Gavin Newsom
(AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
Previous Post
Next Post

The acquittal [of Kyle Rittenhouse] revealed a gap in the law that California should address.

Rittenhouse exacerbated an already volatile situation by bringing his AR-15 into a curfew zone. A curfew is imposed by a state or local government when officials believe that restricting public access to a particular area is necessary to protect life or property. Curfews are rarely enacted; they are official acknowledgments that a locale is facing an emergency.

It is a misdemeanor to violate a curfew in California. With some exceptions, it is also a misdemeanor in California to carry a weapon, whether open or concealed, in public.

California should make it a felony to carry a weapon in public where a curfew prompted by civil unrest is in effect. Such a measure makes sense from a public policy perspective. The authorities already would have limited the public’s freedom of movement and assembly in a dangerous area. Bringing a weapon into such an already dangerous area increases volatility, as the Rittenhouse case illustrated.

— Dina Sayegh Doll in The Kyle Rittenhouse Case Revealed a Gap in Gun Laws

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This sounds a lot like Brandons “incursion” comment last night.

    There’s a curfew you shouldn’t violate but it’s okay if you violate it a little bit just don’t violate it while armed.

    • Unfortunately for mini mike bloomberg some of the “demonstrators” carried all sorts of weapons to the party including the handgun that was pointed at Rittenhouse. In doing so the demonstrators “exacerbated” the situation if you want to follow mini mike’s line of Gun Control thinking.
      The bigger problem is a big mouth Gun Control shrimp running around with armed security and thinking he can dictate all aspects of what others can possess to defend themselves. Such deranged Gun Control thinking did not begin with mini mike it began long ago with plantation slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, etc. Why shakes alive…The deranged Gun Control shrimp mini mike bloomberg is just carrying on a democRat Party Family Tradition

      • Unfortunately for mini mike bloomberg some of the “demonstrators” carried all sorts of weapons to the party including the handgun that was pointed at Rittenhouse.

        Yeah but the unwritten part of that proposed curfew felony is that it doesn’t apply to the favored party of Leftists.

        • Leftists, other than the lowest rank of brain-numb True Believers in whatever today’s Truth is, don’t hate guns. They hate YOUR gun.

    • And especially don’t violate it while being insufficiently woke. In fact, if you’re not basically a left-wing terrorist, don’t bother coming to the after-curfew party at all.

  2. If there was a curfew how was it that Rittenhouse’s 3 so called victims where there? And the one who survived had a gun himself. And he was an actual prohibited person which is a federal felony. I wouldn’t call it a curfew if the police are letting armed criminals run amuck.

    • “…the police are letting armed criminals run amuck.”

      And the feds were flying drones around to record it. I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about that. Did they ever use that footage to prosecute the criminal BLM/Antifa rioters? If not, then what was the purpose?

      • ‘Did they ever use that footage to prosecute the criminal BLM/Antifa rioters?’

        Did Hitler ever prosecute the Brown Shirts for Kristalnacht?

        • Not really a good analogy, because he did have the SA rounded up and killed later. Same with Stalin’s useful idiots and the Chinese Red Guards, etc. Eventually totalitarians always purge their ranks.

        • And you expect any less from the Democratic party? They’re already proposing to prevent hospitals from admitting unvaccinated patients regardless of their malady as punishment for refusing to bend to their will. It’s only a matter of time before the killings start.

        • No, Herr Shicklgruber didn’t prosecute his S.A. Brownshirts for The Night Of Broken Glass. Later, when they had outlived their usefulness he had them disappeared. As Ernst Röhm, homosexual head of the S.A. had been instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, Adolf recognized that if Röhm could raise him to power that he could remove him. So Röhm, and his Brownshirts, had to go.

  3. This is the Left’s strategy…make everything a felony, so that everything becomes a reason for the State to remove a person’s ability to bear arms (anywhere in the nation, due to reciprocity between States) for the rest of their lives. If they can’t remove the guns, then they’ll remove eligibility to have them in the first place.

