Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, saying his life was likely in danger

[jcsmith]

6 minutes ago, Pattaya Spotter said:

From the video I've seen...that would appear to be the case. I assume using lethal force in self-defense when one believes their life is at risk is still the law, even in Democrat run cities and states.

Well that's where the mystery comes in and we'll need to see what happens in the trial. He shot someone before the footage where everyone is chasing him. But in the only footage I've seen of that you couldn't really see much to determine what exactly happened. You could certainly argue with the skateboard guy he was defending himself, but was that after he had already shot someone? There were also reports and a video of people chastising him claiming he was aiming his gun at protesters or cars passing by before the incident. 

I think we'll need to see all the evidence unfold to really know the full extent of what happened. But even in the best case scenario here it doesn't seem like he is an innocent teen. He was there looking for trouble with a rifle. Certainly Trump shouldn't be out acting like he's this guys lawyer, while at the same time refusing to comment on the murders of people who don't fit into his narrative. 

[Mavideol]

52 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

If the kid was about to get attacked and potentially killed , you can forgive him for shooting in self defence 

why did he had a gun hanging in front of him ?  how was he in danger if he was parading up and down the street ?  why would somebody on a normal state of mind would walk up and down a street displaying a gun if not looking for trouble

[Smigel]

32 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You can be a full on far right wing domestic terrorist but if you love 45 he loves you back. 

He was there removing graffiti, administering first aid to "protestors" and helping to guard a second hand car lot business that had been set ablaze by peaceful protestors. 

I guess they just don't make these "far right terrorists" like they used to. 

He was then chased by the peaceful protestors, had a molotov cocktail thrown at him, was hit on the head by a guy with a skateboard after falling to the ground. 

Whilst on the ground one of the assailants tried to wrestle the rifle from rittenhouse, whereupon rittenhouse shot the assailant in the arm.

It has been reported that the first guy shot was chasing rittenhouse, was armed and actually fired first. 

[Mavideol]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

Trump defends accused Kenosha gunman, saying his life was likely in danger

I wouldn't expect anything else from Trump, he's a lost cause, would like to see his reaction if one of his relatives was hit by the guy..... next, they will be suing the city for not protecting the guy

[RoadWarrior371]

1 minute ago, jcsmith said:

Well that's where the mystery comes in and we'll need to see what happens in the trial. He shot someone before the footage where everyone is chasing him. But in the only footage I've seen of that you couldn't really see much to determine what exactly happened. You could certainly argue with the skateboard guy he was defending himself, but was that after he had already shot someone? There were also reports and a video of people chastising him claiming he was aiming his gun at protesters or cars passing by before the incident.

There is a video of the first shooting, but likely under wraps.  Kid was running, a unknown 3rd party supposedly fired a shot from behind him, he turned and shot the unarmed protester that was chasing him lunging toward the gun.  All will come out in the trial.

[Smigel]

2 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

why did he had a gun hanging in front of him ?  how was he in danger if he was parading up and down the street ?  why would somebody on a normal state of mind would walk up and down a street displaying a gun if not looking for trouble

Perhaps it would be a good idea to avail yourself some facts of the case before passing judgement. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, JensenZ said:

It doesn't matter too much about legalities when your life is on the line. What he should have or could have done is also irrelevant.

 

yes, I know, legalities are irrelevant to you and your pathetic fake president hero...  But fortunately, not to the rest of the country.

 

 

[CorpusChristie]

8 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

why did he had a gun hanging in front of him ?  how was he in danger if he was parading up and down the street ?  why would somebody on a normal state of mind would walk up and down a street displaying a gun if not looking for trouble

He had the right to walk up and down the street , the rioters do not own the streets .

If he thought there were violent people out on the streets , he has the right to take safety measures to protect himself 

[ballpoint]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

You can be a full on far right wing domestic terrorist but if you love 45 he loves you back. 

