all 81 comments

[–]horatioherbert 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun -  (26 children)

The mob is free to pillage, loot and burn but you cannot defend yourself and your property using your God-given rights, the lunatics are running the asylum

[–]igorness 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (25 children)

He's from another state. He wasn't protecting "his" property. He's also 17.

[–]dnick5000 19 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 2 fun20 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

But he was defending himself.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

No he wasn't, he only claimed that was the reason and it's still a Federal crime.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well the idiot who survived has already admitted he wanted to kill him so it's going to be a bit hard to show it wasn't self defence now.

[–]horatioherbert 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

His age should only stifle any prosecution and yes he was defending himself

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

K

Slap a fine on him and call it a day.

I really don't understand why you dumbfucks think this is a valid defense, it's a technicality. You're basically agreeing that your pals looting the small businesses did deserve to be shot in face- only via someone born one year earlier and 20 miles further north.

[–]FediNetizen 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You don't fine someone for shooting people. If there is any criminality involved then this kid is going to prison.

[–]BigFatRetard 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why do you suddenly care about people dying? Over 30 people died before Mostly Peaceful Kyle arrived on the scene, I don't see any outrage over all that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It was self defense so good luck!

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

In another state, That makes it a Federal crime. I don't care if he lived 5 miles away.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Ok. Slap a bigger fine on him then and put him on probation.

Rosenbaum and co. deserved to eat that bullet :)

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

He killed 2 people. It's manslaughter at the very least. 2nd degree murder at best.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No. It was self defense and these aggressors deserved to fucking die. Don't attack someone with a fucking gun or you get your skull vented.

This is such a dumb fucking hill to die on. I can understand leftist sympathy for a lot of issues including healthcare, environmentalism, abortion, etc. I'm actually more leftist than most fucking commies when it comes to the environment.

But this? Three degenerates with criminal records? One of which raped a kid? Another of which was a felon with a gun (lol)? Just disown this, they got what was coming to them for assaulting the kid and no court is gonna convict for murder.

Stop making this tribal. You don't have to support these pieces of shit.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeh he's a real sweetheart

https://v.redd.it/vsrmdvtogzj51

Count 1: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 2: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 3: FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 4: ATTEMPT FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 5: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

[–]Iam1ofMany 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The only one that has any chance of sticking is the Possession of the weapon and him being under 18. There is even a problem with that charge as the law fucked up and had a subsection referring to people under the age of 16 which makes it ambiguous. A good lawyer(and he has a good lawyer) will probably even get him off on that.

Here is the law as written(and the sub section below referencing 16 years of age making the law ambiguous):

(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.

Subsection 29.304:

(1) Persons under 12 years of age. (a) Prohibition on hunting. No person under 12 years of age may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow. (b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person under 12 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and he or she is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class under the supervision of his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor. (c) Restrictions on obtaining hunting approval. Except as provided under par. (d), no person under 12 years of age may obtain any approval authorizing hunting. (d) Restrictions on validity of certificate of accomplishment. A person under 12 years of age may obtain a certificate of accomplishment if he or she complies with the requirements of s. 29.591 (4) but that certificate is not valid for the hunting of small game until that person becomes 12 years of age. (2) Persons 12 to 14 years of age. 29.304(2)(a) (a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may hunt unless he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian. (b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 12 years of age or older but under 14 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she: 1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or 2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor. (3) Persons 14 to 16 years of age. 29.304(3)(a) (a) Restrictions on hunting. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may hunt unless he or she: 1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; or 2. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department. (b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she: 1. Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian; 2. Is enrolled in the course of instruction under the hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case and unloaded to or from that class or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor; or 3. Is issued a certificate of accomplishment that states that he or she successfully completed the course of instruction under the hunter education program or has a similar certificate, license, or other evidence satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department. (4) Parental obligation. No parent or guardian of a child under 16 years of age may authorize or knowingly permit the child to violate this section. (4m) Hunting mentorship program. The prohibition specified in sub. (1) (a) and the restrictions specified in subs. (1) (b) to (d), (2), and (3) do not apply to a person who is hunting with a mentor and who complies with the requirements specified under s. 29.592. (5) Exception. (a) Notwithstanding subs. (1) to (3), a person 12 years of age or older may possess or control a firearm and may hunt with a firearm, bow and arrow, or crossbow on land under the ownership of the person or the person’s family if no license is required and if the firing of firearms is permitted on that land. (b)
1. In this paragraph, ” target practice” includes trap shooting or a similar sport shooting activity regardless of whether the activity involves shooting at a fixed or a moving target. 2. The restrictions on the possession and control of a firearm under sub. (1) do not apply to a person using a firearm in target practice if he or she is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian or by a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.