    Paging Ayn Rand…

    • avatar Geoff "A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine" PR

      “…make everything a felony, so that everything becomes a reason for the State to remove a person’s ability to bear arms…”

      Correct, why we need to do what Justice Coney-Barrett suggested some time ago, make only violent felonies eligible for a loss of 2A rights…

      • Geoff,

        I am of two minds about this. Sure, part of my wants to say “If you do the crime, you have to do the time”, and just bar violent felons from gun ownership. Oops, what about voting? Driving?

        The libertarian part of me looks at this and says, “If you serve your time, you should have ALL your rights back.”

        Haven’t come to a final conclusion, but I’m inclined to go with my libertarian leanings. With the further caveat that a second violent felony means your @$$ is in the clink for the rest of your life.

        • You can always count on Lamp to give us the perspective of a serial woman abuser/pretend intellectual. Truly he is the most loathsome of people.

        • Hi, stupid, nameless, brainless troll!!

          Having a nice day?? Molested any stray dogs, lately????

      • “…Justice Coney-Barrett suggested some time ago, make only violent felonies eligible for a loss of 2A rights…”
        While they are in prison. Once they have served their time, “paid their debt to society,” been released, they should be full citizens once more. If they haven’t learned to behave decently, one of their kind likely will end their criminal career.
        J. Coney-Barrett, like almost all of the elite, still doesn’t understand that fundamental human rights do not come from government.
        The Supremes in the past have displayed a glimmer of such understanding in that the right of human beings to have tools for their self-preservation did not originate with organized government but are inherent in human existence.

    • A felony means a crime that is bad enough to put someone in prison for more than a year. You should not be able to plea bargain to not spend a year in jail, because the crime is not that bad.
      Having it both ways is just a way for the government to create another underclass.

      • In Massachusetts a misdemeanor includes crimes punishable by up to two years in jail. Teddy Kennedy’s misdemeanor of abandoning Mary Jo Kopechne to drown had a maximum sentence of up to two years, so was not classed a felony.
        However, under (unconstitutional?) federal law any crime that bears a maximum sentence of over one year is a felony that bars the convict from possession or constructive possession of a firearm for life unless after seven years the person applies for and is granted reinstatement of firearms possession rights.
        The question has been raised that if this Constitutionally guaranteed right can be confiscated past the end of imprisonment, what other Constitutionally protected rights can be taken?

    • Spot on IHAQ.
      This also falls in line with medical marijuana cards and States having legal marijuana and state licensed pot dispensaries. Ever notice how ID info is always stored? Or how accepted payment methods are all traceable?

      The fed 4473 form contains the drug use question, and they have authority to track and prosecute those who lie on a 4473. It’s a felony too.

      If you can’t remove the 2nd A, just disqualify everyone you can from exercising it. 🤔

      • No, can’t say I’ve noticed anything along those lines. I’ve never touched marijuana in my entire life, let alone been inside a dispensary to make a purchase. But I’ll take your word for it. 😉

        • My comment was made to point out how the push by states to legalize has made a group the feds can ban from legal firearm ownership. I’ve not been in one either, but have had a discussion with an attorney who knows the requirements of opening a dispensary business.
          I haven’t seen it happening yet too, but I expect to see it at some point.

        • It has now been exactly 54 weeks since ‘Devil’s Lettuce’ Haz skipped out on 1/6 Freedom Day despite having the means, motive and opportunity to be there. He encouraged many of us to go, only to back out at the last minute due to concerns about the Wuhan sniffles. What a coward and pretend patriot ‘he’ is!

