[Pablo Chacon]

GA v Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. verdict could really cause an uproar and chaos. Stay tuned

[vreihen16]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

GA v Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. verdict could really cause an uproar and chaos. Stay tuned

I have relatives in Brunswick, who have told me that the protesters have being bussed in daily ever since the jury selection started. I strongly encouraged them to leave before the verdict, for their own safety.....

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vreihen16

I have relatives in Brunswick, who have told me that the protesters have being bussed in daily ever since the jury selection started. I strongly encouraged them to leave before the verdict, for their own safety.....

Wow, I’m not surprised at all.
Very good advice, I hope they heed it and leave ASAP.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

GA v Gregory McMichael, Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan Jr. verdict could really cause an uproar and chaos. Stay tuned

That one looks like it will go against the defendants, so each 'side' will have one case to be mad about, & one to brag about.
No violence after the Rittenhouse verdict that I know of.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

They were out there to be violent, incite violence and commit a crime (…or crimes). Their criminal histories tell you EVERYTHING you need to know about those three men. Only career criminals or people with a propensity to commit criminals acts find themselves at riots. Generally speaking, law abiding citizens don't go out and damage other people's property and commit acts that purposely hurt others. Kenosha will never recover from the damage caused during the riots. The people of that city are disenfranchised forever.

I certainly didn't defend these guys! But who wants 17yr olds running the streets with long guns in dangerous times? Does anyone see a problem here?
I'm surprised Rittenhouse didn't get something.
Kenosha will decide if it can heal. Many cities have gone through worse.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

That one looks like it will go against the defendants, so each 'side' will have one case to be mad about, & one to brag about.
No violence after the Rittenhouse verdict that I know of.

I don’t see it as a “side” issue other than prosecutor v. defender, but I know what you mean. But to be totally clear and fair, these two trials are vastly different.

I’ve read that the Kinosha protest are scheduled for Sunday for whatever reason. Perhaps they require additional time to bus them in. Who knows.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

I certainly didn't defend these guys! But who wants 17yr olds running the streets with long guns in dangerous times? Does anyone see a problem here?
I'm surprised Rittenhouse didn't get something.
Kenosha will decide if it can heal. Many cities have gone through worse.

I don’t see an issue with a 17 year old with a long rifle, but the law does. They dropped the weapon charge in Kyle’s case. There was a reason for that.

In the US, you can be sent to war at 17 year old with a fully automatic weapon. I’d consider that “dangerous times”, yet I don’t see anyone rioting or protesting that fact.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

I don’t see an issue with a 17 year old with a long rifle, but the law does. They dropped the weapon charge in Kyle’s case. There was a reason for that.

In the US, you can be sent to war at 17 year old with a fully automatic weapon. I’d consider that “dangerous times”, yet I don’t see anyone rioting or protesting that fact.

I wonder more about the laws as written than about if the jury found those laws followed.
You certainly get more training, supervision, command structure, etc, in the military than what Kyle had. One of the reasons we don't allow private militias, but depend on professional police forces instead.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

I wonder more about the laws as written than about if the jury found those laws followed.
You certainly get more training, supervision, command structure, etc, in the military than what Kyle had. One of the reasons we don't allow private militias, but depend on professional police forces instead.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I’m not here to debate the law or the 2A, I was responding to some questions regarding the trial since I watched the entire trial.

Regardless of Kyle’s training or lack of, the 3 rioters that were shot didn’t have the right to chase and or attack him, they paid the price when he exercised his right to defend himself with deadly force.

One question, if Kyle was 18 on or before before 25 Aug 2020, what issue would you have with what occurred?

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

I don't see an issue with a 17 year old with a long rifle, but the law does. They dropped the weapon charge in Kyle's case. There was a reason for that.

In the US, you can be sent to war at 17 year old with a fully automatic weapon. I'd consider that "dangerous times", yet I don't see anyone rioting or protesting that fact.

They dropped the weapon charge because the rifle barrel met the min length. His sisters boyfriend, who was the strawbuyer, has been charged separately.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

They dropped the weapon charge because the rifle barrel met the min length. His sisters boyfriend, who was the strawbuyer, has been charged .

I know that.

Yes, it was clearly not a SBR.

