Nah, he was illegally "defending" property that didn't belong to him (silly Wisconsin values human lives [even 'thugs'] more than used cars).

He was illegally practicing medicine by soliciting people and asking if they needed first aid. WI code allows for unlicensed medicine practice in an emergency ONLY (how do we know he was offering services absent an emergency? He was turned down repeatedly, aka there was no emergency where someone needed forst aid). Walking around offering first aid services is illegal without a license. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/448/ii/03

He illegally purchased a firearm through his uncle because he was under age.

He illegally was out past curfew for people 17 and under.

Gee, given all his lack of training and experience and maturity, I wonder why these things are illegal? Oh right, because someone so immature and ignorant of the law or disobedient of the law is more likely to be dangerous and kill someone when it's not warranted.


====

You can't escape the fact that WI law dictates that if he's already doing anything illegal he MUST exhaust all other reasonable options BEFORE using deadly force.

HE DID NOT DO SO. Someone fired a round in the air, someone lunged, and he killed em. Tangeal witnesses hear "he shot someone!" And give chase. He kills another. Why no empathy for the people who suspected he was a "thug" and tried to vigilante justice him?



And
And
And
ANOTHER THING
It's really ugly to witness the duality of your flippant attitude towards people trying to legally claim asylum 'they broke the law' because they went to the wrong entry point because they speak fucking Portuguese and don't always know exactly where they are out in the Mexico desert.
Vs the bizarre justification you're trying to make for this kid who 'broke the law' in, I contend, a series of more serious laws that warrant criminal liability.

If this kid gets off I hope he moves to NC and you run into him once he gets his highway patrol car. You can have him.

I'll take the family in Afghanistan I'm trying to help who, you know, don't get off on killing people.

All true, and all things he hopefully is being tried for and will be found guilty of.

If you look at the nytimes breakdown of the video evidence though, it looks very possible his self defense argument gets him off of murder charges: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

In the first shooting, they document some one else(not rittenhouse) firing a handgun before Rittenhouse fires. As that first shot is fired, someone lunges towards Rittenhouse, who then fires at them.

Now, everything you've pointed out already makes Rittenhouse guilty of putting himself in a bad situation, and already having broken multiple laws. Still, under the circumstances, you have entire crowds of folks all breaking curfew, at least one other random person in the area firing a handgun, and someone lunging at an armed Rittenhouse.

There's a lot of terrible, stupid things all going on at once here. Evidence wise though, it looks like self defense, after breaking many laws and putting himself in harms way, is still factually part of the night.

I hope he gets a lot of jail time for all the laws he did break, but am not holding my breath on an impartial jury rejecting the self defense angle base on the nytimes footage,

He illegally owned a gun, and was doing some vigilante justice (also illegal), and was out as a 17 year old in Wisconsin past curfew

"No minor under the age of seventeen years shall be or remain in or upon any of the streets, alleys, other public places, or any private place held open to the public in the county between twelve o'clock midnight and five a.m., unless accompanied by a parent"

Then he killed several people by shooting them with an assault rifle.

barr is such a fucking liar too by the way. so 30 minutes before the protest curfew, they need to move a fence and somehow trump stumbles over there just at the same time because he needs to hold up a bible in front of a church. that seems really likely

Sorry comrade, all true, on video. It's you who is repeating lies and pure bull shit, and complete contradiction of what dozens of news groups including Fox reported from the scene...even contradicting the Whitehouse itself. I expect nothing less from delusional, sycophantic, morons who prefer to believe convicted racists and repeatedly convicted con men like Trump over literally hundreds of videos and thousands of eye witnesses, including clergy, Australian and other non American reporters, and the words of Trump/Barr themselves who publicly admitted it.
What, are you saying Trump is lying, he didn't decide on a whim, without asking the church leadership and against the suggestions of his SS, to go take pictures, he really did know the protesters were there and pushed some violent law and order on them and really wasn't an unbelievably ignorant buffoon who didn't notice the protests on his front door all week like he claimed yesterday, and didn't have Barr direct the violent removal of protesters by force, without warning, and well before curfew...for picture time? They said it, not CNN.