        • Well monkey 🤡, if you spent some of the past 54 weeks doing a little investigative work, instead of being an anonymous troll on TTAG while sitting in your mom’s basement, you could probably tell us. 🤔

    • A little know condition of probation or parole is giving up the fourth amendment right against unlawful search and seizure. Every grant of probation that I saw in 25 years of working in court included a term of consent to search of person, vehicle or residence at any time by any law enforcement officer. Every parole grant that I ever heard of contained the same condition. So if a code enforcement officer wants to search a probationer’s house for code violations, he can do it any time he feels the urge. A cop can stop you on the street, effect a traffic stop if he recognizes you as being on parole and shake you down, field strip your car, a group of officers can enter your home at 0300 any time they feel like it and completely search it. That’s what the convicted felon or even convicted misdemeanor “criminal” gives up in return for not serving time. I never heard one convicted person tell the judge that he didn’t accent that term of probation. I assume almost all prisoners with the exception of E. Howard Hunt who turned down parole. He said he wanted to walk out of prison a free man. I believe they eventually turned him loose early just to get rid of him. And he walked out a free man. The rest of the sheep give up their right to be free of any ole’ time searches just cause the cop felt like harassing somebody that day or night.

  4. Had to double check this wasn’t a Babylon Bee article, well have fun with the riots I guess.

    • Yeah make carrying a gat a felony. While yer at it ban BlackLootersMurdering and Antifools. While were at it let’s give Commiefornia back to Meh-he-xo…

  5. Because Kyle Rittenhouse had the only gun in Kenosha that night. The were gunshots all over the city that night. Two other firearms were caught on camera: the glock that the one armed bandit had and the one that yahoo #9 shot in the air while the pedo chased kyle. But let’s focus on kyle’s AR because Antifa has to be able to burn down another city unfettered.

  6. “Bringing a weapon into such an already dangerous area increases volatility, as the Rittenhouse case illustrated.”

    Then ban all skateboards, any hand carried item, shoes with hard soles, signs made of anything but soft foam, belt buckles, ropes and belts, knives, nail clippers, filled water bottles (get hit with a frozen water bottle and see how it feels, get hit with a 2 liter bottle of soda, a person can literally be beaten to death with these), anything that produces fire or flame, any liquid that is not tested to be water only (e.g. not a flammable or irritant liquid and is one made for normal human ingestion) and it must been in a less than 6 ounce container (one per person), anything that can be used to strangle or gouge or cut or stab, glass, plastic bags, chemicals that can be sprayed or tossed, hands, feet, teeth….

    All of these have been used to severely injure or kill and would be qualified as a weapon when employed as such, and no containers in which these can be carried (e.g. back packs). No kidding, for example, Man Attacks Someone With Frozen Water Bottle: Tewskbury Police > – and…further example Rittenhouse was attacked with a skateboard, and one black protestor used his feet in an attempt to jump onto and stomp Rittenhouse.

    Station a ring of cops and national guard around the protest area, search every person entering the area and check them for outstanding warrants and criminal history of violence and other crimes in which violence can be used (e.g. pedophilia, rapists) and apply a mental health screening. If they indicate any mental health issues, or have any history of criminal background of violence or violence related crimes or they have any of the items I mentioned above they are not permitted entry.

    If the police and national guard would have been employed to do this for the Kenosha “protest”, if the police and city leaders would have been doing their jobs and shut down the literally hundreds of obvious blatantly violent so “peaceful protestors” inside and outside the main protest area maybe Kyle would not have needed to act in self defense against known violent criminals who threatened to kill him and tried to do so.

    Just yesterday > Kyle’s Law: Tennessee self-defense bill presented in Rittenhouse’s honor >

    • damn morons, the violence was already at the so called “peaceful protest” in the form or violent rioters and known violent criminals and known violent mental health compromised people. Did you think everyone was there for a ‘peaceful’ protest to exercise their first amendment rights? Nope, these events always attract the criminally violent and its like open season hunting for them and they use it to vent their violence and can basically have great chance of getting away with it. The violence was not bought there by Rittenhouse.

    • avatar Geoff "A day without an apparently brain-damaged mentally-ill demented troll is like a day of warm sunshine" PR

      “Just yesterday > Kyle’s Law: Tennessee self-defense bill presented in Rittenhouse’s honor >”

      “The Republican lawmaker presented the legislation that would require the state of Tennessee to reimburse costs to defendants who were found not guilty of homicide charges due to having acted in self-defense. The legislation states that the payment amount would be decided by the court but could be denied if there was criminal activity involved.”

