No, he put himself in harms way by crossing state lines and playing cop and being violently aggressive and threatening towards the “thug”, following him, threatening him, brandishing rifles and pointing them at him…”thugs” an odd thing to call them since he was definitely being intentionally thuggish himself. He went there to play dirty cop with a rifle.

I’m upset because he travelled with weapons he couldn’t legally have in order to intentionally hunt the unarmed person he then murdered (or some other person, I don’t think it was personal), and is claiming he’s the victim.

No, I think all people with functioning brains want him to have never gone to another state to play thuggish untrained cop looking for targets to exercise his non existent authority over with illegal deadly weapons he’s not trained to properly use, because someone getting shot unnecessarily is an easily foreseeable consequence of doing that.

So, Bob. What about the victim’s right to defend themself from an armed aggressor who had followed them for blocks and was confronting him with weapon cocked and at the ready? He should have shot Rittenhouse in the head when he allegedly pointed, but didn’t shoot his gun, right? That would have solved everything, no charges to be brought, no lawsuit for pedonazi’s parents, no harm, no foul, right? Pure self defense, not even a need to report it, right?

Rittenhouse hunted him for blocks. Chasing him down with an assault rifle as the victim retreated. Then murdered him when he stopped running away. Just want it on the record, you think that’s fine, as is shooting anyone who tries to stop you from leaving the scene of a murder you just committed. Go on. Say it. It’s fine to hunt and kill people you don’t like.
Now…is it fine if the shooter is black and the victim is a baby faced white Republican boy? Pretty sure I know the real answer already.

Trumpist crowds are dangerous and criminal. If they need to get shot up by liberals who get scared by their aggressiveness….. self defense! Aim for the head, guys, and claim you tried a non deadly area to shoot. There’s nothing up there to hurt.

Eh, it's debatable still

Here's the WI state code as that would apply here
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/48

===================================
Some likely applicable law from that link
From SUBCHAPTER III
DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
===================================
A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
-------------------------------------------
> It's not up to the witnesses to determine if the actions were reasonable or not, that's a question for the jury.

====================================================
====================================================

"engage in unlawful conduct likely to provoke others to attack"

"Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(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.
---------------------------------------------------------------

>excerpted/emphasized (tldnr)
>"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...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

============================
============================



He was able to run away... And while someone shot into the air they didn't shoot at HIM or point a gun at him. And the person who shot into the air isn't the one who lunged at him.

Seriously, what kind of world do you want to live in @bobknight33 ?? You want MF 17 year olds to be able to walk around with assault rifles and if you stutter-step at the wrong moment they can vigilante justice your ass ? And if that happens well they can just say

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.

Your people are pleading guilty to everything you blamed on liberals.

A man from Texas pled guilty to shooting into a Minneapolis police station during the 2020 George Floyd protests. He wanted to sow chaos so he fired an AK-47 style weapon into the police station, hoping the protesters would be blamed.

A man named Ivan Harrison hunter 24 was in Minneapolis protesting the killing of George Floyd. The Texas man pleaded guilty on September 30th to a federal riot charge. He admitted he traveled to Minneapolis after George Floyd died to sew mayhem. Ivan Harrison Hunter 24 admitted he traveled from the San Antonio area to Minneapolis after Floyd's death and fired 13 shots from an AK-47 style semi-automatic rifle into the Minneapolis Police Department's third precinct building on May 28, 2020. footage taken that night shows the hunter in a skull mask giving someone a high five after firing the shots and yelling justice for Floyd. Hunter admitted he traveled to Minneapolis to sow chaos during the protest following George Floyd's death. He is a self-proclaimed member of boogaloo boys, the far-right anti-government extremist group…members appeared at black lives matter protests, committed crimes, and pretended they were BLM protesters.
Boogaloor's believe a second civil war known as the boogaloo is imminent. and will result in the overthrow of what they believe is a corrupt political system.

Your Trumpists, Bob. Not BLM, not ANTIFA, but Trumptards pretending to be BLM shooting police, starting fires, setting off bombs, looting, fighting, drive by’s, riots….you want these to stop….stop your friends. They’re responsible.

Better a tool than a fool. Tools are useful, and have purpose and function.

This is my rifle, this is my tool.
This one shoots bullets, and this one shoots gruel.

The U.S. doesn't fight hand to hand ground wars against governments.
China won't be fighting a guerilla war.

