Kyle Rittenhouse | Now crowdfunding LOLsuits against Whoopi Goldberg, LeBron James, and The Young Turks

Rado_N said:
“If I had my AR I’d shoot them”

A while later he takes an AR and travels to a place himself in a hostile situation, then actually does shoot someone.

“Nothing alike”
Click to expand...

1) Looters are not protesters.
2) Its called running your mouth. Hyperbole you use may give some insight towards your attitude, but its a murder trial not a gossip circle.
3) He was reported by all involved to have been pleasant to every protester until the incident with Ziminski- with the heavily contested assertion about Yellow Pants Man being possible exception that everyone who is on the record denies
4) Rosenbaum, a man who was acting unstable all night, that most protesters didn't want anything to do with. Multiple people heard him make threats against Rittenhouse's life, chased him. When he points his gun at him, Rosenbaum put his hands up and Rittenhouse doesn't shoot, he continues to run because Rosenbaum is still making ground on him. Rittenhouse continues to try to flees. He runs out of safe room to run towards, turns around and by the prosecutions evidence Rosenbaum was within 1-4 feet with his hand either on or just in front of the gun. The whole incident lasted about 10 seconds.
5) While he's running towards the police when he gets the 'opportunity' to shoot people who are running towards him he doesn't shoot unless they are kicking his face, grabbing his gun, or pointing a gun at him. Anyone who was not a threat he didn't shoot with the view of getting away with it by claiming he was panicked or confused afterwards in the hopes of duping people.

I appreciate you are being snarky, but its a completely legal call that doesn't allow prejudicial information before the jury and is in line with rulings made about prejudicial information about other parties. The fact its being used as a sign of bias from the judge is just a very twitter thing.
 
Drainy said:
1) Looters are not protesters.
2) Its called running your mouth. Hyperbole you use may give some insight towards your attitude, but its a murder trial not a gossip circle.
3) He was reported by all involved to have been pleasant to every protester until the incident with Ziminski- with the heavily contested assertion about Yellow Pants Man being possible exception that everyone who is on the record denies
4) Rosenbaum, a man who was acting unstable all night, that most protesters didn't want anything to do with. Multiple people heard him make threats against Rittenhouse's life, chased him. When he points his gun at him, Rosenbaum put his hands up and Rittenhouse doesn't shoot, he continues to run because Rosenbaum is still making ground on him. Rittenhouse continues to try to flees. He runs out of safe room to run towards, turns around and by the prosecutions evidence Rosenbaum was within 1-4 feet with his hand either on or just in front of the gun. The whole incident lasted about 10 seconds.
5) While he's running towards the police when he gets the 'opportunity' to shoot people who are running towards him he doesn't shoot unless they are kicking his face, grabbing his gun, or pointing a gun at him. Anyone who was not a threat he didn't shoot with the view of getting away with it by claiming he was panicked or confused afterwards in the hopes of duping people.

I appreciate you are being snarky, but its a completely legal call that doesn't allow prejudicial information before the jury and is in line with rulings made about prejudicial information about other parties. The fact its being used as a sign of bias from the judge is just a very twitter thing.
Click to expand...

This, in particular the bolded bits, reminds me you never responded to this:

NotThatSoph said:
Here you're talking about three things:

1) What happened that day.
2) Rosenbaum as a person.
3) Rittenhouse as a person.

When talking about Rosenbaum, you're talking about his crimes and you're tying that into what happened that day. When talking about Rittenhouse, you're describing his affiliating with a terrorist organization and use of a white supremacist symbol as "may have some shitty affiliations", and you're following it up with a but about how that doesn't impact what happened that day. You're downplaying Ritterhouse's cozying up with fascist terrorists, and you're treating the two people's personal lives outside of the incident in two completely different ways.

Combined with these particular comments:






As someone said, this "doesn't look good". However, over several days we have all the context we need. Your approach to this is really fecked up. You can try to do your spiel about how people can't handle looking at the evidence objectively, that it hurts their feelings, but I'm not talking about the evidence or the trial. I'm talking about you.
Click to expand...
 