      Putting a leash on Leftist Scum prosecutors, about time.

      It’s a damn good start… 🙂

      • How would that put a leash on them? If the state of Tennessee (the taxpayers) had to reimburse a defendant, why would the prosecutor care? It’s not coming directly out of the prosecutor’s pocket, so they can still do whatever they want and there is no direct consequences.

        • In addition, jurors, cognizant that an acquittal will result in a bill being presented to the jurisdiction might be more reluctant to vote not guilty, knowing that it would result in extra costs to the taxpayer. That’s a tough call. I am in favor of the jurisdiction reimbursing the victim of a poor decision to prosecute.

          On the other hand, I have seen juries turn real criminals loose for picayune reasons. Case in point: A major dealer in heroin. At a recess the criminalist told me he had never tested the 3 ounces of heroin in question as pure as the sample in the case. He had two other criminalists in the lab also test the sample to make sure his analysis was correct. I had never seen a cleaner drug case. Everything was by the book. I figured the jury would be out 20 minutes if there was a contested election for foreman. They hung up 11 to 1. I figured there was a nut job on the jury who believed all of us share in the guilt or some such. It was 11 to 1 for acquittal! There was only one sane juror in the bunch. This guy was a major dealer in our county. He dealt in nothing less than 1 ounce quantities of 98% oure heroin. We finally got a major distributor and non-user, of course, in the prisoner box. 11 to 1 for acquittal. The jurors didn’t like the snitch. Didn’t like the snitch? Nobody likes the snitch. He doesn’t even like what he is doing which is burning his source which means unless the cops keep him as a snitch and in his favorite drug, he is going to have to at least move out of county so he can get a new connection.

          A judge rarely allows the DA at least in this county, to refile with an 11-1 for acquittal. In this case, we all knew this guy needed to be off the streets and so the judge allowed the DA to re-file. The case ended up with a plea to simple possession with credit for time served which means immediately after the entry of the plea he walked out a free man. Fortunately, bail had been set too high for him to make and he had served some time but not nearly the amount he would have served for possession for sale and sale of such a huge quantity of heroin.

          So you see, it is not an easy question as it appears on its face. In the Rittenhouse case, yes, because it was a bogus political case. There are occasions where the DA will charge and prosecute a case where he knows he will not get a conviction because the victim in the case refuses to testify. This is especially true in cases involving spousal abuse. A woman will have received a severe beating, perhaps a life-threatening beating and she is so afraid of her spouse/boy friend/whatever that she refuses to testify. The DA will present cop evidence, medical evidence and ask the jury for a guilty verdict, but without the victim’s testimony, a guilty verdict just doesn’t appear. The DA will go through the routine just to keep the accused in jail a few weeks or months longer to give the reluctant victim time to perhaps come to her senses or to move away or do whatever. Typically in cases like that the accused has the services of the public defender and unless he has some assets, gets a ride from the public anyway.

          Like so many social issues, there is no clear-cut, simple answer to a complex problem and the cost of defense is a complex problem. For Joe Working Stiff with maybe a small retirement plan and some equity in his house, getting charged with a crime he didn’t commit is a financial blow from which he may never recover.

          I can’t provide a simplistic answer. I have pondered the problem many times after a trial that I know cost the defendant perhaps more than $100,000 and it was a close question whether he was guilty or not. He has been significantly financially injured by the prosecution, yet, the testimony was such that the jury struggled with it for a long time before announcing not guilty. Or how about a hung jury 11 to 1 for acquittal such as in the case I described? Do you pay in that case? I can see a list of circumstances approaching the tax code which I understand stands in a stack some eight feet high.

          I would vote against the Tennessee proposed law were I in that legislative body unless there were very clear circumstances set forth that convinced me it was a good move. I think it is probably an ill-considered knee jerk reaction. It is a problem but a simplistic answer to a complex problem only creates more complex problem than it solves.