China has men, not current equipment. Remember Saddam...he had WAY more tanks, we hardly lost one because ours are infinitely better. Same goes for Chinese, rifles don't beat high altitude bombers.

Kuwait. Iraq.

Everyone loses to those goat farmers, they're called the graveyard of empires for a reason. Russia lost big time, and are so dumb they're poised to try again. We lost the day we went in with troops instead of an assassination squad.

Good thing Keegan Casteel was stopped before he used his AR-15 (missing it's serial numbers) he brought to Chicago along with 5 loaded magazines and a loaded pistol.

All these were noticed by hotel staff staged at the window of his 12th story hotel room overlooking the Lake Michigan shoreline, a heavily crowded area on the July 4th weekend. His rifle had a high powered scope and high powered laser attached, and had a round chambered. He easily could have doubled the number of people shot and killed this weekend all by himself, and seemed to have that in mind.

Oops, but he's a white guy from Iowa, not a black guy from Chicago, @bobknight33, so I'm sure you not only don't think that's a problem but would defend him as a hero of some kind. I'll be quite surprised if it turns out he ISN'T a Trumpster.

oh look! another crybaby bootlicker, send me your tears too, loser.

this dipsh-t didnt even watch video-dude with a rifle was useless inside the car, only handguns work then, son.

Time to start making personal EMP grenades and a battery powered microwave rifle I guess.

It's considered to be a very reliable and long lasting action. The fit and design keep the action "tight" through repeated use and reduces wear on mating surfaces. A larger-than-most extractor claw reduces the possibility of stuck rounds from breaking the claw or slipping out during extraction. A noticeably smoother action when chambering or extracting a round. I don't know that it contributes to the accuracy of the rifle, would say not in my experience, but opinions vary.

The Mauser action is considered to be a very precise, very repeatable action, correct? Is that the basis for its claim to accuracy in rifles that use it?

...being this is a Wooden Sniper Rifle, the most powerful handmade gun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Is that foot odor I smell?

I could quote legal scholars who think otherwise, but since it is kind of split down the middle, you would be able to find just as many that argue that it is constitutional. My opinion goes towards the non-constitutional side. He isn't a sitting President any longer and the only reason Democrats are doing this is because, as you mentioned, it is a much higher bar to convince a jury that using the word 'Fight' means a call to insurrection. If they could manage to force it through the easier method, then they can simply call for a majority vote and block him from running again in 2024.

That is the net goal of the Democrats, because they fear he will win once people realize how badly the new ecological policies and debt from a further stimulus is going to hurt our economy. Let's be realistic in that it took Trump fucking up multiple times, the worst pandemic in 100 years, and the entire Democratic voting bloc turning out for Biden to win by a few thousand in the critical states that gave him the electoral mandate. I can't vote for him again, but there are plenty who would. Mostly poor and middle class working people who are going to be realizing just how bad Biden is going to fuck up the economy in the short term over his appeasement of portions of the green new deal.

We've discussed the gun situation to death. I could post quotes from Kamala and Biden, as well as his stated plan for gun control he put up on his site, but it would again serve no purpose. You feel that nothing will happen or it will only be limited to scary 'assault rifles'. I feel otherwise. We can bang our heads against the metaphorical wall over and over, but in the end neither of us is going to change the other's mind on gun control.

Sadly, in my case, that still means that unless Democrats do a 180 on gun control and illegal immigration I will continue to be forced to vote for Republicans. Also, yes, I mean the trial, but can we not split hairs? It's like asking for a Kleenex and getting nagged that you really meant Puffs.

"Who said protests have to be peaceful?"
-Chris Cuomo

The acts of Jan 6 were a little predictable given the police and public responses to riots the last 6 months. People tried to burn down the federal courthouse in Portland, and the worst they got was teargas. Same with burning the church just blocks away from the capitol. No bullets fired at any point. I don't think there was any expectation of getting shot by anyone going in unarmed, the cops seemed satisfied to resist with a shoving match in many cases, even those carrying full-auto assault rifles were remarkably restrained. I think they recovered 5 guns total by people inside?

It looks like there were enough cops to hold the crowd back if they concentrated at the doors, they made a mistake trying to have a large perimeter, which is why we have videos of them taking barriers down because they were just gone around and useless, not because cops were letting them in. There were about 50 full on riot cops with shields who seemed to hold the rear of the building just fine.