Drainy said:
1) Looters are not protesters.
2) Its called running your mouth. Hyperbole you use may give some insight towards your attitude, but its a murder trial not a gossip circle.
3) He was reported by all involved to have been pleasant to every protester until the incident with Ziminski- with the heavily contested assertion about Yellow Pants Man being possible exception that everyone who is on the record denies
4) Rosenbaum, a man who was acting unstable all night, that most protesters didn't want anything to do with. Multiple people heard him make threats against Rittenhouse's life, chased him. When he points his gun at him, Rosenbaum put his hands up and Rittenhouse doesn't shoot, he continues to run because Rosenbaum is still making ground on him. Rittenhouse continues to try to flees. He runs out of safe room to run towards, turns around and by the prosecutions evidence Rosenbaum was within 1-4 feet with his hand either on or just in front of the gun. The whole incident lasted about 10 seconds.
5) While he's running towards the police when he gets the 'opportunity' to shoot people who are running towards him he doesn't shoot unless they are kicking his face, grabbing his gun, or pointing a gun at him. Anyone who was not a threat he didn't shoot with the view of getting away with it by claiming he was panicked or confused afterwards in the hopes of duping people.

I appreciate you are being snarky, but its a completely legal call that doesn't allow prejudicial information before the jury and is in line with rulings made about prejudicial information about other parties. The fact its being used as a sign of bias from the judge is just a very twitter thing.
Click to expand...

All the footage I've seen suggests Rittenhouse is an idiot...but he was acting in self defence.
 
Rado_N said:
This, in particular the bolded bits, reminds me you never responded to this:
Click to expand...

I never responded directly, but addressed the content by accepting responsibility and culpability for poor argument

If fact you responded to a second post accepting responsibility by posting a parklife gif
 
Drainy said:
1) Looters are not protesters.
2) Its called running your mouth. Hyperbole you use may give some insight towards your attitude, but its a murder trial not a gossip circle.
3) He was reported by all involved to have been pleasant to every protester until the incident with Ziminski- with the heavily contested assertion about Yellow Pants Man being possible exception that everyone who is on the record denies
4) Rosenbaum, a man who was acting unstable all night, that most protesters didn't want anything to do with. Multiple people heard him make threats against Rittenhouse's life, chased him. When he points his gun at him, Rosenbaum put his hands up and Rittenhouse doesn't shoot, he continues to run because Rosenbaum is still making ground on him. Rittenhouse continues to try to flees. He runs out of safe room to run towards, turns around and by the prosecutions evidence Rosenbaum was within 1-4 feet with his hand either on or just in front of the gun. The whole incident lasted about 10 seconds.
5) While he's running towards the police when he gets the 'opportunity' to shoot people who are running towards him he doesn't shoot unless they are kicking his face, grabbing his gun, or pointing a gun at him. Anyone who was not a threat he didn't shoot with the view of getting away with it by claiming he was panicked or confused afterwards in the hopes of duping people.

I appreciate you are being snarky, but its a completely legal call that doesn't allow prejudicial information before the jury and is in line with rulings made about prejudicial information about other parties. The fact its being used as a sign of bias from the judge is just a very twitter thing.
Click to expand...

Beyond all of this, the Judge has at various times looked like he may rule it as a mistrial given his issues with the prosecutor.

Most legal pundits seem to agree that Rittenhouse's testimony was believable and compelling enough to cast sufficient doubt in the minds of jurors. The fact that the prosecutor and judge seem to be squabbling about something every day also isn't helping the case for conviction.
 
Drainy said:
I never responded directly, but addressed the content by accepting responsibility and culpability for poor argument

If fact you responded to a second post accepting responsibility by posting a parklife gif
Click to expand...

Oh yea, I’ll be honest I only skimmed that post it was just too good for that response given it was in the meme thread :lol:
 
Drainy said:
I didn't respond to NotThatSoph's first post. I did respond to another poster shortly after that made a similar point where I accepted that some of my posting could have been better and expressed regret at not being harsher on the Proud Boy stuff. I accepted that it damaged my credibility by trying to mitigate that to win an internet argument.

The rest of the response noone would be interested in, but I was arguing Rosenbaum's behaviour on the night because it was relevant for who was more likely to start the confrontation, as well as Rittenhouse's state of mind. The posts in respect of Rosenbaum's criminal history was more snarky, and in respect of one person who made a point that noone would have died if Rittenhouse wasn't there and I pointed out that Rosenbaum was a ticking time bomb.