[–]Iam1ofMany 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Kenosha is 20 miles from his home town. While it is factually correct to say he is from another state it is a bunch of bullshit to act like he didn't live right there.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

While it is factually correct to say he is from another state

Not only factually, LEGALLY. Not only is it illegal local and state but FEDERALLY.

[–]Iam1ofMany 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Illegal for what exactly?

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Crossing state lines with a gun to commit a crime. Not the gun specifically but he deliberately put himself in harm's way. His use of the gun would only apply on his OWN property. He would not have been in any danger if he stayed home. He now faces local, state AND federal crimes for it.

[–]Iam1ofMany 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is there any proof he crossed state lines with the gun? Keep in mind the burden of proof is on the one bringing the charges.

I would also like a link to the actual charge that you would be charging him with exactly. I like to see wording of said law.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

https://v.redd.it/vsrmdvtogzj51

Count 1: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 2: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 3: FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 4: ATTEMPT FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 5: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

[–]Iam1ofMany 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What does this have to do with him crossing state lines which is what our discussion was? I don't see any charges related to that right?

[–]Iam1ofMany 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

"Kyle did not carry a gun across state line," L. Lin Wood said in a tweet Friday morning. "The gun belonged to his friend, a Wisconsin resident. The gun never left the state of Wisconsin."

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

https://v.redd.it/vsrmdvtogzj51

Count 1: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 2: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 3: FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 4: ATTEMPT FIRST DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 5: FIRST DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

Count 6: POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

[–]Iam1ofMany 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

What does this have to do with him crossing state lines which is what our discussion was? I don't see any charges related to that right?

[–]bald-janitor 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He is a troll

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

As you say, it'll never stick. Good.

[–]LetThemRot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

i gave a theory that DA/Prosecutors do this in democrat run cities during clear self defence cases to;

  1. satiate the retarded leftist mob, aka appease their fellow democrats, who have the attention span of a goldfish.

  2. so it will get cleanly dismissed with zero room for a messy trial unlike a manslaughter, or 3rd degree charge.

ofcourse being democrat officials, you never know if really they are that stupid.

[–]Trajan 8 insightful - 6 fun8 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

It seems only fair that the bodies of those killed in these riots be dismembered and pieces shipped to the Democratic politicians, the media, and corporations who encourage this unrest. They earned it.

[–]One_Jack_MoveLibertarian Party 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[–]lothrop_evola 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Here's a good video summary of the shootings. You can see that Kyle starts calling 911 after the first shooting, is then chased and attacked by a crowd before firing again at the 2nd and 3rd victims. https://www.bitchute.com/video/PwFSVpVmAcea/

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah if self defense has any meaning at all, it applies here. He should not cave to a plea.

[–]hennaojichan 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It was reported that one of his pursuers had a Glock but I of course cannot verify that.

[–][deleted] 20 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

There's a picture of Gaige Grosskreutz holding one, he had every intention to execute the kid after a feigned surrender but he couldn't pull the trigger sans forearm.

[–]hennaojichan 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

GG will have a memento of the 2020 madness.

[–]Dr_Bukkake 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He will most likely have a stub.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah Jews do that. Luckily the kid shot first.

[–]BobLong 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here is the picture of Grosskreutz holding his pistol after having part of his arm blown off.

https://jssocial.pw/ppkey/fget/pic8/upload/JDMnL32pZf.png

[–]Dr_Bukkake 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The guy shot in the arm had a Glock in his hand, the liberal media cuts that part out of the pics.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]Folzy 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He was clearly on the side of law.

[–]scrubking 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

We need more patriots like him.

[–]Zapped 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Why was he alone? Where was the rest of his group when he was attacked? Why was he not trained better in how to defend or defuse? His group leader is partly responsible, in my opinion. That said, the kid, from what I have seen in the videos, was justified through self-defense. He tried to run away from the attacks. Those rioters were trying to kill him with no justification. I would donate to a legal fund, but GoFundMe removed one his father set up and the only other one I've seen seems shady. I feel bad for him for two reasons: he has a tough fight ahead and he has to live with the fact that he killed two people, even if it was justified.

[–]Dr_Bukkake 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah but he was dead if he didn’t shoot the one “medic” who drew a pistol on him.

[–]Dudemanguy 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The kid actually did an incredible job staying alive without resorting to just hosing them down. Few people would have performed as well.

