Violence Outbreak in Kenosha WI

[The Radio Operator]

Idk what you're talking about, I think it's great we're focusing on correcting the lies being spread about the exact sequence of events in which this brave young man killed two people

Okay. Sounds good, glad you're so ready to agree that brave Kyle did nothing wrong and was justified in killing two protesters, and that this is something you support. I too agree that we should focus on his case more.

[Galloism]

He fled due to a mob headed his way and his safety was in jeopardy, putting down his rifle would be the worst thing to do.

A criminal doesn't get to use the doctrine of self-defense. His pursuers chased him because they saw a shooting that they could only assume was criminal. I doubt you would ask them to deliberate the finer points of judicial precedent on self-defense before chasing an escaping shooter. Also, your point is undermined by the fact no-one assaulted him, only tried to disarm him.

Um, this isn’t true. First, assault is the threat, battery is the hit. Let’s clear that up.

For instance, if I raise my fist to hit you, but trip on my shoelaces and fall, that’s assault but not battery. If I hit you in the back of the head and you never see it coming, it’s battery but not assault.

When rosenbaum threateningly approached the kid on the street, that might have been assault.
When the kid stepped away and he stepped even closer, the kid definitely took it as assault and took of running.
At this point, both rosenbaum and the kid had a legal duty to retreat. The kid retreated. Rosenbaum did not. Therefore he was definitely the aggressor.
He chases the kid, throws the bag (this is assault and attempted battery), and corners him. A third party also fires a gun in the direction of the kid (this party is unknown).
He grabs for the kid and his gun. This is assault.
The kid fires. This is self defense - retreat has failed.
The kid calls someone, and the reporter following them both renders first aid.
A crowd approaches, and the kid gets scared, runs away.
At this point, some in the crowd chase him. Again, under Wisconsin law, everyone has a duty to retreat. The kid did. They didn’t.
Two separate individuals (unknown) hit the kid in the back of the head while he was running. This is battery, but not assault.
The kid trips, lands on the ground.
One guy, unknown, kicks him in the face. Kid fires at him, but misses. This person flees.
Second person hits kid with a skateboard and grabs for the gun, kid fires, and kills him.
Third person approaches with gun in hand, but fakes surrender. Kid holds his fire.
As soon as he gets the opportunity, he puts his gun to the kid’s head with the intention of killing him. This is assault with a deadly weapon.
Kid somehow squeezes off a shot, hits the third guy’s gun arm.
Kid gets up, runs to the police, and tries to surrender. They ignore him.

[Galloism]

Just correcting the sequence of events. Lots of misinformation out there.

Yeah, the misinformation about this poor fella really seems to be the primary issue here! Glad someone is brave enough to set the record straight about the important things

Glad to help. I also detailed the full sequence of events based on the prosecution complaint and all available videos for you.

Glad to be of service.

[The Radio Operator]

Yeah, the misinformation about this poor fella really seems to be the primary issue here! Glad someone is brave enough to set the record straight about the important things

Glad to help. I also detailed the full sequence of events based on the prosecution complaint and all available videos for you.

Glad to be of service.

Can you do the same but now with WI gun laws and what clause he might be violating?

[Galloism]

Glad to help. I also detailed the full sequence of events based on the prosecution complaint and all available videos for you.

Glad to be of service.

Can you do the same but now with WI gun laws and what clause he might be violating?

So, in general, children under 18 can’t use guns and many other weapons (including nunchucks, which is very specifically defined).

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statute ... tes/948/60

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.

Seems open and shut, but...

(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.

There’s an exception for rifles and shotguns if you follow those three code sections.

The first, 941.28 is about sawed off shotguns and short barreled rifles. AR-15 doesn’t violate that.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statute ... 941/III/28

29.304 is only applicable to kids under 16 and is entirely about hunting.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statute ... /29/IV/304

29.593 requires a certificate of accomplishment to receive hunting approval.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statute ... 9/VIII/593

Which he wasn’t hunting. The legislation has a giant blind spot on kids using rifles or shotguns but NOT hunting.

Now, there is a rule of law to construe ambiguous criminal laws in favor of the defendant, so it’s arguable since he wasn’t hunting, and his rifle wasn’t a short barreled rifle, he meets the exception.

But it’s also arguable that he didn’t comply with the code section requiring the certificate of accomplishment. Even though he wasn’t hunting.

It’s arguable.

[Grinning Dragon]

Glad to help. I also detailed the full sequence of events based on the prosecution complaint and all available videos for you.

Glad to be of service.

Can you do the same but now with WI gun laws and what clause he might be violating?

This what you want?
I'd say pay attention to 3c

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.

[The Radio Operator]

It’s arguable.

Thanks, I can see why you're the paralegal of NS.

[Kowani]

It’s arguable.

Thanks, I can see why you're the paralegal of NS.

