Great ANALyses of the Kenosha Fiasco
puts the blame on everyone. which is true methinks
and if this was poasted earlier - well excuse me
Comments
-
It deserved own. Great article.
-
I’m not sure how Rittenhouse and others initially wanting to protect local businesses from being destroyed is moronic. That was glossed over.
-
When the looting starts, the shooting starts. Trump was right again.NorthwestFresh said:I’m not sure how Rittenhouse and others initially wanting to protect local businesses from being destroyed is moronic. That was glossed over.
-
If someone is going to be a loud mouth retard can they atleast cite the law they think Rittenhouse broke that prohibited him from being a 17 year old open carrying a standard rifle?
A significant number of states in the US allow for minors in possession of long guns... they typically ban the sale and/or only prohibit handguns or NFA items to minors or <21.
Just cite the law because I’m not so sure it even exists.... -
Colion Noir cited a law to that effect, but it has a loophole intended for hunting under adult supervision.Houhusky said:If someone is going to be a loud mouth retard can they atleast cite the law they think Rittenhouse broke that prohibited him from being a 17 year old open carrying a standard rifle?
A significant number of states in the US allow for minors in possession of long guns... they typically ban the sale and/or only prohibit handguns or NFA items to minors or <21.
Just cite the law because I’m not so sure it even exists.... </p> -
Yeah, but what law...?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Colion Noir cited a law to that effect, but it has a loophole intended for hunting under adult supervision.Houhusky said:If someone is going to be a loud mouth retard can they atleast cite the law they think Rittenhouse broke that prohibited him from being a 17 year old open carrying a standard rifle?
A significant number of states in the US allow for minors in possession of long guns... they typically ban the sale and/or only prohibit handguns or NFA items to minors or <21.
Just cite the law because I’m not so sure it even exists.... </p>
The laws about minors and firearm use in Wisconsin apply to <16 years old.
IMO this seems a lot like the repeat a lie until it’s truth thing... just like pretending crossing state lines is at all relevant. -
Houhusky said:
Yeah, but what law...?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Colion Noir cited a law to that effect, but it has a loophole intended for hunting under adult supervision.Houhusky said:If someone is going to be a loud mouth retard can they atleast cite the law they think Rittenhouse broke that prohibited him from being a 17 year old open carrying a standard rifle?
A significant number of states in the US allow for minors in possession of long guns... they typically ban the sale and/or only prohibit handguns or NFA items to minors or <21.
Just cite the law because I’m not so sure it even exists.... </p>
The laws about minors and firearm use in Wisconsin apply to <16 years old.
IMO this seems a lot like the repeat a lie until it’s truth thing... just like pretending crossing state lines is at all relevant. </p>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE
Watch for yourself. Or don't. I'm not digging in WI firearms law. His bit on it was enough for me. -
Fine, Ill do the leg work... its takes 5 mins on google...
Here is Wisconsin Law 948.60
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60#:~:text=(c), any person who,years of age under par.
Below is the entire law but I put in bold the important part.
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.
Wisconsin Law 948.60(3)(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.
S.941.28 is about "Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle." (not in possession of a SBS or SBR)
ss. 29.304 is about "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age." (not under 16 years of age)
29.593 is about "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." (not applying for a hunting license)
@GrundleStiltzkin Noir is wrong, he misstates what the law says... these aren't exceptions from the law... These are situations in which this specific law ONLY applies IF "X" specific conditions are met. None of those conditions were met by Rittenhouse.
Just think about it logically for a second, do you really think that the law is meant to exempt application if you are a minor open carrying a short barreled rifle or shotgun? Thats absurd.
I dont see how Rittenhouse could possibly be in violation of this law...
-
1 million chincredibles to whoever made this chart on the law in questions...
-
Well there ya go.
-
-
So how does one less than 18 years old go hunting? They do hunt. Most of them hunt. Probably missing something here as he was also on private property. I'm not going digging but even in Kali as a teenager it wasn't illegal for me to be in possession of a firearm as I often went shooting in legal shooting areas in the national forest.Houhusky said:Fine, Ill do the leg work... its takes 5 mins on google...
Here is Wisconsin Law 948.60
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60#:~:text=(c), any person who,years of age under par.
Below is the entire law but I put in bold the important part.
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.
Wisconsin Law 948.60(3)(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.
S.941.28 is about "Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle." (not in possession of a SBS or SBR)
ss. 29.304 is about "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age." (not under 16 years of age)
29.593 is about "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." (not applying for a hunting license)
@GrundleStiltzkin Noir is wrong, he misstates what the law says... these aren't exceptions from the law... These are situations in which this specific law ONLY applies IF "X" specific conditions are met. None of those conditions were met by Rittenhouse.
Just think about it logically for a second, do you really think that the law is meant to exempt application if you are a minor open carrying a short barreled rifle or shotgun? Thats absurd.
I dont see how Rittenhouse could possibly be in violation of this law... -
I dont get really get your question?Sledog said:
So how does one less than 18 years old go hunting? They do hunt. Most of them hunt. Probably missing something here as he was also on private property. I'm not going digging but even in Kali as a teenager it wasn't illegal for me to be in possession of a firearm as I often went shooting in legal shooting areas in the national forest.Houhusky said:Fine, Ill do the leg work... its takes 5 mins on google...
Here is Wisconsin Law 948.60
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60#:~:text=(c), any person who,years of age under par.
Below is the entire law but I put in bold the important part.