I have mentioned that Rittenhouse's testimony was bad for him, at least a good portion of it was.

Is talking about prosecutorial misconduct a right wing talking point? what are you on about
I'm a strong civil libertarian so of course the prosecutor should be strongly criticised for what he did.
Click to expand...
Drainy said:
1) Looters are not protesters.
2) Its called running your mouth. Hyperbole you use may give some insight towards your attitude, but its a murder trial not a gossip circle.
3) He was reported by all involved to have been pleasant to every protester until the incident with Ziminski- with the heavily contested assertion about Yellow Pants Man being possible exception that everyone who is on the record denies
4) Rosenbaum, a man who was acting unstable all night, that most protesters didn't want anything to do with. Multiple people heard him make threats against Rittenhouse's life, chased him. When he points his gun at him, Rosenbaum put his hands up and Rittenhouse doesn't shoot, he continues to run because Rosenbaum is still making ground on him. Rittenhouse continues to try to flees. He runs out of safe room to run towards, turns around and by the prosecutions evidence Rosenbaum was within 1-4 feet with his hand either on or just in front of the gun. The whole incident lasted about 10 seconds.
5) While he's running towards the police when he gets the 'opportunity' to shoot people who are running towards him he doesn't shoot unless they are kicking his face, grabbing his gun, or pointing a gun at him. Anyone who was not a threat he didn't shoot with the view of getting away with it by claiming he was panicked or confused afterwards in the hopes of duping people.

I appreciate you are being snarky, but its a completely legal call that doesn't allow prejudicial information before the jury and is in line with rulings made about prejudicial information about other parties. The fact its being used as a sign of bias from the judge is just a very twitter thing.
Click to expand...
1. They are humans either way
2. It's called intent
3. Do you really want me to do that hypothetical thing on you again? After hours of abuse, while being "nice", anyone can lose their temper. You don't think you're a WS, he may not think he's one either.
4 & 5. Seem to be your interpretation of events and you seem to be missing out portions.
 
Drainy said:
I never responded directly, but addressed the content by accepting responsibility and culpability for poor argument

If fact you responded to a second post accepting responsibility by posting a parklife gif
Click to expand...
Lots of people want you to respond directly, the post after is irrelevant
 
Raoul said:
Beyond all of this, the Judge has at various times looked like he may rule it as a mistrial given his issues with the prosecutor.

Most legal pundits seem to agree that Rittenhouse's testimony was believable and compelling enough to cast sufficient doubt in the minds of jurors. The fact that the prosecutor and judge seem to be squabbling about something every day also isn't helping the case for conviction.
Click to expand...

Also the defence team have been almost permissive in letting all but the most egregious things go, and when they overstep they apologised and backed down immediately.

The prosecution are two of the most unlikeable arrogant people I have ever seen, and they don't know when to accept defeat so of course a judge will not take kindly to them playing games and go off when they don't knock it off.
 
What an absolute shitshow this trial has become. It is shocking that it can not be stopped.
 
Raoul said:
Beyond all of this, the Judge has at various times looked like he may rule it as a mistrial given his issues with the prosecutor.

Most legal pundits seem to agree that Rittenhouse's testimony was believable and compelling enough to cast sufficient doubt in the minds of jurors. The fact that the prosecutor and judge seem to be squabbling about something every day also isn't helping the case for conviction.
Click to expand...

Links?
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Links?
Click to expand...

I do not know that I can provide a link but it was on the CBS Evening News last night with some legal expert saying that even though he showed no tears, any time a witness becomes extremely emotional on the stand it does sway jurors.
 
Drainy said:
1) Looters are not protesters.
2) Its called running your mouth. Hyperbole you use may give some insight towards your attitude, but its a murder trial not a gossip circle.
3) He was reported by all involved to have been pleasant to every protester until the incident with Ziminski- with the heavily contested assertion about Yellow Pants Man being possible exception that everyone who is on the record denies
4) Rosenbaum, a man who was acting unstable all night, that most protesters didn't want anything to do with. Multiple people heard him make threats against Rittenhouse's life, chased him. When he points his gun at him, Rosenbaum put his hands up and Rittenhouse doesn't shoot, he continues to run because Rosenbaum is still making ground on him. Rittenhouse continues to try to flees. He runs out of safe room to run towards, turns around and by the prosecutions evidence Rosenbaum was within 1-4 feet with his hand either on or just in front of the gun. The whole incident lasted about 10 seconds.
5) While he's running towards the police when he gets the 'opportunity' to shoot people who are running towards him he doesn't shoot unless they are kicking his face, grabbing his gun, or pointing a gun at him. Anyone who was not a threat he didn't shoot with the view of getting away with it by claiming he was panicked or confused afterwards in the hopes of duping people.
Click to expand...

