12 ms·

Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. >

Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. > To be clear, the death of such a person, especially if it is while they are in the process of trying to assault and/or kill someone (which the evidence clearly shows) is in fact something to be celebrated. The world is a better place for his absence from it. It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public, after traveling from out of state in order to specifically do that.

cbozeman 5y ago
> It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public First off, there's no such thing as an "assault" rifle, there's just a "rifle". Stop using idiotic terms made up morons who don't know shit about weapons. Second, provoking someone who's openly carrying a firearm... yeah, that sounds like a good idea.
xyzzyz 5y ago
> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles It was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to carry rifle at the time. The weapon charge has been dropped.
0des 5y ago
What is an assault rifle?
- Eelongate 5y ago
  I know you're being rhetorical, but since some may not actually know: If we're being pedantic: A machine-gun with a box magazine, chambered for an intermediate rifle cartridge. Rittenhouse's rifle only had two of those three characteristics. Some would have you believe the missing characteristic (being a machine-gun) is unimportant, yet that's the characteristic with the most stringent federal regulation. If we're being emotive: Any rifle that looks 'assaulty'. Obviously this is extremely subjective. It's possible to construct an assault rifle that fulfills the pedantic definition but lacks the 'assaulty' aesthetic.
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  It’s a really big rifle. Next question.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    It's not. Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.
    - 0des 5y ago
      Thank you for the reply! While I have the chance, allow me one last question: When it comes to AR15 platform, what differentiates a pistol from a rifle?
      - remarkEon 5y ago
        Disclaimer: I own a few guns and am an Army vet, but this is just my current understanding. I recommend consulting the ATF guidelines yourself and/or your local sheriff's office since rules tend to vary by state and jurisdiction. The ATF makes these rules, and currently (my understanding, haven't looked in a while to see if anything changed with the new administration) an AR pistol is something that's less than 26" overall with a barrel of less than 16". There's also rules about how you can't put an actual buttstock on it (but you can put a "brace" ... the definition of which can be confusing). Anything shorter than that and does have an actual stuck is an SBR (short-barrel rifle) and you need an ATF tax stamp for that.
        0des 5y ago
        I appreciate your time to explain that, thanks. I'm now off on a journey to find the exact line between what is a brace and what is a stock! Take care, my friend.
    - ryantgtg 5y ago
      Thank you for the explanation (genuinely). I wasn't exactly being sarcastic, though - my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. Overall length also matters, and whether or not the AR "started out" (at manufacture) as a rifle or pistol determine if it becomes a "short barreled rifle" after certain modifications, but that's getting into the inane and nonsensical world of ATF regulations. As far as what an assault rifle is, it's basically a rifle capable of burst fire or automatic fire (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea). Rittenhouse's AR (and virtually all civilian owned firearms for that matter) are not capable of burst or automatic fire and are not assault rifles.
  - curryst 5y ago
    > To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. This is only half-true. The difference between a pistol and a rifle is whether it has a stock. The difference between a normal rifle and a short-barreled rifle is whether the barrel is 16" or not. I'm not saying it makes more sense, but that is the classification the ATF uses. Never put a stock on any weapon with less than a 16" barrel, unless you're really, really, really sure you fall under some kind of exemption (i.e. that might not apply to black powder weapons).
Natsu 5y ago
> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle. However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so. Thankfully he didn't go full Baldwin, because there was no clip and no round in the chamber and the judge made them check it afterwards, but you can watch the stream if you want to see how it went down.
- 14 5y ago
  All I can say is what a fucking idiot if I was on the jury I would have lost my shit on him. Even if you clear a gun I still pretend a magic bullet fell from the sky and some how chambered itself. Never point a gun a someone unless you are defending yourself or plan to shoot them. That is how hundreds of people had died. I can believe it that is so crazy. Obviously he was trying to provoke an emotional response by pointing a gun at them. This clearly tells me they evidence is not on his side he needs tactics to provoke the jury.
  - gerash 5y ago
    That proves his point that pointing a rifle at someone makes them mad
    - Natsu 5y ago
      The crowd was complaining that a laser pointer (thought to be a gun sight) was pointed at them. Kyle's weapon has no such sight, making that impossible. There's a disputed drone video footage where some think they see Kyle raising his gun in his left hand, but if you look at the video, the pixels they're pointing at exist before Kyle even reaches that point, meaning it can't be a gun. It may be a mirror or some other part of the car. This is a major dispute because the prosecution gave the defense a low-quality, strange resolution rip of the video while having a higher-quality version for themselves. They admitted that "our version is better" in open court, before backing off to claim it's "just playing weird." Kraus, who said he would have a much better job if he knew this encoding stuff, was seen with Handbrake installed on his laptop. The program was installed shortly after Kyle plead guilty according to the dates on the file.
HideousKojima 5y ago
It wasn't an assault rifle, and it is legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles and shotguns under Wisconsin law. Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there. Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his three assailants
- belltaco 5y ago
  >assailants You mean victims.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    There is currently a court case trying to decide if they are victims or not. We'll hopefully get to know what the jury think after considering all the evidence.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - belltaco 5y ago
      Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.
      - Nicksil 5y ago
        >Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture. With all the witnesses, video recordings, FBI heat imaging video, etc. what makes you suspect the jury is not getting the full picture? If Kyle is convicted on all charges, will you protest the conviction because of this?
      - HideousKojima 5y ago
        One of them is, and he has repeatedly lied about what happened, including what is plain as day on video
ryantgtg 5y ago
I suggest not ever using the phrase “assault rifle” because you’ll just get responses where people say “it’s not an assault rifle” and they’ll think they actually won an argument.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
  As opposed to falsely claiming he had an assault rifle and thinking that somehow strengthens the emotional/moral impact of an argument?
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it down.
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      >To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't change the threat that Kyle did or did not pose by being there armed.
      - ryantgtg 5y ago
        Hey, that's my point, too! In this particular event, everyone aside from him was uninformed. Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."
betwixthewires 5y ago
If "provocation" is a defense for someone to follow, ambush and assault someone, wouldn't what Kyle did also be defensible? You don't have to answer that, you can if you want, but I just felt the need to point out how ridiculous this "provocation" point actually is.
- belltaco 5y ago
  Sure, prosecute those people too, if they haven't been shot dead. The difference is