          It is a COBRA solution. If you don’t know what that is, look it up. It is well known in economy circles but it applies in almost every attempt by numerous legislatures to fix a moral problem. The COBRA solution was an attempt by the Indian government to fix the problem of too many cobras to give you a head start.

  7. Another useless idea from another scrambleheaded, ignorant leftist and liberal bitch.

    Curfews exist to keep people off the streets while their otherwise normal presence is being replaced by military and/or paramilitary units whom normally enforce curfews. If we have a curfew because 2020-style destructive riots, looting, and other mayhem the order can only come from those lawfully empowered to impose AND enforce it. When you have Marxist idiots voted (or frauded) in to office that imposes curfews but at the same refuses to use their resources to enforce the curfew (and actually restrains law enforcement from taking any actions to keep the peace at all) then individual private citizens have both the right and obligation to fill in such absences and perform enforcement duties themselves.

    And obviously Kyle Rittenhouse set a marvelous positive example. Truly one of the very domestic reasons our brilliant founding fathers gave us the 2nd. Amendment. Again the proof this amendment and reasoning is validated by a jury of law abiding citizens.

    Unfortunately the civic so-called “leaders” have yet to be brought to justice for failing to perform their duties and in such a manner that can be argued as seditious. Since more useless people are successfully frauding their way in to office with each joke of an election we definitely need more citizens and actions like Kyle. Nothing else will keep the peace under these circumstances.

    • Make the prosecutor pay from his own pocket, or they should be bonded, as should Leo’s. That they pay for. When they loose to many cases and can’t get bonded anymore, no more job.

      • Just another excuse for Leftist prosecutors not to prosecute fellow Leftists and other dangerous criminals.

  8. “Rittenhouse exacerbated an already volatile situation by bringing his AR-15 into a curfew zone.”

    This is the premise for the law. They’re saying the only reason that violent psycho attacked Kyle is because Kyle was open carrying. A false premise leads to a false conclusion, but we all know it’s just an excuse to impose more restrictions on the mostly law abiding portion of gun owners.

    • Using a false pretext to justify desired abridgement of basic civil rights? No the government would never try to do that.

  9. Ha !

    What a maroon. Dina overlooked an important legal provision: “Including situations, or places where a curfew should, or might be, in effect, even if undeclared at the moment of violation.”

  10. “The authorities already would have limited the public’s freedom of movement and assembly in a dangerous area.”

    What about the hundreds of wayward yoots smashing windows and setting things on fire — and also trying to kill teenagers who put out fires? They must not be “the public,” because it seems like they all had a LOT of freedom to move. They carried guns, too.

  11. If my very presence where I choose to be, and my exercise of the natural right to defend myself is deemed a ” felony” or by extension of administrative whimsy a ” murder” then, after the first one All The Rest Are Free…
    No reason to stop there. At that point I am quite happy to continue on , working though what’s before me…and may even decide to” work my way up”.

  12. “Rittenhouse exacerbated an already volatile situation by bringing his AR-15 into a curfew zone.”

    No he didn’t.

    The people who attacked him had already either attacked others in some way or were there willing to do so.

    Consider Grosskreutz, he was armed with a hand gun and pulled it on Rittenhouse –

    Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in his right arm, which left him with a life-altering injury. The original criminal complaint says Grosskreutz approached Rittenhouse with his hands in the air, but video footage shows that Grosskreutz had a gun in his hand. That evidence is what landed Grosskreutz in trouble on November 8. During cross-examination, the defense asked, “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at (Rittenhouse)…that he fired.” To that, Grosskreutz replied, “Correct”.

    But despite admitting it in court under oath Grosskreutz appeared on Good Morning America after his testimony and in that interview he denied pointing his gun at Rittenhouse.