The other adults in his group failed miserably though, and should have never allowed the kid to stick around when he showed up.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Gofundme is on the side of the fascists (in case anyone wasn't aware of this). Never use them even for things you want to support.

As to this kid's fate, they are either overcharging him to intimidate him into plea bargin or overcharging him to set him up for acquittal.

I haven't seen any studies that indicate people who defend themselves against people trying to murder them feel any sort of life-long guilt afterwards. Certainly, they remember it.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Sometimes men in the military come back with ptsd, even though they killed in war they still feel bad about it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's true. I don't know if the same thing happens in situations like this.

[–]bug-in-recovery 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Don't use "fascist" as a pejorative.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

LOL I've spent quite a little bit of time talking to you guys over the years. Care to discuss?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

They say he was 17 so not legally carrying a gun

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That law doesn't apply to long-barreled rifles or shotguns. Nice try though.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But is that true? Not where I am from it's not. IT's not like drinking ...

[–]Dr_Bukkake 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The first shooting is the only one I’m not sure about only because I didn’t see any clear footage on how it went down but from the way it was described it sounds like it was self defense. The other two shootings were clearly self defense as they attacked him from behind with a skateboard and the guy shot in the arm drew a pistol on him which the MSM conveniently leaves out of pictures. I hope he doesn’t get sacrificed to prevent more looting.

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The claim that he was over charged as a tactic to get him off, or that it means nothing are both bullshit argument. He is being railroaded by another leftist DA. They want you to believe it is nothing so you don't do anything about it. Then 3 months from now when they throw the book at him it will all be sealed away and not a peep will make it into the news. These leftist local governments are literally on the side of the terrorists.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I agree with you insofar as he shouldn't be charged at all. He should walk, right now. I think if he walked, they're afraid of the reaction, but that is not how things ought to be decided- "... but what will the criminals say ? ".

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The rioters are already rioting. The government is letting it happen. If they are afraid of the riots then they would be doing something about them. The claim that in one instance they are supporting the rioters and in the next subverting justice for fear of them is not logical.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All true, but you're being rational. I am not claiming they're rational. I am hypothesizing how stupid, banal slobbering cowards think. It doesn't come naturally.

[–]wrongthink 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Riot and loot = good trouble, people need to eat (the sneakers they stole?), language of the oppressed (try english instead?)

Standing in the way of the BurnLootMurder organization and their favored night time activities = agitator, racism, not doing the work (of justifying mayhem), evil hateful monster (who doesn't want grafiti and arson to be normalized), attacking a mostly peaceful crowd (and the peaceful ones weren't shot).

Full fucking insanity.

[–]igorness 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

Oh course it'll stick, He crossed state lines to do it.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah this is actually totallty irrelevant to the charges. The "crossing state lines to X" are specific statutes, not a general enhancer which can be applied to just any legal activity.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not state wise, but it's a Federal crime now.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There's evidence he was elsewhere cleaning up graffiti and such like long before shooting so he could say he went there to do that.

[–]LetThemRot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Oh course it'll stick, He crossed state lines to do it.

classic leftist reasoning skills: " Of course I will win in the courts, the person I hit running a red light drunk off my tits had a broken front indicator!!! "

[–]Dr_Bukkake 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

It’s legal if he has a license in both states. Not saying he did just that you can do it with the proper license.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Not that. It's not about the licence. He crossed state lines and committed the crime, was not protecting "his" property and generally had no business being there as he personally was in no danger. That's the crime. It will stick big time.

[–]lothrop_evola 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

His home is in Antioch, Illinois, literally right beside the Wisconsin border. The "crossing state lines" thing seems overblown to me.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Still a Federal crime.

[–]Dr_Bukkake 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You don’t get jail time for it.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

None of which matters to the charges. The charges are murder 1 the defense is fear for your life in that moment. Everything else is irrelevant.

[–]Dudemanguy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He will be convicted of something that puts him away for a long time, but premeditated murder is a huge stretch and done for political theater and to get him to plea.

[–]Dr_Bukkake 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If I legally cross state lines and someone tries to assault me like what happened here I absolutely have the right to protect myself.

[–]wrongthink 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And his attackers stayed in state lines to attack him.

[–]igorness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

He wasn't attacked and it's still illegal.

[–]soyboy77 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Seventeen is too old to still be playing cops 'n' robbers

[–]NutsToReddit 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well if the cops aren't going to do it, someone has to.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly. You have a God given right to self defense. If the state we elect refuses to do the job, then it falls to citizens to do it.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]iraelmossadreddit 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    he's not going to prison/jail. hes in a juvenile detention facility. it's screwed up that he will have to go through trials and all that non sense though.