Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[PointOfViewGun]

Open carry is legal (mostly) in WI. It is not an act of provocation. It was established that Rittenhouse was in legal possession of the firearm. The suggestion that being legally armed (the primary legitimate purpose of which is self-defense) negates one's right to self-defense is ludicrous.

Based on a technicality due to the length of the barrel being longer, sure. If you hang a rifle around your neck and go to a protest to act like you're the Rambo it doesn't exactly give people the impression that you merely have that rifle to defend yourself. People will surely see you as a threat. Those that see it in themselves will try to disarm you. Something being legal doesn't make the act impervious to being an act of intimidation.

[Cope]

Based on a technicality due to the length of the barrel being longer, sure. If you hang a rifle around your neck and go to a protest to act like you're the Rambo it doesn't exactly give people the impression that you merely have that rifle to defend yourself. People will surely see you as a threat. Those that see it in themselves will try to disarm you. Something being legal doesn't make the act impervious to being an act of intimidation.

Gun law in the US - from the Constitution down - is based on self-defense. The primary purpose of open carry is to deter potential attackers with a show of defensive force. It makes most sense in volatile situations where there is an substantive expectation of being assailed. It is the very opposite of an invitation to be attacked (no reasonable person would physically accost a person armed with a deadly weapon). The reason that rifles are hung round the neck is to keep the barrel facing downward in a defensive posture.

The characterization of Rittenhouse as "Rambo" implies that he provoked the action against him by using his weapon in an aggressive or haphazard manner (e.g. by brandishing). The evidence strongly suggests the contrary: that Rittenhouse only used his weapon when being directly assailed. This is why the prosecution had no case.

[PointOfViewGun]

Gun law in the US - from the Constitution down - is based on self-defense. The primary purpose of open carry is to deter potential attackers with a show of defensive force. It makes most sense in volatile situations where there is an substantive expectation of being assailed. It is the very opposite of an invitation to be attacked (no reasonable person would physically accost a person armed with a deadly weapon). The reason that rifles are hung round the neck is to keep the barrel facing downward in a defensive posture.

The characterization of Rittenhouse as "Rambo" implies that he provoked the action against him by using his weapon in an aggressive or haphazard manner (e.g. by brandishing). The evidence strongly suggests the contrary: that Rittenhouse only used his weapon when being directly assailed. This is why the prosecution had no case.

All of this would make sense if Rittenhouse had to be there and trying to accomplish his daily duties and felt the need to defend himself. He wasn't. His sole purpose to be there was to confront people.

[Cope]

All of this would make sense if Rittenhouse had to be there and trying to accomplish his daily duties and felt the need to defend himself. He wasn't. His sole purpose to be there was to confront people.

There is no evidence for the claim that Rittenhouse either intended to, or did in fact, confront anyone. As explained above, the suggestion that being armed is an act of confrontation in and of itself shows a fundamental misunderstanding, both of the law and of gun culture in the US.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is no evidence for the claim that Rittenhouse either intended to, or did in fact, confront anyone. As explained above, the suggestion that being armed is an act of confrontation in and of itself shows a fundamental misunderstanding, both of the law and of gun culture in the US.

Cope, Rittenhouse didn't travel to Kenosha to get laid or count flowers on people's yards.

[sumskilz]

Based on a technicality due to the length of the barrel being longer, sure.

There is nothing technical about being a normal rifle that can be purchased anywhere guns are sold. By which I mean, the charge wasn't dropped due to some technical loophole, but rather because it was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of a normal rifle.

In contrast, a short-barreled rifle requires a Type 01 Federal Firearms License, must be purchased from a Class 3 arms dealer, and registered with the ATF.

[PointOfViewGun]

There is nothing technical about being a normal rifle that can be purchased anywhere guns are sold. By which I mean, the charge wasn't dropped due to some technical loophole, but rather because it was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of a normal rifle.
In contrast, a short-barreled rifle requires a Type 01 Federal Firearms License, must be purchased from a Class 3 arms dealer, and registered with the ATF.

Even the questionable judge voiced concern about this technicality.

[Cope]

Cope, Rittenhouse didn't travel to Kenosha to get laid or count flowers on people's yards.

Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha on 8/24 to work. He remained there overnight. On the morning of 8/25 he cleared graffiti from a high school building, then later volunteered to protect a car dealership which had suffered property damage the previous evening. None of this shows any intent to provoke or confront, much less to do murder.

[sumskilz]

Even the questionable judge voiced concern about this technicality.

No, he didn't.

[Cope]

There is nothing technical about being a normal rifle that can be purchased anywhere guns are sold. By which I mean, the charge wasn't dropped due to some technical loophole, but rather because it was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of a normal rifle.

In contrast, a short-barreled rifle requires a Type 01 Federal Firearms License, must be purchased from a Class 3 arms dealer, and registered with the ATF.

It also isn't relevant to the more serious charges because Rittenhouse's right to self-defense would not have been negated due a misdemeanor violation.

[Cope]

No, he didn't.

So far as I recall, the prosecution agreed with the judge that the charge did not apply due to the weapon's specifications.

[Cyclops]

Cope, Rittenhouse didn't travel to Kenosha to get laid or count flowers on people's yards.

I think the dead guy's girlfriends opinion is apposite, she said she felt for him, he was trying to help out, I think some/most of his family lived in that town, and he's been caught up in a wider stream of events. I mean this boy is weaponised now, he'll be used and abused like the woman who accused Kavanaugh, regardless of his own wishes, I suspect..

There's a lot that's alien to me here, arming a kid with some (to me) incredible weapon, letting him out when there's "opposing forces" similarly armed, but that's the state of play in the US. Kid wanting to stand up for his family's community against some rioting felt the need to take some massive gun and felt the need to use it. If I took a weapon to a rally here I'd be arrested and have it taken by the cops (but remember I live in the People's Republic of Australia, so I've probably been brainwashed for having a poor Social Credit Score, or "rep" as its known here).

I'm still stunned the rioting was allowed to develop so horribly. There's a huge failure of governance here. People declaring "autonomous zones"? I mean send in the troops. If the protesting is sincere then show respect but shoot the looters and secessionists. Its bad someone gave this kid a powerful weapon too, but I hear its legal? The gun problem is baked in for decades in the US I think.

I notice he reporting has been very divisive too. Some paranoid conspiracy theorist posted that we got full coverage of this trial with loud opinionating from a lot of influential people, but the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell is going too and there was a court sketch and very little comment. Not sure if that's true but we are not hearing a peep about Epstein's associate, and the news was full of Kenosha.

[PointOfViewGun]

Rittenhouse traveled to Kenosha on 8/24 to work. He remained there overnight. On the morning of 8/25 he cleared graffiti from a high school building, then later volunteered to protect a car dealership which had suffered property damage the previous evening. None of this shows any intent to provoke or confront, much less to do murder.

Did he also kiss babies?

[Mithradates]

Did he also kiss babies?

That was Rosenbaum.

[Coughdrop addict]

https://twitter.com/browsersatdv4/st...84286171836418

And just like that Rittenhouse was unpersoned from in MAGAstan.

[Cope]

Almost like there was never any actual proof that he was a white supremacist.

[Infidel144]

True, but you and I both know the court largely ignored the real crime:

This has changed my mind. I now completely agree that crossing State Lines, also known as Borders, without proper permission, should be treated as a criminal act. I suggest that the highest levels of Government, the Congress and the Executive Branch, form an official unit dedicated to preventing the crossing of State Lines, also known as Borders, and the apprehension and prosecution of those who do cross State Lines, also known as Borders, in violation of law. I will go one step further and suggest the erection of barriers at State Lines, also known as Borders, to further dissuade those who would cross in violation of law.

Almost like there was never any actual proof that he was a white supremacist.

His support for the protests (as opposed to the riots) has been public knowledge since just after the shootings.

Did he also kiss babies?

That was Rosenbaum.

It is heartbreaking how much little Jojo loved children...

[irontaino]

In more positive news, Ahmaud Arbury's killers have been found guilty on all charges.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It’s almost like the pretty obvious murder was murder and the pretty obvious self defense was self defense.

[Heathen Hammer]

Almost like there was never any actual proof that he was a white supremacist.

Establishment and media will call anything they don't like "white supremacy" (ironically making actual white supremacists more popular), kinda like evangelicals that called anyone who doesn't worship Yahweh as Satanist.