cbozeman 5y ago

> It might also be the result of provocation by someone open carrying around an assault rifle in public First off, there's no such thing as an "assault" rifle, there's just a "rifle". Stop using idiotic terms made up morons who don't know shit about weapons. Second, provoking someone who's openly carrying a firearm... yeah, that sounds like a good idea.

xyzzyz 5y ago

> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles It was perfectly legal for Rittenhouse to carry rifle at the time. The weapon charge has been dropped.

0des 5y ago

What is an assault rifle?

Eelongate 5y ago
I know you're being rhetorical, but since some may not actually know: If we're being pedantic: A machine-gun with a box magazine, chambered for an intermediate rifle cartridge. Rittenhouse's rifle only had two of those three characteristics. Some would have you believe the missing characteristic (being a machine-gun) is unimportant, yet that's the characteristic with the most stringent federal regulation. If we're being emotive: Any rifle that looks 'assaulty'. Obviously this is extremely subjective. It's possible to construct an assault rifle that fulfills the pedantic definition but lacks the 'assaulty' aesthetic.
ryantgtg 5y ago
It’s a really big rifle. Next question.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  It's not. Most hunting rifles for e.g. deer rifles fire larger caliber rounds than the rifle in question in the case. Perhaps you're being sarcastic, but "big" does not necessarily mean "more deadly", nor does "big" actually apply to this rifle.
  - 0des 5y ago
    Thank you for the reply! While I have the chance, allow me one last question: When it comes to AR15 platform, what differentiates a pistol from a rifle?
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      Disclaimer: I own a few guns and am an Army vet, but this is just my current understanding. I recommend consulting the ATF guidelines yourself and/or your local sheriff's office since rules tend to vary by state and jurisdiction. The ATF makes these rules, and currently (my understanding, haven't looked in a while to see if anything changed with the new administration) an AR pistol is something that's less than 26" overall with a barrel of less than 16". There's also rules about how you can't put an actual buttstock on it (but you can put a "brace" ... the definition of which can be confusing). Anything shorter than that and does have an actual stuck is an SBR (short-barrel rifle) and you need an ATF tax stamp for that.
      - 0des 5y ago
        I appreciate your time to explain that, thanks. I'm now off on a journey to find the exact line between what is a brace and what is a stock! Take care, my friend.
  - ryantgtg 5y ago
    Thank you for the explanation (genuinely). I wasn't exactly being sarcastic, though - my interest is in the messaging that this gun carries when wielding it in a urban environment during a riot.
HideousKojima 5y ago
To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. Overall length also matters, and whether or not the AR "started out" (at manufacture) as a rifle or pistol determine if it becomes a "short barreled rifle" after certain modifications, but that's getting into the inane and nonsensical world of ATF regulations. As far as what an assault rifle is, it's basically a rifle capable of burst fire or automatic fire (it's a bit more complicated than that but that's the basic idea). Rittenhouse's AR (and virtually all civilian owned firearms for that matter) are not capable of burst or automatic fire and are not assault rifles.
- curryst 5y ago
  > To answer your lower question since I can't respond directly, the legal difference between a rifle and pistol is pretty much only barrel length. This is only half-true. The difference between a pistol and a rifle is whether it has a stock. The difference between a normal rifle and a short-barreled rifle is whether the barrel is 16" or not. I'm not saying it makes more sense, but that is the classification the ATF uses. Never put a stock on any weapon with less than a 16" barrel, unless you're really, really, really sure you fall under some kind of exemption (i.e. that might not apply to black powder weapons).