No other president has ever been so self centered as to direct the SS to attack peaceful citizens with grenades, rubber bullets, irritant smoke (so you don't dishonestly claim no teargas because you disagree with the long time accepted definition of the words, but irritant smoke is teargas), clubs, boots, hooves, pepper balls, and shields so he could use a church he just attacked as a photo prop. Never.
They even attacked the priests from the church he used for his 2 minute photo op as they were tending to injured protesters on the church porch, removing them violently by force, taking moronic photos with the church and bible as props not sacred sights and texts, political propaganda photos and campaign commercial videos that have been denounced by most religious leaders before running back home surrounded by hundreds of guards like the tantrum throwing scared little baby he is.
But I'm certain you will say he's the most conciliatory, thoughtful, empathetic, leader who has brought the country together like never before and made it incredibly prosperous, any contradiction therefore must be fake news, not reality any non cult member can see with their own eyes. Jim Jones had followers like you. Go have some Kool Aid, why dontcha.

Funny, if he's pushing law and order against rioters and looters, why is he directing attacks against peaceful protesters (they now claim the protesters were throwing rocks, but oddly have no footage of it)...more importantly, why isn't he going after the boogaloos, a right wing, pro Trump, anti liberal, pro civil war, pro collapse of society group who has been seen at every riot even though they're 100% against BLM since they're also a white power group...caught in Vegas preparing to bomb crowds after their plan to start riots fell through.

Can you name instances of Antifa being caught doing the same? I'll answer for you since I know you'll just go silent, no you can't.

Again, dummy, they weren't rioting or looting a thing, purely peaceful protests at the Whitehouse until Barr ordered their removal by force. Thousands of cameras, not one showing riots or looting, only showing the SS stormtroopers tossing grenades into crowds and shooting rubber and pepper bullets point blank in the face.
Completely wrong....comrade. No other president in our country has ever been so disrespectfully divisive as to insist the streets belong to him and then take them by force during nation wide, actually world wide protests over police violence, actually telling police to become more violent. None.

Freedom.

I'll just leave this here.

"Since May 2014 Thailand has been ruled by a military junta, the National Council for Peace and Order, which has partially repealed the 2007 constitution, declared martial law and nationwide curfew, banned political gatherings, arrested and detained politicians and anti-coup activists, imposed internet censorship and taken control of the media."

This video assumes that people are only worried about terrorism. And while it's scary, this video is dishonest and biased as F. We've seen whats happening in Europe, terrorism is not the only scary part. From the mass rape, to town curfews, police cover ups and no go zones. And at best the dilution of progressive values.
And yes Trumps policy is also moronic.

Certainly you understand that a mayor (or anyone, really) can request that the governor send them in. I didn't see or hear about any of that. It doesn't have to be done in front of a camera, but if it happened it would have been reported that the mayor had requested that the governor send them in...at least that's how it usually happens.

Have they been deployed now? They had not been last night, the last I saw. I can't understand how the city on fire, cops on the run and injured, and thousands of destructive looters on the streets doesn't meet the requirements, that happened early on. Instead of doing something, they announced a curfew for the next (5?) days and basically let the rioters do their thing on day one. Anyone injured is going to have a good case against the police/city/state for not taking action to stop it.
EDIT: I see now, they sent in 160 national guard members this morning (Tuesday) with more to come...zero on Monday or Monday night/Tuesday early morning.

When it's obvious that local law enforcement is outnumbered 10 to 1 or worse, and the "protestors" have become violent rioters attacking police, citizens, cars, and businesses, and lighting buildings and cars on fire, it's time. That was 3pm, and came with plenty of warnings online. There was pretty good indication that there would be exactly that problem, they should have had serious backup at the ready, they did not.

I can't fathom why there wasn't a curfew last night, there was plenty of time to see it was needed. I also can't fathom why the national guard wasn't requested (yes, I'm sticking with that being proper and normal, but not necessary) by the mayor, or why it wasn't sent in by the governor or the fed without being requested.

It really seemed the authorities could have foreseen there would be severe problems (they've been claiming they have serious credible death threats against the entire police force by numerous factions...that's enough right there to call/send in the National Guard yesterday, before the funeral). Waiting for the problems to happen, then allowing it to continue over night is shirking their duty because they're scared, IMO.