I get the "full on far right wing domestic terrorist" and the "love 45" bits, but you've lost me with "but if".  You mean some of them don't love Trump? 

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

He had the right to walk up and down the street , the rioters do not own the streets .

If he thought there were violent people out on the streets , he has the right to take safety measures to protect himself 

He had no right to walk up and down the street, its under curfew. He had no right to have the gun.

 

basically everything he did was illegal.

[Mavideol]

2 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

He had the right to walk up and down the street , the rioters do not own the streets .

If he thought there were violent people out on the streets , he has the right to take safety measures to protect himself 

like illegally carrying a gun ? isn't it obvious by doing so he was looking for trouble

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

I get the "full on far right wing domestic terrorist" and the "love 45" bits, but you've lost me with "but if".  You mean some of them don't love Trump? 

Actually some don't  For example some right wing antisemites can't stomach his Jewish daughter and often fanatic anti vaxers can't deal with his advocacy for vaccines even though its clearly politically motivated. 

[RoadWarrior371]

5 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

like illegally carrying a gun ? isn't it obvious by doing so he was looking for trouble

All the neophyte responses is exactly why our great country has trial by jury of one's peers.

[herfiehandbag]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

All the evidence I have seen shows Kyle acted in self defence. No idea where people get the terrorist murderer white supremacist gun smuggler narrative from, was it from Congresswoman Pressley's twitter feed? I know she claimed this without a shred of evidence. Kyle's lawyer, Lin Wood of Covington fake news MAGA kid fame, is suing all and sundry for defamation for making up a very silly and false narrative. 

 People should probably wait for more evidence and clarity before rushing to defame a minor.

 Goodness gracious me!

 

The "kid" was a known, self proclaimed right wing white supremacist!

 

He travelled some distance, with a semi automatic rifle, to be present at at march protest whose aims he is on record as vociferously protesting, got involved in a fight and opened fire, killing two!

 

"Defaming a minor!"

 

Have you any idea at all how silly your post sounds?

 

 

[RoadWarrior371]

1 minute ago, herfiehandbag said:

 

Have you any idea at all how silly your post sounds?

 

 

Pot, meet Kettle.  ????

[Pattaya Spotter]

31 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Is that the law ?

People can only defend themselves if they legally have a weapon ?

If that is the law, then this kid is guilty .

Is that the law ?

No.

[simple1]

18 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

He had the right to walk up and down the street , the rioters do not own the streets .

If he thought there were violent people out on the streets , he has the right to take safety measures to protect himself 

 

 

The teen was not licensed to open carry a weapon in the State. The guy was acting illegally from the get go.

[CorpusChristie]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

The teen was not licensed to open carry a weapon in the State. The guy was acting illegally from the get go.

Two separate  issues .

Its like if you got arrested for DIU , you could say, I'm not legally allowed to drive this car, so that makes me innocent  

[animalmagic]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

All the evidence I have seen shows Kyle acted in self defence. No idea where people get the terrorist murderer white supremacist gun smuggler narrative from, was it from Congresswoman Pressley's twitter feed? I know she claimed this without a shred of evidence. Kyle's lawyer, Lin Wood of Covington fake news MAGA kid fame, is suing all and sundry for defamation for making up a very silly and false narrative. 

 People should probably wait for more evidence and clarity before rushing to defame a minor.

People should probably wait for more evidence and clarity before rushing to defend a killer.  Especially a President.

(I do not claim that it was self defence or murder, and am waiting to see proof either way)

[EVENKEEL]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

 

 

Let's also remember, the first person the teenager fatally shot was NOT armed with a gun or a knife at all...  According to the videos, someone else unknown nearby fired a gun into the air (not at the teenager), and he responded by shooting the man who was chasing him.... who wasn't any kind of lethal threat.

 

 

 

Why was the shooter being chased?

[EVENKEEL]

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Two separate  issues .

Its like if you got arrested for DIU , you could say, I'm not legally allowed to drive this car, so that makes me innocent  

What's a DIU   

[simple1]

7 minutes ago, CorpusChristie said:

Two separate  issues .

Its like if you got arrested for DIU , you could say, I'm not legally allowed to drive this car, so that makes me innocent  

 

 

really becoming nonsensical - in your scenario guy would be acting illegally - bye

[RoadWarrior371]

2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Why was the shooter being chased?

Not clear on that until the trial, but the first victim was in a heated argument 1 hour earlier with the group that Kyle R. arrived with.  Looks like he wanted to burn stuff down, and the armed group stopped him.  The first victim is actually on video screaming at the armed guys guarding the gas station, screaming  "Shoot me N*er, shoot me!".  ????

[steelepulse]

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

You're kinda forgetting the part where, apart from anything else, he was in illegal possession of a gun/rifle as a minor AND out at night in violation of curfew.  His whole presence there was illegal, and he was committing a criminal offense before anything at all happened with him.

 

Plus, AFAIK, it's not known what exactly led to the initial confrontation with this guy in the first place.  Lots of white militia were out with guns that night, but they weren't all being chased by crowds... Something happened at the outset prior to the first shooting.

 

Let's also remember, the first person the teenager fatally shot was NOT armed with a gun or a knife at all...  According to the videos, someone else unknown nearby fired a gun into the air (not at the teenager), and he responded by shooting the man who was chasing him.... who wasn't any kind of lethal threat.

 

 

 

What was illegal about it?  The rifle was legally registered in the state, a 17 year old can lawfully possess such a weapon and the state is a carry state.  Remind me again, what part of all of this is illegal?  

 

 

[TopDeadSenter]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

illegally carrying a gun, across state lines.

 Why am I reading again and again and again on this forum that Kyle illegally took his weapon across state lines? Does anyone have one of these credible sources to back up the questionable narrative? In the meantime...

 

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin." 

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/

 

 The Milwaukee Journal article also has 2 lawyers saying there is significant doubt and ambiguity as to whether Kyle was allowed to carry his rifle. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, steelepulse said:

What was illegal about it?  The rifle was legally registered in the state, a 17 year old can lawfully possess such a weapon and the state is a carry state.  Remind me again, what part of all of this is illegal?  

 

AFAIK, Wisconsin law does not allow minors to carry firearms in public, except in very limited situations, none of which applied here.

 

Quote

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However the exception is: "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." ^[8] Children over 14 are allowed to use hunting guns under very limited, supervised situations.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin#

[steelepulse]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

AFAIK, Wisconsin law does not allow minors to carry firearms in public.

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/

 

"But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply."  Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted.

 

Looks like the law is open to intrepretation, as are most all laws.

[The Barmbeker]

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

All the evidence I have seen shows Kyle acted in self defence. No idea where people get the terrorist murderer white supremacist gun smuggler narrative from, was it from Congresswoman Pressley's twitter feed? I know she claimed this without a shred of evidence. Kyle's lawyer, Lin Wood of Covington fake news MAGA kid fame, is suing all and sundry for defamation for making up a very silly and false narrative. 

 People should probably wait for more evidence and clarity before rushing to defame a minor.

No...we got it from that thing called "reality"!

That thing that you have no grasp of, obviously!

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, steelepulse said:

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/

 

"But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply."  Tom Grieve, a Milwaukee defense lawyer who also specializes in gun cases, agreed the exception might apply beyond hunting, but said that part of the law is poorly drafted.

 

Looks like the law is open to intrepretation, as are most all laws.

 

You want to argue the teenager was out "hunting" protesters... Go ahead!!!!  

 

I'm sure there will be all kinds of gun rights and right-wing group militia attorneys who will be arguing all kind of ridiculous, preposterous things...  Just waiting for one of them to come along with the "God told him to do it" defense.

 

[animalmagic]

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Wisconsin