On balance we also have:
  • All his character witnesses for being nice that day were from people biased to his side - boogaloo boi Ryan Balch and other members of his ad-hoc militia group, right-wing website contributor from Daily Caller, his own long-time friend who he traveled there with - hardly objective observers and all people with the incentive to paint Rittenhouse in the best light possible.
  • Private militia groups are technically illegal. It's a bit grey area for ad-hoc groups like the boogaloo bois and Kenosha Guard that night but they do violate the intent of established law at the least. As the woman said on video "protect your property, not the streets." This group was essentially an armed gang that could easily provoke reactions as noted. Anyone in that position should have known that or that no business being out there.
  • Rittenhouse had no training or experience to operate safely in such an environment.
  • He lied about being EMT that night.
  • He admitted no one actually asked him for medical help that night (he supplied some gauze earlier that day).
  • As photos show, his tiny "medical" bag isn't prominent and was completely irrelevant with him marching around with an AR-15 at the ready.
  • He lied about what he was even doing before any of the incidents claiming he was just looking for Balch but the video evidence contradicts this.
  • He had no valid reason for any of his actions prior to the incidents when he knew his mere presence with an AR-15 at the ready would threaten, intimidate and provoke the protestors especially when he was following a group that allegedly already threatened him. Why follow such a group? He had no valid explanation or reason.
  • He admitted he couldn't even provide "medical assistance" while maintaining his AR-15 and only planned to provide medical when someone else could "protect" him, which means he had no business walking around alone that night with an AR-15 at the ready before the incidents.
  • He didn't have to shoot the first victim a 2nd, 3rd, 4th time because he had already incapacitated the victim after the first shot.
  • He lied on the witnesses stand about the crowd saying "get him" after the incident when in fact that did not happen and he had time to make a phone and stand over the victim NOT providing medical assistance as he claims he was there to do.
  • He lied that night when he said the victim had a gun.
  • The crowd only tried to capture him when he fled from the scene of the crime, not an unreasonable or unexpected reaction considering what just happened.
  • Rosenbaum might have been a bad person but 17-year-old Rittenhouse was as well, physically punching a woman in the back, wishing he had an AR-15 to shoot shoplifters, posted on social media being completely brainwashed by Fox News, and posing afterward with the Proud Boys flashing white power hand signals.
  • Beyond the facts of this case, which establish reckless homicide and reckless endangerment, there are other dangers here beyond just this case.
So he has lied multiple times to make himself look better both that night and on the stand. Impossible to take anything he says as truthful after so many lies and his fake crocodile tears.

Allowing "self-defense" to get him off on all charges also sets a dangerous precedent. What happens if two armed groups of private militia (say the boogaloo bois and the NFAC have an armed stand-off? The precedent here would be that both sides could just shoot at the other with impunity because both sides "feel" threatened and in danger of their lives.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
I do not know that I can provide a link but it was on the CBS Evening News last night with some legal expert saying that even though he showed no tears, any time a witness becomes extremely emotional on the stand it does sway jurors.
Click to expand...

So not "most legal pundits" but a single contributor to a single show. Got it. It is true many might not be aware of how to spot his obvious fake display of tears though.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
So not "most legal pundits" but a single contributor to a single show. Got it. It is true many might not be away of how to spot his obvious fake display of tears though.
Click to expand...

Ohh it looked like he had been coached and then poorly executed it for sure.
 
Zaphod2319 said:
I do not know that I can provide a link but it was on the CBS Evening News last night with some legal expert saying that even though he showed no tears, any time a witness becomes extremely emotional on the stand it does sway jurors.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The legal pundits on the networks that I've seen have been repeating this. The decision to put him on the stand has probably helped him in this regard.
 
Rado_N said:
“If I had my AR I’d shoot them”

A while later he takes an AR and travels to a place himself in a hostile situation, then actually does shoot someone.