EDIT:from http://www.wsj.com/articles/national-guard-deployed-in-baltimore-amid-riots-after-freddie-grays-funeral-1430218096
Protests over Mr. Gray’s death had been largely peaceful until Saturday, when pockets of violence led to 35 arrests and caused minor injuries to six police officers.
Mr. Batts, the police commissioner, said late Monday that 250 to 300 officers assembled in West Baltimore after a social-media message called on high-school students Monday to stage a “purge”—an anarchic protest based on a film called “The Purge” that includes a period of lawlessness—at 3 p.m. starting at the Mondawmin Mall and ending downtown.
Baltimore police also said they received a threat that city gangs would join together to “take down” law-enforcement officers.

Have to agree with John Oliver here, the curfew is fucking ridiculous. It is the very definition of a bullshit law that should be resisted with civil disobedience.

Am I reading Stormfront, or videosift? This type of comment should not be tolerated here. Comment links to: http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2014/02/year-around-curfew-centers-needed-in.html

Some good articles on the subject:

Curfews, loitering & freedom of association
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/curfews-loitering-freedom-of-association

Assembly Explained
http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/assembly

A Brief Lesson Plan on Assembly:
http://documents.mccormickfoundation.org/Civics/programs/files/pdf/FASI-Sum2011/AssemblyLesson.pdf

The title of this video is a joke, right?

These people don't really understand the Bill of Rights and First Amendment or what their right of assembly really means. It does not mean nor has it ever meant that you can show up on any public property and do whatever you want.

Some good articles on the subject:

Curfews, loitering & freedom of association
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/curfews-loitering-freedom-of-association

Assembly Explained
http://constitution.laws.com/the-supreme-court/assembly

A Brief Lesson Plan on Assembly:
http://documents.mccormickfoundation.org/Civics/programs/files/pdf/FASI-Sum2011/AssemblyLesson.pdf

Many of the illegal "protesters" here are just standing their silently, but guess what.. that isn't protected.

If the police politely ask you to move along at a crime scene - you do so.

The kind of behavior this group is indulging in is comical to me. What was their message? I missed that. Furthermore, they purposely set up a situation where they are going to have problems with police and then pretend to be surprised when they are asked to disperse.

Don't Obama's sons have a curfew?

The po po in Cali are shell-shocked forever after Watts Riot, Compton's Cafeteria Riot, Sunset Strip curfew riots,the Berkeley riots,the White Night gay riots,the 92'Los Angeles riots(Rodney King),the Staples Center/Championship riot, the 2000' Riots in Santa Cruz~

Anaheim Police, afraid to be added to the list sought to quash a potential mob with rubber bullets and puppy-dogs. Hmmmm....all that got burned was a trash dumpster? Shit man, these folks looked predominately Hispanic which is probably why it never escalated into burning down homes and businesses in the immediate area....Pride of ownership and respect for personal property.

I don't care about the video. Sebellius isn't the only speaker or interpreter of the law, and what its intent is. You do know she didn't write the law all by herself. She's one person of many who wrote it.

The video is her testimony about how the bill was drafted. It's also her department, and her baby, as she gave the final approval. It's a concept completely foreign to this administration "the buck stops here".

You can't just say it violates the establishment clause. You actually have to prove it does. Prove how it establishes a state sponsored religion. It doesn't. Nobody is compelled or pressured to use the pill at all. None, nada, whatsoever.

What I meant to say is the free exercise clause. Are you familiar with that? Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs violates that clause.

Oh, so when you feel like it passes the "balancing test", it passes the balancing test? It's clear as day coverage of contraception is in society's best interest. Birth control pills are used commonly often without a thing to do with preventing pregnancy. It benefits society as a whole. It's commonly used to regulate menstrual cycles, thereby reducing pain and cramps. It's also used to control endometriosis. My wife, a virgin until we were married, was on the pill for years before I even met her for both reasons.

If you had watched the video, you would have seen that she admitted that no balancing test was done for the mandate.

