Kyle Rittenhouse makes bail

[Omega]

2 MILLION bail, because he is such a flight risk says the judge.  The prosecutor wanted between 4 and 10 million, even though the few terrorists they arrested during the "peaceful protests" were released on their own recognizance. Hope he has security 24/7, he will be targeted by every ANTIFA and BLM who wants to make a name for themselves and get street cred from all the other scum of the earth members.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/Police-Shooting-Wisconsin-Kenosha/2020/11/20/id/998082/

 

MODS: I think this belongs here as it has massive significance for ALL our rights to self-defense.  But if you think otherwise, just move it.

[Garufa]

Meanwhile, the kid that bought the rifle for Rittenhouse is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kenosha-man-allegedly-bought-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-shootings-charges.amp

Edited November 21, 2020 by Garufa

[No_0ne]

3 hours ago, Garufa said:

Meanwhile, the kid that bought the rifle for Rittenhouse is being prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/kenosha-man-allegedly-bought-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-shootings-charges.amp

The kid who did the shooting may be able to mount a successful self defense case, I don't know enough about the facts of the situation to know one way or another.  I don't see any way the one who purchased the rifle for Rittenhouse is going to beat a straw purchase charge though ...

[Erik88]

I'm sympathetic to both but buying a gun for another person like that is a terrible idea. I hate that he's getting prosecuted for it though.

[Omega]

7 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I'm sympathetic to both but buying a gun for another person like that is a terrible idea. I hate that he's getting prosecuted for it though.

I agree, but the crime they charged him with may be defensible, depending on what the statute says.  The weapon was not purchased so he could go out and kill someone, so no intent, isn t that what prosecutors always lean on?  These are state charges though, the feds might come in on this one if the state doesn't convict.  ATF might be chomping at the bit for it, anyway it turns out. 

[DaveTN]

I don’t see much of a way out for him. I suspect this will end in a plea bargain. They’ll want his testimony against Kyle. Below is the law we are talking about. You can make your own decisions about what it says. It requires no intent to harm someone, only intent to transfer, which he has confessed to. He could also face Federal charges should the feds decide to go that route.

..........................................................................................

2013 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
948. Crimes against children.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Universal Citation: WI Stat § 948.60 (2013 through Act 380)
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).

Edited November 21, 2020 by DaveTN

[Omega]

Well, there was plenty of target practice.  [/sarc] 

[Quavodus]

6 hours ago, Omega said:

Well, there was plenty of target practice.  [/sarc] 

The kid actually had decent accuracy, under pressure too. Now they need to let him out, drop all charges, give him back his rifle, and send him somewhere else he's needed. 

[QuackerSmacker]

The "My Pillow" guy chipped in for Kyle's bail.

[Johnny Rotten]

meanwhile over at BRCC 

Lin Wood on Twitter: "FREE AT LAST!!! From L to R: Attorney John Pierce @CaliKidJMP THE KYLE RITTENHOUSE Actor Ricky Schroder @rickyschroder13 Thank you, All Donors. Thank you, All Patriots. Thank God Almighty. #FightBack https://t.co/37Ly66itT8" / Twitter

 

[Omega]

16 hours ago, QuackerSmacker said:

The "My Pillow" guy chipped in for Kyle's bail.

And apparently Rick Schroder, glad to know all of Hollywood hasn't sold their souls. 

Edited November 22, 2020 by Omega

[DaveTN]

I don’t know much about FIGHTBACK, or GIVESENDGO, but they are taking donations for Kyles defense fund. Of course the MSM doesn’t cover this, so its hard to tell who they are, or who “Friends Of The Rittenhouse Family, Atlanta, Ga” is.

GOFUNDME wouldn’t allow a webpage for a Kyle defense fund. So much for innocent until proven guilty. I’ve sent money to GOFUNDME; but never again. Of course they don’t care; they aren’t taking the loss; the people that need their site are.

But if those sites are legit, it looks like they are making their goals. 

[Garufa]

1 hour ago, 70Stingray said:

and never be in a section of the USA where this goes on
 

 

 

That is totally fake.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Chucktshoes
Removed offensive image

[Chucktshoes]

54 minutes ago, Garufa said:

That is totally fake.

Correct, and it’s also gone.
 

 

I actually know the image source for that (don’t look at me like that, it’s hilarious) but this is not the place for that kinda mess. (Not directed at you Garufa, but your posts is what remains.)
 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Chucktshoes

[FUJIMO]

58 minutes ago, Garufa said:

That is totally fake.

Dammit i always miss the good fake stuff. Like showing up right after big T!T Betty gets off the pole

[Chucktshoes]

https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298?s=20

 

This is the moment when the prosecution case completely died.

[AuEagle]

Addition to above.

Rittenhouse Witness Blows Case For Prosecution, Admits He Pointed Gun, Advanced First | ZeroHedge

[deerslayer]

Yeah I couldn’t believe it when I heard Grosskreutz would take the stand.  Not that he needed to admit anything—the video shows what he did, but MSM says Grosskreutz put his hands up as if surrendering when he was shot.  Ummmm, not in the video I saw.  But I am glad for his sake that he apparently still has a left arm.  

Edited November 8, 2021 by deerslayer

[Snaveba]

While it is apparent that Kyle was defending his life, and should be innocent of murder charges, it is hard to deny that if he had not been openly carrying an AR-15, things might have gone differently. The “threat” that others were erroneously been responding to would not have been there. I am not saying the situation couldn’t have ended up violent anyway, but Kyle would not have instantly been a “target” due to the other side knowing he was armed. 
 

The media jumped to villain-ize Kyle  from the get-go I think in large part to the fact that he was openly carrying and “assault” rifle. I think if he had been conceal-carrying (like Grosskreutz) and things went sideways to the point he had to defend himself with deadly force, he may not have as instantly been made the bad guy. Unfortunately, he was still on the wrong side of the media and it likely still would have been an uphill battle. 

[45guy]

4 minutes ago, Snaveba said:

While it is apparent that Kyle was defending his life, and should be innocent of murder charges, it is hard to deny that if he had not been openly carrying an AR-15, things might have gone differently. The “threat” that others were erroneously been responding to would not have been there. I am not saying the situation couldn’t have ended up violent anyway, but Kyle would not have instantly been a “target” due to the other side knowing he was armed. 
 

The media jumped to villain-ize Kyle  from the get-go I think in large part to the fact that he was openly carrying and “assault” rifle. I think if he had been conceal-carrying (like Grosskreutz) and things went sideways to the point he had to defend himself with deadly force, he may not have as instantly been made the bad guy. Unfortunately, he was still on the wrong side of the media and it likely still would have been an uphill battle. 

Oh come on. There is no way to know that he was targeted because he was open carrying.  There were plenty of other guys open carrying that were not targets.  I think this guy looked young was by his self at the moment he was attacked by someone that had told him he was going to kill him if he was found alone.  I know you guys are against open carrying but that is a reach.

[Snaveba]

Maybe so, maybe not.
 

A lot of things went wrong that evening and there were a series of bad decisions on both sides.  These decisions lead to a needless loss of life. 

You are correct that I am of the opinion that open carry (especially at a demonstration) makes you more of a target. It also gives the media nice photos of you to let them say “look at the evil guy with the evil gun, guns are bad we should ban them all”. It’s a uphill battle at times to keep our 2A rights. I just don’t like to give them more ammunition to use to fight against us. 

[deerslayer]

I am generally not a fan of open carry, but if one’s purpose is to guard/protect in a potential riot situation (as opposed to carrying while shopping, going to the gas station, etc), it can be appropriate.  Rittenhouse was not shopping for shoes at the mall.  Besides, it’s basically impossible to conceal a rifle, which is what I would want were I in Rittenhouse’s shoes.  Whether he should have been there or not is an unrelated issue.  

Edited November 8, 2021 by deerslayer

[45guy]

1 hour ago, Snaveba said:

Maybe so, maybe not.
 

A lot of things went wrong that evening and there were a series of bad decisions on both sides.  These decisions lead to a needless loss of life. 

You are correct that I am of the opinion that open carry (especially at a demonstration) makes you more of a target. It also gives the media nice photos of you to let them say “look at the evil guy with the evil gun, guns are bad we should ban them all”. It’s a uphill battle at times to keep our 2A rights. I just don’t like to give them more ammunition to use to fight against us. 

The media is going to portray gun owners as bad no matter what.  I certainly not going to change how I carry because I am concerned about the media.  If he was targeted because he was open carrying then others should be able to learn if you attack someone open carrying you have a good chance of dyeing. 

[E4 No More]

24 minutes ago, 45guy said:

The media is going to portray gun owners as bad no matter what.  I certainly not going to change how I carry because I am concerned about the media.  If he was targeted because he was open carrying then others should be able to learn if you attack someone open carrying you have a good chance of dyeing. 

Or dying.

[45guy]

2 hours ago, E4 No More said:

Or dying.

Thanks, thats what I meat to sa.