“Nothing alike”
Click to expand...

To be honest I consider myself very unviolent and I yet can recall many times saying stuff I don't really mean off the cuff. Told my grandmother I wish she was dead once out of anger. Didn't really wish for her to drop down dead.
 
ChaddyP said:
To be honest I consider myself very unviolent and I yet can recall many times saying stuff I don't really mean off the cuff. Told my grandmother I wish she was dead once out of anger. Didn't really wish for her to drop down dead.
Click to expand...

But if she did drop down dead and you had a bottle of cyanide pills in your pocket it might be something that could be relevant.
 
ChaddyP said:
To be honest I consider myself very unviolent and I yet can recall many times saying stuff I don't really mean off the cuff. Told my grandmother I wish she was dead once out of anger. Didn't really wish for her to drop down dead.
Click to expand...

As @WI_Red has said, it would be worthy of note if you were subsequently on trial accused of killing her.
 
Yeah, I wouldn't recommend you go around talking about the very specific methods by which you'd like to kill people, especially when you have access to those means.

Makes it that much worse when you're on trial for killing someone in that way.
 
WI_Red said:
But if she did drop down dead and you had a bottle of cyanide pills in your pocket it might be something that could be relevant.
Click to expand...
Agreed it would be relevant there.

If I was however in the vicinity of your grandmother though and she dropped dead. Maybe it wouldn't be as relevant in my opinion.


I really don't think that statement he made is relevant to this case because it really doesn't prove that he literally packed up his shit and went to Wisconsin get his illegal gun and purposely go out and kill people. I think he's an idiot a prick, should be charged for having an illegal gun etc.

But if I was in his position with my very legal firearm I would have probably done the same thing if a man was attacking me the way discribed and shown.
 
ChaddyP said:
To be honest I consider myself very unviolent and I yet can recall many times saying stuff I don't really mean off the cuff. Told my grandmother I wish she was dead once out of anger. Didn't really wish for her to drop down dead.
Click to expand...
Holy shit. I don't even know if anyone could make me that angry.
 
Maagge said:
Holy shit. I don't even know if anyone could make me that angry.
Click to expand...
Yeh I got angry. Said shit I didn't mean. Apologised after . My mother is a devout Christian and called me the devil once (I told her god wasn't real) she got angry and basically did her version of I wish u were dead.

She cooled down and we are best of friends
 
ChaddyP said:
But if I was in his position with my very legal firearm I would have probably done the same thing if a man was attacking me the way discribed and shown.
Click to expand...

Would you be at an emotionally charged protest of people on the very opposite side as you walk around by yourself holding an AR-15 at the ready position, knowing how much you look threatening to the other protestors, following then rushing into the middle of a group that you claim threatened you earlier? Because that's the position he was actually in. He placed himself directly in the middle of this situation that he could have walked away from multiple times and nothing would have happened.

It's not like this guy was just innocently walking down the street and got charged out of the blue by a group of hostiles for no reason as the right-wing narrative tries to spin it.
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
Would you be at an emotionally charged protest of people on the very opposite side as you walk around by yourself holding an AR-15 at the ready position, knowing how much you look threatening to the other protestors, following then rushing into the middle of a group that you claim threatened you earlier? Because that's the position he was actually in. He placed himself directly in the middle of this situation that he could have walked away from multiple times and nothing would have happened.

It's not like this guy was just innocently walking down the street and got charged out of the blue by a group of hostiles for no reason as the right-wing narrative tries to spin it.
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to argue if the lad was smart or if he was an idiot.

My personal feelings on the how obviously stupid and unnecessary his presence and firearm was is irrelevant imo to actually law .

It's a case about if he acted in self defense or not. Lots of posters in here seem to be forgetting that.

If I was dumb enough to go to a hostile neighborhood in the Jamaican ghetto with a certain political backing and flash out shirts and banners of the opposite political party while carrying my own gun I shouldn't be shocked that my life is now currently in danger
It still doesn't mean I can't actually defend that life if someone is trying to take it. Because I have the right to self defense (even if I'm a complete degenerate)

If the procecutors can actually prove that the lad left his home to purposely go and kill people that night then sure. Let's have at him and have him rot in jail. I am honestly yet to see that evidence put forth.
 
