. Section 3c states: "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.". He was not in violation of any of these. Thus, the law you're wanting to refer to doesn't apply. Nor does purchasing the rifle for him: "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" - Again, you have restrictions on how the law is applied. The judge threw these charges out because they didn't apply - I would assume he's acquainted with the law also.
    • OrangeDonRump
      It was nothing but vigilantism. He showed up there with a gun looking for an opportunity to kill someone, and WHOA! He found one! Easier than an easter egg hunt...
    • 1465
      Your credibility precedes you. You're just listening to yourself talk,
  • very happy about that. he was defending himself. I have faith in the American people and to date, they have not let me down. especially the 80M who voted for Pres. Trump!
    • DancesWithWolves
      I don't know much about it
  • I'm surprised, but given the accounts I've read in BBC news, that was the right decision. The guy was (based on those accounts) very clearly acting in self-defense in all three shootings, regardless of his earlier intent (which was to protect the private property of others using his firearm...a motive which NONE of the shootings he committed involved).
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for your comment
  • Justice was served, IMHO. He was chased down by an angry and threatening mob who were bent on mayhem. Rioting and burning and looting is not legal protest behavior. He was in a life or death situation and he defended himself. The verdict simply reaffirms that self defense is a human right.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for your comment
  • I can understand the self defense. What I am not understanding is why the underage for possessing a gun was dropped too.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for your comment
    • 1465
      The law that everyone is referring to 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 OTHER GUN LAWS**. This is the part they're missing. Kyle was not in violation of the other restrictive gun laws, therefore, that specific law did not apply to him and he was not committing a crime for underage possession.
    • dalcocono
      The whole idea of a minor not being allowed to have a gun is silly when you look at their hunting license laws. If you can buy a hunting license at 10 years old, then the state doesn't have laws against a 17 year old having a rifle.
  • The guy could have stayed home. Not many people travel to another state to be a part of the protest. Second he didn't need to bring a Kalashnikov to the protest, third it didn't need to be loaded. Kyle caused these deaths. Its a shame he gets away scot free. Fox News has a job waiting for him the day he turns 18 lol😖
    • DancesWithWolves
      Yes, thanks for your awesome comment
  • Democrat media pushing their agenda , don't worry about the law or any persons life they affect. When they affect your life you may care.
    • DancesWithWolves
      Thanks for sharing
  • I don't believe he was there just to protect a car dealership that was already half burned and that he had no ties to. He was there to act as a counter protestor and to play cop. Posing for pics at a bar while flashing white power symbols in the company of the Proud Boys says a lot too. I believe he went there looking for action. So even if he was defending himself in the moment- he created that situation by being there, with a gun on display, as a counter protestor in a racially charged police brutality protest turned riot. He's a dumb kid that tried to get in on the action and ended up murdering two people. There should have been some kind of consequence. I guess I wish he had been charged with murder and found guilty, but as a juvenile. Because that's what he is- a stupid and dangerous kid. Not a hero

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy