Kyle Rittenhouse Storms Off Stage After Being Confronted by Students

LOL @ citing PolitiFact. Cite the law he was in violation of. Good luck!

 

The only way to prove it was illegal is to cite the law he was in violation of, which you can't do because it wasn't.

 

In the article. Read it.

 

You see - your fellow advocate for AR-15s in the hands of minors, has just shown again that he doesn't understand the law.

 

You're the one who can't cite the law. You're just citing a PolitiFact report that talks about concealed carry and unrelated nonsense. When you click the link from your article claiming to be the relevant statute, it points to possessing a firearm in a school zone, which is irrelevant. Your source is garbage. PolitiFact is a joke. That wasn't even the statute he was initially charged for.

Since your source doesn't cite the relevant statute, why don't you try to back up your false claim? Your source didn't do it. I know the Wisconsin law. Neither you nor PolitiFact does. So, it's time to back up your claim.

 

we should have a contest-who understands laws better-you or me. I am an advocate of honest Americans being well armed and having the absolute right to protect themselves from violent felons, child molesters and other such ilk. You do know that thousands upon thousands of 17 year olds have gone to war for the USA carrying real assault rifles and the US military sees 17 as old enough to enlist

 

why? because you think it actually is relevant or you can't make a cogent argument on your own? it's irrelevant

 

Look, I'm not a gun nut like some people on this forum. The only reason I'm responding to this thread is because so many people have falsely represented the Wisconsin ilaw n this case. The Prosecution decided to NOT pursue the illegal weapons charge, because it was a misdemeanor, and he didn't want th jury to concede only that. Here's the statute - plain and simple.

Wisconsin law says that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

In our fact-check, we cite the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns. The exception is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt. But, as it is also clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.

 

irrelevant, since he wasn't convicted, he is presumed innocent. he won, the woke side lost, end of story

 

So answer - YES or NO? Was it legal for the 17-year-old to be carrying the weapon? YES = lie, NO = truth.

 

You keep spreading fake news. The prosecution DID want to pursue the weapon's charge, but the judge correctly told them that the law did not apply to Rittenhouse.



Note: That statute only applies to persons under 18 if they are in violation of 941.28 or they are not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.

941.28 is possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle statute, which does not pertain to the AR-15 he was possessing. So that leaves us with 29.304 and 29.593.

29.304 is a hunting restriction that only applies to individuals UNDER THE AGE OF 16. Rittenhouse was 17 at the time. Thus it does not pertain to him.
29.593 is about hunting without a hunting certificate. Rittenhouse wasn't hunting.

Thus, there is NO possible way Rittenhouse was in violation of 948.60. In order to have been in violation, one of the following was required:
1. Under the age of 16. Rittenhouse was 17.
2. Possessing a short-barreled rifle or shotgun. Rittenhouse's rifle barrel was not short.
3. Hunting without a certificate. He wasn't hunting and, therefore, did not require a certificate.

You should avoid quoting PolitiFact in the future. They are not truthful "fact-checkers." They push a political agenda as they did in this instance. The article is beyond absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever, and the sources they cite aren't even for the claims they were making because there is no valid source for their claims. It serves only to fool people who don't actually do their own research into believing left-wing lies. If he had a handgun, that would be illegal. Since he was carrying a rifle, it was legal. Most states have more strict laws for handguns than they do rifles. That's not uncommon.

That's the law. Feel free to read the statutes yourself. But please stop spreading fake news and claiming your source cited the applicable laws. That's just more fake news. Sad!

 

YES! See above. "No" is the lie. Not living up to that username...

17 year olds can lawfully possess rifles in Wisconsin.

 

Anyone who thinks they can just read PolitiFact and not verify the content of the article isn't seeking truth from the media. They're just another far left entity that tells the far left what they want to hear knowing they aren't educated on the topic and won't verify them.

 

You see it a lot-what I call google debaters. They often don't understand the subject matter so they google stuff and recite what they dragged up but often times they don't understand what they post and it's obvious to those who actually understand the issue. It is akin to anti gun types claiming that you can shoot 700 rounds in a minute from an AR 15 when in reality, for a couple seconds you might be able to achieve a 700RPM pace. In other words, a Cheetah and run at a pace (for about 6 seconds) of 65 MPH but no Cheetah can cover 65 miles in an hour

 

LOL you haven't corrected anything and it is an irrelevant issue anyway

 

I feel like this has become more common with the prevalence of these "explainer" sites and fringe sources. The news used to be fact based and then the reader was left to their own devices to interpret the facts. When the media decided their consumers were too stupid to think for themselves and needed to have everything explained to them is when things started going downhill. Once they decided editorializing their primary news reports was acceptable they opened the can of worms to allow their bias to infect their consumers. It's crazy to me that people just take PolitiFact as gospel despite the bazillion times they've been proven to be completely wrong. They're not even quality reporters at PolitiFact. They're almost entirely early in career journalists who are writing about issues not in their expertise. This reporter was a recent college graduate and his job prior to this one was writing for his school newspaper. The fact that people trust PolitiFact and don't verify their articles despite the million stories they have gotten wrong blows my mind.

 

But I recently saw a quote that said if you find it on Google, it must be true. ~ George Washington.

Imagine thinking you're right because you found something on Google from an obviously politically motivated so-called fact checker with an axe to grind and an agenda to promote.

We can thoroughly consider the so-called illegal weapons BS put to bed

 

You need to switch media sources.
You should tell popscot thank you for actually posting the relevant laws

 

Popscot

Actually I'm honored. He's much better looking.

 

Fake fact checkers when combined with confirmation bias equal easily duped population.

The same with any other pseudo-media with an obvious agenda. None of it is to be trusted at face value. Don't even trust but still verify

 

The protesters were there to protest police brutality towards black people. The looting, smashing, and burning were fringe lunatics who were not there to protest. I'm much more afraid of nut jobs on the right than BLM marchers. Kyle Rittenhouse waving around his AR-15 would have had me ducking for cover.

 

Wrong

As ususal it was a riot not a protest. The looting smashing and biurning was done by meanstream BLM members as it was in all of their riots.

The pretext was NOT police brotality it was based on a bunch of outright lies about the jacob blake shooting which was justified

 

They most definitely do, and thugs are not political. That's an un-called for insult. The left are not your enemies, they are your fellow Americans.

If we only love our country when our views are dominate, and show disdain for our fellow Americans who have different opinions about what America needs, then we'll continue to fail in compromising with each other and finding middle ground. Accusing others of lacking a moral compass gets us nowhere.

 

Always required, and too often abused. Slippery slopes abound.

 

I watched the video you linked. It shows that whole group of people at one end of the parking lot abruptly running away from Rittenhouse, probably when he fired his first round.

How do you know what Rosenbaum intended? Do you have psychic powers?