ChaddyP said:
I'm not trying to argue if the lad was smart or if he was an idiot.

My personal feelings on the how obviously stupid and unnecessary his presence and firearm was is irrelevant imo to actually law .

It's a case about if he acted in self defense or not. Lots of posters in here seem to be forgetting that.

If I was dumb enough to go to a hostile neighborhood in the Jamaican ghetto with a certain political backing and flash out shirts and banners of the opposite political party while carrying my own gun I shouldn't be shocked that my life is now currently in danger
It still doesn't mean I can't actually defend that life if someone is trying to take it. Because I have the right to self defense (even if I'm a complete degenerate)

If the procecutors can actually prove that the lad left his home to purposely go and kill people that night then sure. Let's have at him and have him rot in jail. I am honestly yet to see that evidence put forth.
Click to expand...
This is why these self defense laws are ridiculous in my view. If you go somewhere as an agitator, successfully agitate and are attacked, how is it still self defense? The law is dumb.
 
ChaddyP said:
I'm not trying to argue if the lad was smart or if he was an idiot.

My personal feelings on the how obviously stupid and unnecessary his presence and firearm was is irrelevant imo to actually law .

It's a case about if he acted in self defense or not. Lots of posters in here seem to be forgetting that.

If I was dumb enough to go to a hostile neighborhood in the Jamaican ghetto with a certain political backing and flash out shirts and banners of the opposite political party while carrying my own gun I shouldn't be shocked that my life is now currently in danger
It still doesn't mean I can't actually defend that life if someone is trying to take it. Because I have the right to self defense (even if I'm a complete degenerate)

If the procecutors can actually prove that the lad left his home to purposely go and kill people that night then sure. Let's have at him and have him rot in jail. I am honestly yet to see that evidence put forth.
Click to expand...

No. It's not that simple, even legally. He is not just being charged with murder where it's either outright murder or and only or self-defense. He is also being charged with reckless homicide and reckless endangerment and the other factors are relevant, I'd argue even crucial, to charges of reckless homicide and reckless endangerment. What happened in the 5 seconds prior is not the only fact relevant legally.

In other words, he can get off on any murder or intentional homicide and still be guilty of reckless homicide or even just reckless endangerment.
 
The murder case on Rosenbaum is a farce. Trying to argue provocation based on the testimony of a cop who wasn't there using pinch and zoom on his iphone to come up with the answer the prosecution wants.
 
ChaddyP said:
I'm not trying to argue if the lad was smart or if he was an idiot.

My personal feelings on the how obviously stupid and unnecessary his presence and firearm was is irrelevant imo to actually law .

It's a case about if he acted in self defense or not. Lots of posters in here seem to be forgetting that.

If I was dumb enough to go to a hostile neighborhood in the Jamaican ghetto with a certain political backing and flash out shirts and banners of the opposite political party while carrying my own gun I shouldn't be shocked that my life is now currently in danger
It still doesn't mean I can't actually defend that life if someone is trying to take it. Because I have the right to self defense (even if I'm a complete degenerate)

If the procecutors can actually prove that the lad left his home to purposely go and kill people that night then sure. Let's have at him and have him rot in jail. I am honestly yet to see that evidence put forth.
Click to expand...

There are provisions for that in the law. Rittenhouse's conduct may have been likely to provoke others to attack him, removing his ability to claim self-defense.

Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær said:
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2014/chapter-939/section-939.48

Hmm....was wondering if duty to retreat applied in Wisconsin.

939.48(2)(a) (a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

It may be wise to determine whether Rittenhouse's conduct (appearing during a riot armed with an AR-15) was likely to provoke others to attack him.
Click to expand...
 
Drainy said:
it may become very legal very soon :lol:
Click to expand...
They're going to change the law to say that someone under 18 can parade around a city street with a loaded rifle not slung on the back?

And they're going to retroactively apply that to his illegal carrying of said rifle?
 
Carolina Red said:
They're going to change the law to say that someone under 18 can parade around a city street with a loaded firearm not slung on the back?
Click to expand...

no, the state might have fecked up the conviction. The defence has raised that there is an exemption for 17 & 18 year olds who are possessing a long barrel rifle and the judge has stated he's minded towards because of the confusing nature of how the statute is written since if lawyers cannot agree what it means how can a citizen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.