    Grosskreutz’s background has a criminal history, with violent criminal activity, spanning more than a decade. His long list of offenses includes domestic abuse, trespassing, multiple DUIs, prowling, felony burglary, and two charges of carrying firearms while drunk. He is a violent offender and like other criminally violent offenders he was there that night to enact violence upon someone and if not Rittenhouse then some one else who did not have a capability to protect themself. The fact that Grosskreutz was going to use his gun on Rittenshouse even knowing Rittenhouse were armed shows his main thoughts were of violence – he could have turned and gone the other way but he didn’t instead he chose to attack Rittenhouse because he wanted to enact violence upon someone. By Rittenhouse shooting Grosskreutz, Rittenhouse not only saved his own life but probably another life of a person that Grosskreutz would have at some point chosen if not Rittenhouse, and maybe even more than one other life. Grosskreutz was there for the violence, he just happened to have encountered Rittenhouse. Grosskreutz was wounded.

    Then consider Anthony Huber who attacked Rittenhouse with his skateboard and Maurice Freeland who used his feet to attack Rittenhouse –

    Huber had already attempted to assault others and was moving down the street with a group that was assaulting people as they went along. When they got to Rittenhouse, Huber and Maurice Freeland (AKA ‘Jump Kick Man’) departed from the crowd and attacked Rittenhouse. Freeland with his feet and by a jump kick and Huber with his skateboard.

    Huber has a criminal history of (convicted) repeat domestic abuse, Strangulation and Suffocation, false imprisonment – and has a history (not convicted) of appearing in court to answer for other criminal charges which were dismissed. A violent criminal.

    Maurice Freeland also has a violent criminal history although not as long as the other three who got shot. He delivered a flying kick to Rittenhouse’s head after Rittenhouse fell to the ground.

    Rittenhouse shot at Maurice Freeland but missed, he did not miss Huber. Maurice Freeland escaped.

    Huber had already been shot by the time Grosskreutz attacked Rittenhouse.

    This is a pic of Maurice Freeland attacking Rittenhouse, on the left you can see Huber coming in with his skate board >

    Then there is Joseph Rosenbaum, he was part of the same general group of violent people who were moving down the street attacking people at random –

    Rosenbaum tried to engage Rittenhouse a few different times and Rittenhouse got away from him. Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse numerous times and would not leave him alone. Rosenbaum started chasing Rittenhouse then finally grabbed for Rittenhouse’s gun and got shot.

    Testimony during the trial described Rosenbaum as belligerent, issuing threats to Rittenhouse, and agitated throughout the night, as well as being involved in an arson fire. Rosenbaum was released from a hospital, where he went for a suicide attempt, the day of the shootings. He had bipolar disorder, he didn’t get his medication that day because the pharmacies had closed down due to the riots. Rosenbaum also has a long violent criminal history and served more than 10 years in an Arizona prison after being convicted in 2002 of “sexual conduct with a minor.”

    Rosenbaum had also earlier in the night been taunting other armed civilians in the area guarding their property against the rioters. He was captured on video earlier doing this and daring “Shoot me, n***a.” – he was trying to start trouble even earlier in the night before he met Rittenhouse >

    All four of these people have violent criminal histories, all four were part of a general violent crowd with the intent to cause violence and had already inflicted violence and trying to start violence before Rittenhouse arrived.

    Rittenhouse exacerbated nothing – it was going to happen to either him or someone else. Aside from saving his own life by acting in self defense, Rittenhouse most likely saved the lives of others from these violent criminals who were truly there for nothing but violence and would have injured or killed someone else had they not been stopped by Rittenhouse’s act of self-defense.

    • Right after Huber was shot Grosskreutz started approaching Rittenhouse > here is a pic of it, Huber is on the right and has just been shot by Rittenhouse, Grosskreutz approches with his hands like that shown in the pic and Rittenhouse is not aiming his rifle at Grosskreutz >,683

      (in this pic you can also still see Maurice Freeland, AKA ‘Jump Kick Man’, in the background top center pic near the sidewalk. Freeland and Huber had just attacked Rittenhouse, Huber got shot and moves away to the right in the pic grasping his very soon to be fatal wound and Freeland starts fleeing away. Rittenhouse missed Freeland when he shot at him. Almost immediately Grosskreutz starts approaching Rittenhouse before Freeland can get very far away. This all happened very quickly.)