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.
Wisconsin Law 948.60(3)(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.
S.941.28 is about "Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle." (not in possession of a SBS or SBR)
ss. 29.304 is about "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age." (not under 16 years of age)
29.593 is about "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." (not applying for a hunting license)
@GrundleStiltzkin Noir is wrong, he misstates what the law says... these aren't exceptions from the law... These are situations in which this specific law ONLY applies IF "X" specific conditions are met. None of those conditions were met by Rittenhouse.
Just think about it logically for a second, do you really think that the law is meant to exempt application if you are a minor open carrying a short barreled rifle or shotgun? Thats absurd.
I dont see how Rittenhouse could possibly be in violation of this law...
29.304 is about Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. Its breaks down different rules for <12, 12-14, and 14-16. Obviously, if you are over 16 then this law wouldnt apply to you. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304
-
well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not. -
Seems racist against the Japanese that they have to list nunchaku, shuriken, and manrikigusari in that 2nd blue bubble.Houhusky said:1 million chincredibles to whoever made this chart on the law in questions...
Or maybe there was a huge yakuza problem there that we don't know about? -
-
Fucking this.UW_Doog_Bot said:
-
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.LebamDawg said:well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
-
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.Houhusky said:
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.LebamDawg said:well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear. -
That's the problem. Most liberals want us to be British.Swaye said:
Fucking this.UW_Doog_Bot said: -
The video is clear. You are ignorant if you think there isn't a significant portion of people arguing in bad faith so they can use it as a political weapon. The DA and the charges are clearly political. The blog you posted started with a massive factually inaccurate statement.LebamDawg said:
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.Houhusky said:
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.LebamDawg said:well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear.
Its not an attack on you unless you are the idiot that wrote the blog...
The rest of your post reads like some "my truth" facebook enlightened-centrism BS. -
The first guy who gets shot is chasing the kid. He then tosses something at the kid. The kid is retreating the entire time prior to him shooting the 1st guy. That is all entirely clear by anyone who honestly looks at the video. The kid isn't chasing anyone.LebamDawg said:
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.Houhusky said:
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.LebamDawg said:well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear. -
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control.
Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently.
For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides.
Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step.
Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones. -
People he killed had already established themselves as dirt bags and criminals. The kid may too be a dirt bag and a criminal but up until now there was nothing in his history to support that.LebamDawg said:I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control.
Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently.
For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides.
Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step.
Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned. -
He also tried to take the kids rifle. That will get you shot!SFGbob said:
The first guy who gets shot is chasing the kid. He then tosses something at the kid. The kid is retreating the entire time prior to him shooting the 1st guy. That is all entirely clear by anyone who honestly looks at the video. The kid isn't chasing anyone.LebamDawg said:
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.Houhusky said:
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.LebamDawg said:well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear. -
LebamDawg said:
I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control.
Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently.
For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides.
Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step.
Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
How so? a speeding Violation .. the other Kyle Rittenhouse that had the drug rap sheet was 10+ years older than the one in Kenosha... -
That's what the eyewitness says, you can't see that on the video tape but the guy who eventually gives first aid to the 1st guy who gets shot says that he was trying to grab Rittenhouse's gun.Sledog said:
He also tried to take the kids rifle. That will get you shot!SFGbob said:
The first guy who gets shot is chasing the kid. He then tosses something at the kid. The kid is retreating the entire time prior to him shooting the 1st guy. That is all entirely clear by anyone who honestly looks at the video. The kid isn't chasing anyone.LebamDawg said:
it is just wait and see what happens, if he gets charged with something and the law doesn't support that charge I trust it will be resolved. If its a jury anything can happen to hell with the law and it gets appealed.Houhusky said:
The video(s) pretty clearly speak for themselves on self defense.LebamDawg said:well the other issues that come into play are the fact that he shot two people.
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear. -
What are you even talking about?LebamDawg said:I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control.
Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently.
For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides.
Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step.
Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones. -
Dropped out of high school and was dumb enough to go to Kenosha.YouKnowIt said:LebamDawg said:I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control.
Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently.
For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides.
Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step.
Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
How so? a speeding Violation .. the other Kyle Rittenhouse that had the drug rap sheet was 10+ years older than the one in Kenosha...
But with the CoVid is any one still in school? But still dumb enough to get involved in the street crap -
I must score things differently. From my vantage point it was Good Guy 3, Bad Guys 0.LebamDawg said:
Dropped out of high school and was dumb enough to go to Kenosha.YouKnowIt said:LebamDawg said:I don't have a truth in any of this. The situations that are occurring across our cities is out of control.
Yes there are people on both sides that will see all these crappy videos differently.
For political, ideological, ass holeyness reasons from both sides.
Everyone on both sides made stupid fucking decision where 2 people ended up dead. Is the kid innocent? I say no, is he guilty? I don't know. Is his life ruined for the next 15 years? sounds like he was on the way to ruin before taking this big step.
Are the victims innocent? I say no, are they guilty? of being stupid, yes. They also appeared to be well on the way to ruining their lives - the kid just eased them into it a little earlier than they planned.
Edit: I also haven't looked to see if better video has appeared since the first night. I did not enjoy watching the first ones.
How so? a speeding Violation .. the other Kyle Rittenhouse that had the drug rap sheet was 10+ years older than the one in Kenosha...
But with the CoVid is any one still in school? But still dumb enough to get involved in the street crap
I'm a simple man.