Angry Gravlen noises

[The Lone Alliance]

I don't think white BLM supporters are known for shouting the N word at people. I think they were just a bunch of angry ex-cons who were just mad and the protests gave them a good excuse to vent their anger. I would not be surprised if some of them might have even have been white supremacists.

Doesn't mean they deserved to die, but I think there's a difference between them and actual BLM.

That's a good point. I've probably succumbed to the narrative that anyone acting out on the street must be affiliated with BLM. Of course there's no reason to think unaffiliated AYM are thinking this is a good time to stay home and out of trouble.

(AYM = Angry Young Men)

I think they're more part of the "Fuck The Police" crowd, which are mostly just criminals.
They're aligned with BLM in that yes, they want the police defunded and they like the police being under siege, but that's because they want to use that factoid to destroy and loot.

It's kind of like how there's the rebels against Assad who wanted Syria to be a better government, and then there's ISIS who want to get rid of Assad so they can genocide everyone who isn't them.

In a way you can compare the US situation to a civil war in that there are multiple factions involved in this unrest and they all want different things for different reasons and some of them want things that are actually very bad for the rest of us.

[Galloism]

That's a good point. I've probably succumbed to the narrative that anyone acting out on the street must be affiliated with BLM. Of course there's no reason to think unaffiliated AYM are thinking this is a good time to stay home and out of trouble.

(AYM = Angry Young Men)

I think they're more part of the "Fuck The Police" crowd, which are mostly just criminals.
They're aligned with BLM in that yes, they want the police defunded and they like the police being under siege, but that's because they want to use that factoid to destroy and loot.

It's kind of like how there's the rebels against Assad who wanted Syria to be a better government, and then there's ISIS who want to get rid of Assad so they can genocide everyone who isn't them.

Notably, two or possibly all three of the people fit that description - less BLM and more there to cause trouble.

The original aggressor, Rosenbaum, was a convicted sex offender who got ten years for sex with a minor and, more relevantly, prison records show he assaulted guards like 20 times while he was there.

The skateboard guy had charges for domestic violence and strangulation.

The guy with the gun (and also was a felon in possession of a firearm) had a conviction for felony burglary (typically, felony burglary means you were armed or really really high dollar).

The kid’s only known charge is failing to obey a traffic signal.

I’m not saying convicted felons deserve death or anything stupid like that, but the prosecution complaint and the videos show a kid running for his life from people chasing him, and all three people he shot had histories of violence, while he has no history of violence at all.

It’s more likely than not that he’s the victim here. He might also be guilty of a class A misdemeanor for illegal possession (maybe).

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Can you do the same but now with WI gun laws and what clause he might be violating?

This what you want?
I'd say pay attention to 3c

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.

Which is heavily reliant on 941.28 (not quoted)

Work returned for completion -- no mark

[Grinning Dragon]

This what you want?
I'd say pay attention to 3c

Which is heavily reliant on 941.28 (not quoted)

Work returned for completion -- no mark*

* See Gallo's post just above mine. Can I go out and play now?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Which is heavily reliant on 941.28 (not quoted)

Work returned for completion -- no mark*

* See Gallo's post just above mine. Can I go out and play now?

Sure. Try not to kill anyone!

[Grinning Dragon]

* See Gallo's post just above mine. Can I go out and play now?

Sure. Try not to kill anyone!

Aww.... /slowly puts away ACME rocket sled.

[Gravlen]

The second man didn't try to attack him, he just tried to disarm him. Clearly, your assumption about the protestors was wrong.

You say that the protestors should have assumed that he was going to turn himself in just because he was running in the general direction of the police (clearly he wasn't too fussed about doing it, because after his first attempt, he just went back home). If they hadn't given chase, and he indeed did not intend to turn himself in, who knows what would have happened. Perhaps he would have escaped into the night, never to be found again. It's the best choice in that situation to withhold the benefit of the doubt from Rittenhouse. Also, you're surprisingly willing to paint the protestors with a broad brush despite the fact that the only person who committed acts of violence in this incident was Rittenhouse.

“Second man” is ambiguous. Which man you talking about?

He seems to mean Grosskreutz Huber, the second man to get shot.

[Galloism]

“Second man” is ambiguous. Which man you talking about?

He seems to mean Grosskreutz, the second man to get shot.

Grosskreutz was the third one to get shot.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

As soon as he gets the opportunity, he puts his gun to the kid’s head with the intention of killing him. This is assault with a deadly weapon.
Kid somehow squeezes off a shot, hits the third guy’s gun arm.

I don't know how you infer "intention of killing him"?

I suppose the gun might have jammed, safety might have been still on, or out of ammo. But absent any of those, surely not shooting at the first opportunity shows an intention not to shoot (unless say Rittenhouse won't surrender his gun)?