      But when Grosskreutz got closer to Rittenhouse he drew his gun and pointed it at Rittenhouse at which point Rittenhouse turned the rifle towards Grosskreutz and fired in self-defense

      This is a picture of Grosskreutz with the gun in his hand, Rittenhouse (on the ground in the picture) has just fired and hit Grosskreutz in the arm causing Grosskreutz’s arm to swing outward >,1024 (yeah, I know this one is not the best quality, but it and the story behind it was verified by Grosskreutz in his testimony)

      • Grosskreutz testimony in court…

        When Grosskreutz disagreed with Chorafisi’s assertion that Rittenhouse only fired when Grosskreutz pointed his gun at the teen, the defense attorney asked him what he saw in the image. “That looks like my bicep being vaporized, yes,” the visibly emotional Grosskreutz admitted.

        “And it’s being vaporized as you’re pointing your gun directly at him, yes?” the defense attorney pressed, drawing another affirmative admission from Grosskreutz. “Okay so, when you were standing three to five feet from him, with your arms up in the air, he never fired, right?” Chorafisi asked, drawing a “Correct” from Grosskreutz.

        “It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him, with your gun – now your hands down – pointed at him that he fired? Right?” Chorafisi asked. Grosskreutz responded, “Correct.”

        At this point, the prosecution appeared to be devastated by this blow to their case, with junior prosecutor Krause holding his head in his hands.

      • I’m disappointed the turd that jumped up kicked Kyle wasn’t shot also. All in all the damages were suffered by the right people. Kyle performed an excellent defensive shooting and I hope he sues the Hell out of the damn media that demonized him.

  13. I wonder if Bloomberg’s law excludes left-wing rioters like the ones Rittenhouse had to shoot in self defense.

  14. Robber Makes Mistake Of Going Back For More, Is Shot By Armed Citizen >

    “SEFFNER, FLORIDA — A man is dead after he became a little too greedy, even for a criminal. Police say the robber approached a man on the road who was attempting to repair his broken-down truck. It all happened around 11 p.m. on Tuesday the 4th.

    The robber announced his intentions, and the driver gave him numerous items. Police say the robber began to walk away, but he decided that he wanted more.

    “Minutes later, the man walked back toward the driver and demanded his cell phone,” the agency wrote. “The driver, who was in fear for his life, armed himself with a gun and shot the man.”

    The driver called 911 and when police arrived, they found the robber, deceased.

    The Sheriff’s office says that they believe the shooting was done in self-defense, and the investigation is ongoing.

    It would seem that the driver wanted nothing more than for this robber to be on his way, and only made his move when the threat came back for more. He may not have had the opportunity to act during the first encounter, but seems to have been more than ready for the second.”

    so much for the misguided and false ‘comply and they will go away’ theory

    Here’s the thing. History has shown us that ‘robbers’ who walk away with their loot without harming the victim and then come back to get more then take that more and try to kill the victim. The reason they come back most times is they realize the victim can identify them and they don’t want that to happen. Once again Kleck is verified…

    According to Kleck’s “Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America” – the leading authority on the subject of compliance:

    1. Any form of resistance, except with firearm, carries with it an injury rate of 52%.

    2. Resistance with a firearm carried with it the risk of injury of 17%, but use of a firearm early in an encounter carries with it a risk of injury of 6%.

    Overall, in Kleck, you have a minimum of a 25% chance of being injured if you comply, but you are 4 time less likely to be injured if you have your firearm and are prepared to use it.

    Take away here summary: compliance may still result in injury (which includes death), resistance without a firearm carries a 52% chance of injury (which includes death), resistance with a firearm lowers chance of injury (which includes death) to 17%, resistance with a firearm early in the encounter further lowers risk of injury (which includes death) to 6%

    If you are armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 25%?
    if you are not armed are you willing to gamble that you are not in the 52%?

