Social Kyle Rittenhouse updates

[Bob Gray]

Yes.

Well, fair enough. At least youre honest.

 

[cincymma79]

Really? Source?

he’s an idiot

 

[The Diplomat]

he’s an idiot

Pot calling retard black, imo

 

[floivanus]

The defense argued that an exception in the Wisconsin statute regarding the length of the rifle's barrel applied

The “loophole” is a barrel over 16” is legal, which reflects federal law; textbook example of the government overcharging for optics, like Maduro getting charged with NFA violations while in a completely different country, there’s no basis for it, just to make it look like they’re doing something

 

[SSgt Dickweed]

He married somebody that looks oddly familiar to somebody that is no longer with us. And no, this is not a doctored photo.

Absolutely sickening!!!









I mean why cover all that gorgeous skin with tattoos? She should have stopped with that one on her left forearm.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Well, fair enough. At least youre honest.

There are already examples in place of speech causing a restriction of rights. I’m happy to add “stating they want to kill people” to that list.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

There are already examples in place of speech causing a restriction of rights. I’m happy to add “stating they want to kill people” to that list.

How will half of the leftists online express themselves then?

 

[Bob Gray]

There are already examples in place of speech causing a restriction of rights. I’m happy to add “stating they want to kill people” to that list.

Yeah, but you're talking about limiting a constitutional right because a guy is talking about using a firearm on people in the process of committing a crime. Thats a big step in a bad direction. It's one thing if hes threatening his girlfriend or saying he has a desire to commit a crime in the future.

People talk shit all the time. I dont think that should limit your rights, especially rights protected by the constitution. Direct threats? Maybe. That crosses a line, for sure. But implied threats? No.

 

[nhbbear]

I still don’t think someone who witnesses people stealing from a CVS and wishes he could shoot them should own a gun. Then again, he was breaking the law by having the AR to begin with.

Well, the judge dropped those charges and ruled he did not violate any laws while carrying the gun. Should he have had a gun or been there imo? Nope, but imo he also had every right to do so since the people both protesting and rioting and looting apparently had those same rights to be there.

Him being charged despite that video being widely available was one of the worst political and malicious prosecutions I have ever witnessed (pre-trump second term) and I vehemently oppose any notion that it was not 100% proper use of force in self-defense and preservation of his life.

I still see complete idiots posting still to this day that the people he shot were black and it was a murder/execution-but then, these are the same ignorant fools that claim that Breonna Taylor was killed while asleep in bed and due to a no knock warrant, which was proven false multiple times and using simple logic. Now, the warrants were obtained by lying to get them, but that is a different matter and also a malicious prosecution (the returning fire by the officers-not any charges associated with lying to get the warrant)

 

[DoctorTaco]

How will half of the leftists online express themselves then?

Huh?

 

[DoctorTaco]

It's one thing if hes threatening his girlfriend or saying he has a desire to commit a crime in the future.

Shooting people is the crime he desired to commit in the future.

Direct threats? Maybe. That crosses a line, for sure. But implied threats? No.

He watched looters stealing and said he wished he had his gun to shoot them. Then a few weeks later he took his gun and drove hours before shooting looters. Feels pretty direct to me.

 

[Andy Capp]

I’d be curious where you’d put the scope and scale on this. Would it be justified to shoot someone for stealing 20 dollars? 10? 2? What if they go onto you property and steal the cans out of your recycling?

I'm certainly no expert on firearms but don't you usually put the scope on top?

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Huh?

those are words. have somebody explain them to you.

 

[DoctorTaco]

those are words. have somebody explain them to you.

I’m trying to have you explain them to me since you’re the one who said them

 

[DoctorTaco]

I'm certainly no expert on firearms but don't you usually put the scope on top?

 

[Bob Gray]

Shooting people is the crime he desired to commit in the future.


He watched looters stealing and said he wished he had his gun to shoot them. Then a few weeks later he took his gun and drove hours before shooting looters. Feels pretty direct to me.

It might feel that way to you, but the law isnt dependant on how you feel. Implied threats and direct threats are entirely different things that need to meet separate requirements regardless of how they make you feel.

What he did a few weeks later had no bearing on anything, hence why it meant nothing in court.

 

[DoctorTaco]

It might feel that way to you, but the law isnt dependant on how you feel. Implied threats and direct threats are entirely different things that need to meet separate requirements regardless of how they make you feel.

I hear you. For my personal opinion it seems pretty direct- he said he wanted to shoot looters and then he went and shot looters. If a threat is actualized then it seems pretty direct.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I’m trying to have you explain them to me since you’re the one who said them

huh?

 

[DoctorTaco]

huh?

I’m trying to have you explain the words you wrote to me since you’re the one who wrote them

 

[Fox by the Sea]

I’m trying to have you explain the words you wrote to me since you’re the one who wrote them

huh?