[The Lone Alliance]

As soon as he gets the opportunity, he puts his gun to the kid’s head with the intention of killing him. This is assault with a deadly weapon.
Kid somehow squeezes off a shot, hits the third guy’s gun arm.

I don't know how you infer "intention of killing him"?

I suppose the gun might have jammed, safety might have been still on, or out of ammo. But absent any of those, surely not shooting at the first opportunity shows an intention not to shoot (unless say Rittenhouse won't surrender his gun)?

And we're just supposed to trust a bunch of violent criminals that they were just going to peacefully escort him to the police if he gave up his gun?

Please, these are all people with a history of violence, if Rittenhouse gave up his gun they would have beat him to death. Which is what they were trying to do while they were supposedly disarming him if the skateboard guy was anything.

Besides I heard something that the guy who lost his arm said he hesitated to get a shot off and that's why Rittenhouse was able to shoot him. Can't confirm that but if he wasn't at least wanting to shoot him why did he expose the gun to the teen at all if he merely wanted to disarm him?

Why are you so eager to assume that these people were innocent and Rittenhouse is guilty, is it because you're convinced they're on "Your side" so you have to defend them?

Again I say don't, they were never on your side, they were never for justice, they were just criminals being criminals. They were not peaceful protesters, they were violent people causing trouble because they knew people would blindly defend them out of the belief that they have too.

You don't. Don't mourn the stupid or you'll be crying all day.

[Yannis]

Wow, I had no idea that is was also a topic here.
I know that all of us have strong emotions about the current events. I took a drive downtown yesterday, and wanted to cry, for two reasons. One, there is a lot more damage than what the news outlets show. They show 5 pictures of a burnt garbage truck and 6 more of the burnt cars in a car lot, but not the buildings that I dont even recognize anymore. Two, yesterday there was a large gathering all down the street, and they were all painting positive messages of love and hope on the plywood covering their windows and doors.
I'm lucky that I live closer to the edge of town, but it still breaks my heart that my family, friends, and neighbors have to deal with this.
Now, I dont have a problem with the peaceful protests. And it's those protesters that obey laws and go home at curfew. I do have a problem with those who stay out all night, causing trouble. The ones who storm the fence around the courthouse and then get mad when the police bring out the tear gas. I have a problem with the people who come from out of town and out of state just to destroy our town. And I'm grateful that these idiots decided to fill up their gas cans at a gas station in Kenosha and were caught before anything terrible could happen.
At the beginning of the week, I had very strong opinions about Sunday's shooting. Now, I just want peace in my city.

[Gravlen]

He seems to mean Grosskreutz, the second man to get shot.

Grosskreutz was the third one to get shot.

Yes, sorry, I got my names mixed up. I meant to say Huber - the guy with the skateboard.

[Galloism]

As soon as he gets the opportunity, he puts his gun to the kid’s head with the intention of killing him. This is assault with a deadly weapon.
Kid somehow squeezes off a shot, hits the third guy’s gun arm.

I don't know how you infer "intention of killing him"?

I suppose the gun might have jammed, safety might have been still on, or out of ammo. But absent any of those, surely not shooting at the first opportunity shows an intention not to shoot (unless say Rittenhouse won't surrender his gun)?

Well, in the moment you could only assume that someone pointing their gun at your head while you’re on the ground isn’t your friend.

It wasn’t til after when he said the quiet part out loud, and said his one regret that he “didn’t empty his entire magazine” into the kid.

[Gravlen]

Please, these are all people with a history of violence, if Rittenhouse gave up his gun they would have beat him to death.

Did Anthony Huber have a history of violence? (The second man to get shot)

[Galloism]

Please, these are all people with a history of violence, if Rittenhouse gave up his gun they would have beat him to death.

Did Anthony Huber have a history of violence? (The second man to get shot)

Yes. Domestic violence, battery, and strangulation iirc.

[Gravlen]

The kid’s only known charge is failing to obey a traffic signal.

Not sure he even had that. I see stories about how there were two Kyle Rittenhouses (now) in the system.

However, as others pointed out, a search for Kyle Rittenhouse’s name on the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access website pulls up two people with the same name.

Those charges appear to be tied to Kyle Joseph Rittenhouse, who is 31 years old, in Rock County.

My link goes to The S*n, hence why I'm not sure as I generally question their credibility.

[The Lone Alliance]

Did Anthony Huber have a history of violence? (The second man to get shot)

Yes. Domestic violence, battery, and strangulation iirc.

So a history of Domestic abuse and violence likely from whenever he got mad about something.

Well watching one of your fellow rioters get shot is certainly something that will make people angry.

Well, in the moment you could only assume that someone pointing their gun at your head while you’re on the ground isn’t your friend.

It wasn’t til after when he said the quiet part out loud, and said his one regret that he “didn’t empty his entire magazine” into the kid.

Yep he was just trying to peacefully disarm him and truly wished no ill will towards the teenager.