    Compliance or not, resistance or not – is not a decision one needs to make. The answer is already provided, non-compliance via firearms resistance offers the best chance of less injury. But if you want, you can roll the dice and take the chance of being a good-n-dead witness.


    So, if you do decide to comply and they get their stuff an leave, but then stop and come back be prepared.

    And mots times now they shoot you even if you comply – and even if the robbery hasn’t even started in earnest yet, for example > Man Kills Clerk During Robbery In Detroit, Then Flees: >

    “Officials said the man entered the store and attempted to buy some alcohol.

    When the store clerk opened a door to exit the register area, the man fatally shot him and pointed his gun at another store clerk, demanding him to open the cash register, police said.”

    The clerk had to exit the register area to unlock the alcohol beverages.

    another > Teen gunned down while working her shift at NYC Burger King, cops say >

    “Tragic cashier Kristal Bayron-Nieves, 19, gave the robber cash from the drawer, an eyewitness said, according to her mother. The criminal then turned to leave but whipped around again and shot Bayron-Nieves in the torso, the witness said.”

    If a careful search of google is done with the proper search terms for each category of crime the number of victims who comply and do not get hurt are outnumbered 20 to one by the ones who do comply and get injured or killed.

    The best option is non-compliance via firearms resistance offers the best chance of less injury.

    • This, if you comply, is what really happens in over 70% of robberies today, not always murdered by the bad guy specifically, but at least serious injury from physical beating or being hit with something or getting shot by the bad guy. This lady (in video at article link below) was murdered even though she fully complied.

      *GRAPHIC WARNING* Hotel Manager Fully Complies With Armed Robber, But He Murders Her Anyway >

      • I say let this same fate befall all political and corporate turds that have directly and/or indirectly caused this lady to work unarmed. Once we do that some of these attitudes may change. I bet with his black privilege during this Soetoro shadow regime #2 the racist cowardly murderer won’t even get the death penalty.

  15. The kid was there doing what the feckless politicians refused to do , protect lives and property. People will not just sit by and allow everything they’ve worked for to be destroyed regardless of what the government thinks. They can either start doing their damn job or the citizens will.

  16. Finally, CA will be able to outlaw those pesky “rooftop Koreans,” who disproved all the CA gun laws during the Rodney King riots. How dare they use weapons of war to defend their property instead of being good witnesses and watching their livelihood be burned. If they hadn’t set the example, Kyle might not have stood up for the property owners of Kenosha.

  17. ” A curfew is imposed by a state or local government when officials believe that restricting public access to a particular area is necessary to protect life or property. Curfews are rarely enacted…”

    and not enforced, it would seem

    either have rule of law, or don’t. If there was rule of law that night there might have been ONE shooting but there would not have been more because the police would have moved in and detained everyone after the child molester was killed.

  18. Very strange. California does NOT have a state-wide curfew law.Curfews may be enacted LOCALLY under specified circumstances.

  19. Such a proposal to make it a felony to bring a “weapon” into a zone “declared under curfew” would be an infringement on a person’s right to self defense. If a person is violating a curfew, it is normally a “violation” or a misdemeanor.

    Some people have to be out in an area where there is a “curfew”. Firefighters, security guards, people protecting their OWN property etc. If a person is violating the curfew and has no reasonable excuse for doing so, then arrest him/her for that violation.

    Seems these Lefties just love to make another law that won’t be enforced except on law abiding people. It’s all about control.

  20. Go back to reading the 2nd Amendment: The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Now – a convicted felon wielding a handgun is breaking the law period, whether there is a curfew or not. If one has to be outside or emergency to be out and about during curfew and you fear for your safety, then you have the right to armed to protect yourself. The government cannot take that right away. The flagrant violations of this Constitutional amendment is boiling to a crisis stage and MUST be resolved. It is the duty and responsibility of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution. And there need to be more instances of courts just swatting down un-Constitutional laws with no penalty – there needs to be fines, awards, AND prosecution of the individuals responsible with a minimum penalty of removal and prohibition of holding public office.

Comments are closed.