Natsu 5y ago

> Isn't it illegal for 17 year olds to carry assault rifles and point them at others (prior to the incident where life wasn't threatened) as admitted in court. That charge was dropped because Kyle was not carrying a short-barreled rifle. However, ADA Binger did take Kyle's rifle, pointed it at the jury without checking it (saying his assistant had), and had his finger on the trigger while doing so. Thankfully he didn't go full Baldwin, because there was no clip and no round in the chamber and the judge made them check it afterwards, but you can watch the stream if you want to see how it went down.

14 5y ago
All I can say is what a fucking idiot if I was on the jury I would have lost my shit on him. Even if you clear a gun I still pretend a magic bullet fell from the sky and some how chambered itself. Never point a gun a someone unless you are defending yourself or plan to shoot them. That is how hundreds of people had died. I can believe it that is so crazy. Obviously he was trying to provoke an emotional response by pointing a gun at them. This clearly tells me they evidence is not on his side he needs tactics to provoke the jury.
- gerash 5y ago
  That proves his point that pointing a rifle at someone makes them mad
  - Natsu 5y ago
    The crowd was complaining that a laser pointer (thought to be a gun sight) was pointed at them. Kyle's weapon has no such sight, making that impossible. There's a disputed drone video footage where some think they see Kyle raising his gun in his left hand, but if you look at the video, the pixels they're pointing at exist before Kyle even reaches that point, meaning it can't be a gun. It may be a mirror or some other part of the car. This is a major dispute because the prosecution gave the defense a low-quality, strange resolution rip of the video while having a higher-quality version for themselves. They admitted that "our version is better" in open court, before backing off to claim it's "just playing weird." Kraus, who said he would have a much better job if he knew this encoding stuff, was seen with Handbrake installed on his laptop. The program was installed shortly after Kyle plead guilty according to the dates on the file.

HideousKojima 5y ago

It wasn't an assault rifle, and it is legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles and shotguns under Wisconsin law. Open carrying is not provocation, otherwise open carrying itself would be inherently illegal, nor sure what your reasoning is there. Edit: Also, what the hell does him crossing state lines have to do with anything? He lives like 5 minutes from the Wisconsin border and lives closer to Kenosha than his three assailants

belltaco 5y ago
>assailants You mean victims.
- roenxi 5y ago
  There is currently a court case trying to decide if they are victims or not. We'll hopefully get to know what the jury think after considering all the evidence.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - belltaco 5y ago
    Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >Too bad the victims are not around to defend their actions and give the jury the full picture. With all the witnesses, video recordings, FBI heat imaging video, etc. what makes you suspect the jury is not getting the full picture? If Kyle is convicted on all charges, will you protest the conviction because of this?
    - HideousKojima 5y ago
      One of them is, and he has repeatedly lied about what happened, including what is plain as day on video

ryantgtg 5y ago

I suggest not ever using the phrase “assault rifle” because you’ll just get responses where people say “it’s not an assault rifle” and they’ll think they actually won an argument.

HideousKojima 5y ago
As opposed to falsely claiming he had an assault rifle and thinking that somehow strengthens the emotional/moral impact of an argument?
- ryantgtg 5y ago
  You are either being intentionally disingenuous or you are so deep in this that you don’t understand how other people think. To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. And saying “actually it’s technically not an assault rifle” makes absolutely no difference. It’s not always a false claim; rather it’s a minor, irrelevant detail. Swatting it down doesn’t matter, except to the person swatting it down.
  - HideousKojima 5y ago
    >To a lot of people, giant military-looking gun = assault rifle. Yes, exactly my point. It's cosmetically scary and calling it an assault rifle makes the minds of many of those hearing it jump to a fear-based response. When in reality an AR-15 is no more or less deadly than any other semiautomatic rifle in the same caliber. Slapping black plastic on a gun may make it look "scarier" to the uninformed, but it doesn't change the threat that Kyle did or did not pose by being there armed.
    - ryantgtg 5y ago
      Hey, that's my point, too! In this particular event, everyone aside from him was uninformed. Walking through the streets of a riot (I won't say "brandishing" but...) carrying what LOOKS to be a big scary gun is sending a very strong message to other people around him. A lot of people equate that gun with "active shooter" and "paramilitary."

betwixthewires 5y ago

If "provocation" is a defense for someone to follow, ambush and assault someone, wouldn't what Kyle did also be defensible? You don't have to answer that, you can if you want, but I just felt the need to point out how ridiculous this "provocation" point actually is.

belltaco 5y ago
Sure, prosecute those people too, if they haven't been shot dead. The difference is