Kyle Rittenhouse judge fooled by wild iPad claim regarding video evidence

[Just_Me_D]

Did I hear correctly that this guy was found not guilty on all charges?

 

[Annie_M]

Did I hear correctly that this guy was found not guilty on all charges?

Yes.

 

[Just_Me_D]

Yes.

Wow…..Just….wow!

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

The kid should never have been tried on those ridiculous charges to begin with.

 

[Annie_M]

There is nothing wrong with a good, even spirited debate. What ruins a debate is when personal attacks and insults enter the discussion. So let’s all refrain from adding them to the conversation.

Just reminding everyone...

 

[Just_Me_D]

The kid should never have been tried on those ridiculous charges to begin with.

I just went back and re-read the article in post #1. With that being said, if he was acquitted of the following items then yeah, I would agree with you:

1. first-degree reckless homicide
2. first-degree intentional homicide
3. attempted first-degree intentional homicide.

The article states 5 felonies, but only listed 3. I have not seen this trial and I have not followed this matter outside of this thread.

Now, has he been charged with manslaughter? If so, it’s possible he could be found guilty of it. If he gets sued in civil court, he will more than likely lose since he shouldn’t have been in possession of the firearm, but I’m unfamiliar with Wisconsin law.

 

[ThePinkChameleon]

The kid should never have been tried on those ridiculous charges to begin with.

I AGREE!!! I’m glad to hear the verdict for him was not guilty !!!

 

[anon(50597)]

Apparently the Wild West is alive again.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Apparently the Wild West is alive again.

You're right. It's sad when people can just go burn down everything in their cities.

 

[anon(50597)]

You're right. It's sad when people can just go burn down everything in their cities.

2 wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Oh well.

 

[Wotchered]

Lucky little chap ! I believe he could get quite a wallop for carrying in public while underage,and a potential “straw” purchase charge (being a knowing party to). That is if your federal lawyers think it’s worthwhile.

 

[metllicamilitia]

Wisconsin is an open carry state and there is no law against owning a firearm at any age, the age limit is for purchasing. Furthermore, for rifles, the only part that is an age restricted purchase is the lower receiver. So him carrying a rifle in public was in no way illegal. I won't get into the debate of the situation. Just clarifying the gun laws. Source, I used to work in a gun store.

 

[Wotchered]

Wisconsin is an open carry state and there is no law against owning a firearm at any age, the age limit is for purchasing. Furthermore, for rifles, the only part that is an age restricted purchase is the lower receiver. So him carrying a rifle in public was in no way illegal. I won't get into the debate of the situation. Just clarifying the gun laws. Source, I used to work in a gun store.

My apologies, I had not noticed the exemption intended to allow under 18s to be able to hunt.

 

[metllicamilitia]

My apologies, I had not noticed the exemption intended to allow under 18s to be able to hunt.

Are you insinuating that the age restriction on hunting licenses has anything to do with age of gun ownership? They do not. Age of purchase, age of obtaining licenses, no age of ownership, these things do not affect one another. They simply create gaps where people can have firearms that others don’t think they should have.

 

[grover5]

Wisconsin is an open carry state and there is no law against owning a firearm at any age, the age limit is for purchasing. Furthermore, for rifles, the only part that is an age restricted purchase is the lower receiver. So him carrying a rifle in public was in no way illegal. I won't get into the debate of the situation. Just clarifying the gun laws. Source, I used to work in a gun store.

He carried the assault rifle across state lines. The outcome illustrates why we should not let children have assault rifles. My guess is he will kill again. He has certainly inspired others on the right to at least claim they will.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

He carried the assault rifle across state lines.

This is factually incorrect. The weapon was already in Kenosha.

Also, it was a 20 minute drive. Let’s stop pretending like he traveled in a car from Illinois to Nevada. This argument is getting tired. I love how all of sudden certain people are concerned with crossing borders.

 

[kataran]

You're right. It's sad when people can just go burn down everything in their cities.

It’s also sad that people can storm and desecrate the Capital. What starts as a protest most surely builds to damage and destruction and people say I told you so when it’s the other side of the message

I really like your posts and comments and give you much respect but that border crossing comment shocked me. It was nothing but a low blow

 

[grover5]

This is factually incorrect. The weapon was already in Kenosha.

Also, it was a 20 minute drive. Let’s stop pretending like he traveled in a car from Illinois to Nevada. This argument is getting tired. I love how all of sudden certain people are concerned with crossing borders.

You’re right. His friend illegally purchased it for him. However, it wouldn’t have mattered if the drive was 3 minutes. Welcome to how laws work 101. Your last point isn’t really a point. It’s just random anger directed at a fictional enemy. Good luck with that.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

You’re right. His friend illegally purchased it for him. However, it wouldn’t have mattered if the drive was 3 minutes. Welcome to how laws work 101.

It would be nice if your Law 101 point was understood by many that are upset about the verdict.