The “straw buyer” has a good chance of beating that charge as well.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

....

One question, if Kyle was 18 on or before before 25 Aug 2020, what issue would you have with what occurred?

You're kidding, right?
All I see is reason for none of them to be there. I know my wife & I stayed home that night.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

I know that.

Yes, it was clearly not a SBR.

The "straw buyer" has a good chance of beating that charge as well.

I think so too.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

You're kidding, right?
All I see is reason for none of them to be there. I know my wife & I stayed home that night.

Nope, you’ve mentioned his age several times, so I’m not kidding.

Do you feel that because you see no “reason for none of them to be there” that they shouldn’t be allowed to be?

That’s the great thing about theses United States of America. As a citizen you have the right to move to whatever state aligns with your beliefs and values. I choose to live in a free state that values the constitution and a citizen’s rights.

If I want to walk down Main St. with my AR pistol with a silencer strung across my back, and open carrying my Sig P320, I can do so and not expect to be chased, attacked, or assaulted. Nor do I have to worry about a LEO stopping me and asking for a permit, or my ID. Not that I have, but it’s a possibility.

Also, if you chose to be a protestor, rioter, spectator, or anything else during that night or any of the other nights of “mostly peaceful protest”, you were free to do so.

If you don’t like that your state, city or town has rights that you don’t value or like, you’re free to try and change them through the process or move. Isn’t it great?

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

Nope, you’ve mentioned his age several times, so I’m not kidding.
Do you feel that because you see no “reason for none of them to be there” that they shouldn’t be allowed to be?
.... Isn’t it great?

I do feel that a minor, and the others, should not have been out there after the previous violence, and when there was a curfew.
That's what a curfew is for.

[Sedan_Clan]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

I do feel that a minor, and the others, should not have been out there after the previous violence, and when there was a curfew.
That's what a curfew is for.

That applies to just about every rioter that got in on the action last year.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by vanguard13

I do feel that a minor, and the others, should not have been out there after the previous violence, and when there was a curfew.
That's what a curfew is for.

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

That applies to just about every rioter that got in on the action last year.

The State of Wisconsin testified that the city of Kinosha was under a mandatory curfew on the evening/night of 25 Aug 2020, so everyone that was present, regardless of age violated curfew.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

I know that.

Yes, it was clearly not a SBR.

The "straw buyer" has a good chance of beating that charge as well.

Why do you think he'll beat the charge?

Sec 948.60 of Wisconsin code is difficult to understand but it's a felony to transfer a firearm to someone under 18 unless the receipt is using the firearm for hunting or firearm safety activities.

[Pablo Chacon]

Originally Posted by F32Fleet

Why do you think he'll beat the charge?

Based off of the testimony from Rittenhouse and others.

“Straw purchases are a common way for felons, gang members and criminals to get guns. However, there are exceptions to what constitutes a straw purchase. For instance, you can legally buy a gun with the intent to gift it to a non prohibited person. That isn’t a straw purchase.”

It comes down to the elements of the charge, and if the state can prove that the purchase met all elements. The sworn testimony from Rittenhouse and others was that the gun was a gift and would be given to him once he turned 18.

I don’t know what evidence the state has to prove that it meets the elements, only time and trial will tell.
It might be dropped, plead down or go to trial.

I’m very curious to see if the state charges Grosskruetz with a felony charge for the weapon he had, and pointed it at Rittenhouse.

[dinonz]

Originally Posted by RichardFroxy

Check out

Sorry "Dick" - can't help you there.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Sedan_Clan

That applies to just about every rioter that got in on the action last year.

And Kyle would be in that group.
Thank you both.

[vanguard8]

Originally Posted by Pablo Chacon

.... The sworn testimony from Rittenhouse and others was that the gun was a gift and would be given to him once he turned 18....
I’m very curious to see if the state charges Grosskruetz with a felony charge for the weapon he had, and pointed it at Rittenhouse.

But Kyle had the gun, not supervised, in a curfew situation, before he turned 18; so much for that dodge.
So the friend either gave the gun to Kyle, or Kyle stole it? Hmmm, who to charge for this crime...?

Re: Grosskruetz, do you think he can say he was making a citizen's arrest, like the guys in GA (who actually pulled the trigger)?