- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Kyle Rittenhouse was released on bond, now he's nowhere to be found
Posted on 2/5/21 at 2:11 pm to Sneaky__Sally
Posted on 2/5/21 at 2:11 pm to Sneaky__Sally
quote:
So jumping bail is ok as long as the person aligns with your political views?
It's not jumping bail until they fail to show up for their scheduled court appearance
1
Posted on 2/5/21 at 2:42 pm to GEAUXmedic
The media has reported on this in such a way that it has painted a picture of Kyle using his rifle to threaten or shoot those who tried to do damage to the businesses he was there protecting. There's no evidence that this happened, and there is only evidence of him running around with a fire extinguisher in hand (to put out fires of course) or trying to render aid to people.
His reason for being there should have no bearing on anything. He could have said he was there to apply first aid to anyone hurt and it wouldn't matter to anyone calling for his head. All that matters to them is that he had a rifle and he was there. In their mind there is no scenario that would allow Kyle to use his weapon in self defense. I realize he was under age to carry the weapon (I think?), but if he was 18, it wouldn't change anyone's opinion. So I ask, why would it be legal for someone over 18 to carry a weapon at that protest if it is somehow impossible to use the weapon in self defense?
His reason for being there should have no bearing on anything. He could have said he was there to apply first aid to anyone hurt and it wouldn't matter to anyone calling for his head. All that matters to them is that he had a rifle and he was there. In their mind there is no scenario that would allow Kyle to use his weapon in self defense. I realize he was under age to carry the weapon (I think?), but if he was 18, it wouldn't change anyone's opinion. So I ask, why would it be legal for someone over 18 to carry a weapon at that protest if it is somehow impossible to use the weapon in self defense?
This post was edited on 2/5/21 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 2/5/21 at 3:01 pm to SUB
quote:
I realize he was under age to carry the weapon (I think?), but if he was 18, it wouldn't change anyone's opinion. So I ask, why would it be legal for someone over 18 to carry a weapon at that protest if it is somehow impossible to use the weapon in self defense?
I'm not sure about the age to carry being an issue (same as you I don't know), but I did read that he got the weapon by having another person of age purchase it on his behalf...
The purchaser is facing charges according to the article I read. Not sure if there have been updates.
To me this is a cluster f
EDIT: On his behalf due to him being a minor who couldn't purchase himself
This post was edited on 2/5/21 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 2/5/21 at 3:47 pm to Racist Tomato
quote:
It's not jumping bail until they fail to show up for their scheduled court appearance
In most states, this is not accurate. Most state statutes consider "bail jumping" any intentional failure to comply with the specific terms of the bond.
If this went down as the defense suggests as soon as the prosecutor refused to accept the change of address without keeping it sealed they should have been in immediate contact with the judge that conducted the bail hearing. I can't imagine a defense attorney not doing this so there should be a record of the communication to the judge or his/her supervisor which will prevent any further increase in bond or a remand to custody. If there was no communication with the judge the defense may have some serious issues.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 4:04 pm to RIPMachoMan
what does this line between states have to do with whether or not you have a gun in the car at the time?
I drive all over the south with multiple guns in my car during hunting season, and sometimes during other times of the year.
I drive all over the south with multiple guns in my car during hunting season, and sometimes during other times of the year.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 4:23 pm to SUB
quote:
I realize he was under age to carry the weapon (I think?),
He was legally open carrying unless it was an illegal weapon or he had no safety training which I don't believe to be the case.
The underage restrictions in Wisconsin apply to specific circumstances.
This post was edited on 2/5/21 at 4:24 pm
Posted on 2/5/21 at 4:26 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
The underage restrictions in Wisconsin apply to specific circumstances.
This is the (legal) crux of the matter. Wisconsin law is very, very murky when it comes to legal possession of firearms at certain ages.
Which (rightfully) should be the only charge Rittenhouse is even remotely facing. But of course justice has nothing to do with the political witch hunt he's the victim of.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 4:42 pm to RLDSC FAN
I hope he was given millions and a new identity.
His odds are better doing that than facing the court gauntlet under a Biden justice department.
His odds are better doing that than facing the court gauntlet under a Biden justice department.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 4:45 pm to theronswanson
You see some kind of stupid. Death threats you idiot
Posted on 2/5/21 at 4:49 pm to Centinel
quote:
Wisconsin law is very, very murky when it comes to legal possession of firearms at certain ages.
The real murkiness is a result of poor legislative (re)drafting.
For years the statute made his possession (due to age) illegal but the statute also had exclusions for target and hunting in certain situations. About 10 years ago the WI legislature changed the language of a subsection to clear up some ambiguity regarding hunting and based on legislative intent accidentally basically (at least arguably) made it legal for someone down to the age of 15 (IIRC) to open carry in WI. No one apparently noticed the change in verbiage impacted more than just the hunting provision and did not correct the other half of the subsection.
I did a more complete but possibly no more coherent analysis of this in the original KR thread. While I do not think the WI law as written makes his possession illegal it still holds whomever provided him with the gun guilty of a felony.
Note I am going on memory from months ago so may be fuzzy on the specifics but can revisit if there are questions.
Posted on 2/5/21 at 6:01 pm to theronswanson
quote:
If he is innocent why is he running?
Cause of loons like you?
Posted on 2/5/21 at 6:03 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
While I do not think the WI law as written makes his possession illegal it still holds whomever provided him with the gun guilty of a felony.
And that's rather sad, considering if his friend didn't ignore said law, Rittenhouse would likely be dead.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 5:45 am to TDTOM
quote:
Is he running or hiding?
He's doing neither. Not that the media really cares about being accurate instead of pushing their narrative in the attempts to destroy the kid's life.
People must not be allowed to defend themselves against progressive righteousness.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 5:57 am to Centinel
quote:
And that's rather sad, considering if his friend didn't ignore said law, Rittenhouse would likely be dead.
Well, that friend could’ve said “hey just go home for now, it’s not safe out here and you are too young to be holding this line”
And then he would’ve been alive and not in this whole pickle.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:01 am to theronswanson
quote:
If he is innocent why is he running?
Can you read?
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:01 am to NoSaint
quote:
Well, that friend could’ve said “hey just go home for now, it’s not safe out here and you are too young to be holding this line”
And then he would’ve been alive and not in this whole pickle.
And someone else would be in the pickle instead, if not dead. Those thugs were on a mission. They just picked the wrong target.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:27 am to Centinel
quote:
And someone else would be in the pickle instead, if not dead. Those thugs were on a mission. They just picked the wrong target.
Maybe. Maybe not.
They picked the wrong target, and the friend armed the wrong person. And the night went terribly wrong for a bunch of people. Kyle, the friend, and the “thugs.”
Even if you think he handled himself well in the moment it’s ok to acknowledge it wasn’t a great situation for people to encourage a high school kid to put himself in. This thread doesn’t have to sort of culture war that must be won. It was a easy night with shades of gray and an unfortunate end point for a bunch of people.
Posted on 2/6/21 at 6:37 am to NoSaint
quote:
They picked the wrong target, and the friend armed the wrong person. And the night went terribly wrong for a bunch of people. Kyle, the friend, and the “thugs.”
And the fact remains one group was the aggressor. Period.
I don't understand the need to make excuses for the fact three thugs attacked Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse did not attack. They did. They are at fault. End of story.
Anything else is nothing more than another version of "she shouldn't have worn that dress. She was asking for it."
This post was edited on 2/6/21 at 6:38 am
Page 19 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News