Tell me how in the hell (pardon my French) use of the pill in this case has a thing to do with religion? It doesn't. Women using birth control in this manner saves an already overburdened medical system from having to treat women with these kinds of issues efficiently, and saves the economy millions of dollars in lost productivity from sick days, and medical visits to try to deal with these issues otherwise.

But you only care to look at this issue strictly from your religious tented glasses and with your ignorant penis. Forcing employers to provide health insurance that covers the pill isn't forcing a religion on them. Allowing them to choose not to provide a health insurance plan is forcing their religious views on their employees, when it very often isn't a religious issue at all. 95% of women say they take the pill for reasons other than preventing pregnancy.

There are lawsuits about Obamacare concerning religious freedom out there. So what? That doesn't mean the law will get declared unconstitutional on those grounds. There's cases out there claiming a bunch of laws are unconstitutional. The overwhelming majority of those cases fail to be heard by the Supreme Court or lose if they do. You have no proof it violates the First Amendment.

By forcing religious institutions to violate their religious principles, they are violating the free exercise clause.

So if 38% of those surveyed weren't even considered in the results, how valid is this poll? I guess the margin of error is +/- 38%. LOL...

Here's another poll, not that the other one wasn't valid:

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/22/poll-americans-oppose-obama-birth-control-coverage-mandate/

So you're just not gonna address the fact that Obama has only come out against provisions of DOMA that contradict states being able to determine if a gay marriage is illegal, I see. Any attempt to repeal even just a small section of it is far left? OK, then favoring any provision in it makes you a hard right Nazi. You therefore are a Nazi. That's how ridiculous your argument is about DOMA.

You're misinformed:

"The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will support a congressional effort to repeal a federal law that defines marriage as a legal union between a man and woman.

White House spokesman Jay Carney denounced the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), saying the administration will back a bill introduced this year by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to remove the law from the books."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-backs-bill-to-repeal-defense-of-marriage-act/2011/07/19/gIQA03eQOI_story.html

"And he hasn't changed his position 3 times on gay marriage unless you're too dense to understand what he's said on the topic. He believes that there's nothing wrong with same sex marriage; however, in the spirit of compromise, he thought that perhaps not labeling it as a marriage, but instead a civil union would be enough to bridge the gap between both sides, so that he could focus on other things. When that compromise finally showed it was not going to bridge the gap, he finally said he believes gay marriage is perfectly fine, but STILL reiterated he believes states should decide this, NOT the federal gov't. That is still a center-left view. The only parts of DOMA he wants to repeal are again the provisions that thwart states to decide, which force the federal gov't to never recognize a same sex marriage. Understand that... he is NOT saying he favors the federal gov't to ALWAYS regard a same sex marriage as legal, but only if that couple's STATE declares it legal. Survey says... MODERATE! It's not far left."

He was for it in 1996, undecided in 1998, in 2004 he said:

"I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about..."

In 2008 he said

"“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

Then he was "evolving". Then he came out in support of it. Actually he changed his position more than 3 times.

"FOCA does NOT establish abortion as a fundamental right. You want proof? Can you go anywhere in the US and get an abortion unless under certain provisions today? YES! Roe v. Wade established it as a fundamental right. This is WITHOUT FOCA!

Would it invalidate freedom of conscience laws for religious organizations? NO.

Read the bill:

Prohibits a *federal, state, or local government entity* from..."

IE, religious organizations providing health care will not be compelled to perform abortions. Only gov't entities are under this obligation.

Mandatory parental involvement nullification... BS!

Minors do not have the same rights as adults. A 16-year-old can have a curfew law applied to them, even though such a law would be against the fundamental rights of an adult. That's a basic law precedent, dude.

Late term abortion restrictions being nullified is BS...

"Declares...that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to... terminate a pregnancy *prior to fetal viability*; or terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability *when necessary to protect her life or her health*."

IE, you can't have an abortion 8 months into the pregnancy because you simply don't want the baby. You're full of it.

Laws that require ultrasounds and counseling? Yep, you're right, FOCA would likely prevent this, and most people are against a legal adult from being forced to have their vaginas probed against their will. You're saying prohibiting this is extreme left? SERIOUSLY?!

http://www.nrlc.org/FOCA/LawmakersProposeFOCA.html

>> ^heropsycho: