CNN: Anthony Huber Had Nothing but a Skateboard

kyle rittenhouse anthony huber

Anthony Huber, a felon convicted of domestic violence, hits Kyle Rittenhouse with a skateboard in Kenosha, Wisconsin on August 25, 2020.

The latest installment of “what did I just read” comes to us courtesy of CNN. CNN has delivered quite the onslaught of content on what all has gone on in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Now they’ve continued the journalistic excellence with a piece on Anthony Huber, the now-deceased 26-year-old man with a long rap sheet of domestic violence.

Anthony Huber

Part of Anthony Huber’s domestic violence charges

CNN reported on Huber’s involvement in the Kenosha violence:

Anthony Huber was armed with nothing but his skateboard when he spotted an armed person among a crowded street in Kenosha, Wisconsin, but he still ran toward the danger, his girlfriend says.

“He pushed me out of the way, like he was telling me to run off, and I tried to grab him,” Hannah Gittings told CNN. “I should have been there, but there was going to be no changing his mind.”

So Gittings was selfless. Wait…it gets better:

Gittings says Huber launched at the armed individual to protect her and the people nearby.
“He did a…heroic thing.”

Heroic? I don’t think that word means what CNN thinks it means.
Interestingly, CNN detailed part of the criminal complaint against Kyle Rittenhouse as well:

According to a criminal complaint, Huber reached for the suspect’s gun with his hand while holding the skateboard in the other. As Huber tried to grab the gun, the suspect pointed it at his body and fired one round, the complaint says. Huber was seen staggering away and then fell to the ground. He died from his gunshot wound, according to the complaint.

Anthony Huber beating Kyle Rittenhouse, who is on the ground, with his skateboard during the riots in Kenosha, WI.

Armed with “nothing but his skateboard.” Described as “sweet and loving” despite years of domestic violence, false imprisonment, and use of a deadly weapon charges.

Huber was a felon and couldn’t have legally carried a gun. But he had his skateboard and he used it to crack Rittenhouse on the head and shoulder.

Fellow rioter and assailant Gaige Grosskreutz was also a felon, but he was carrying a handgun. If you haven’t seen the series of images where Grosskreutz first approached Rittenhouse, who is down, with his hands raised before suddenly drawing his illegally-carried handgun on him. Look closely and consider these tactics that are being used by rioters.

See the photos here.

Anything is a weapon when wielded properly. A skateboard is absolutely a weapon. There are currently three skateboards sitting in the corner here as I write this — a longboard and a couple of shortboards like Huber had. I guarantee that I could go in the backyard and use one of those to crush a watermelon or pumpkin with it in record time.

One rioter threw a brick wrapped in plastic at Rittenhouse. Huber beat him with his skateboard. Rittenhouse was on the ground being kicked and battered. His life was clearly in danger.

CNN claiming that a skateboard is “nothing” and Huber’s girlfriend calling him “heroic” are mind-boggling. This is the same mindset that believes a suspect with a knife poses no real threat. This is the attitude that complains when law enforcement officers don’t shoot to wound instead of shooting to stop a threat.

Now there’s some guy selling decks to promote #skateforhuber as though Anthony Huber is some sort of folk hero for the skater community.

Again: anything and everything can be a deadly weapon. I can’t wait to see what CNN comes up with next.

comments

  1. avatar Tired of the bs says:

    Totally lying scum. Defund cnn. Better yet hang them all.

    1. avatar Why don't people think says:

      This article is just as bad as the CNN article… It clearly has an agenda behind it, rather than just stating the facts.

      1. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

        This is posted as an op-ed

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Of course it has an agenda. Its agenda is to tell the truth, using the facts.

        Yes, it’s clear from the author’s tone that he despises CNN — as do most of us who have compared that network’s deranged commentary to reality over the past 4 years. And unlike CNN, TTAG has never promised or pretended to provide neutral reportage — only to find the truth about guns and gun ownership as best it can.

        Also, this is an open forum. You’re free to detail precisely which relevant facts the author left out or got wrong…but I’m guessing you’ve got nothing.

        1. avatar Debbie W. says:

          Typical from the communist news network. Paying homage to their fallen comrade/useful idiot. Scumbags remind me of Richard Dawson’s character in the Running Man.

      3. avatar Fondo motz says:

        Yes, please enlighten us with factual reporting on the matter

        1. avatar Paul says:

          Umm…I think you were educated on this situation. Actually 2 LESSONS 1. A skateboard can be a weapon.
          2. Don’t bring a skateboard to a gun fight

      4. avatar coolbreeze says:

        Aaaaand….you just posted your opinion. WYP?

      5. avatar Deranged says:

        Some people should learn to read…amazing what passes for education today.

      6. avatar joseph bratten says:

        Dont read it then M_F .

      7. avatar CC Beecee says:

        The TRUTH is, this kid Kyle had no right to take anyone’s life. That is part of the massive problem today with “self defense” claims. It is irrelevant if someone is trying to punch you or disarm you. That IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO TAKE SOMEONE LIFE by shooting them. The problem here is this kid had no business being armed. What he did was admirable, trying to protect businesses and citizens from people committing criminal and violent acts against them. But this is a kid, carrying illegally, and who someone interviewing him shortly before the incident described as “barely knowing how to handle his weapon”. The kid was scared, and rightfully so, with some people chasing him and coming up to him. But guess what. THEY CAME UP TO HIM AND CHASED HIM BECAUSE HE WAS IN THE STREET WITH A LOADED AR15. What do you expect? If someone came into YOUR neighborhood walking down the street with an AR15 in his hands in a ready position, would YOU do something about it? Would someone you know attempt to go up to the person? You bet your ass. While it is STUPID to chase and approach any person with a weapon, it also IS NOT grounds for self defense. The problem is people today are such cowards, they think being punched or approached in a “menacing manner” is grounds for deadly force used in self defense. Guess what boys and girls? It ISNT! The only time self defense is valid is when your LIFE IS IN DANGER. A few people approaching him, none of which even got a hit in or injured Kyle in ANY WAY or form, is NOT GROUNDS FOR TAKING THEIR LIVES. This is a very unfortunate event, where the kid clearly had no business having a loaded weapon on the street- as most teenagers SHOULDNT, their brains arent even fully developed until 25, unable to make rational decisions, especially in the heat of the moment and under the influence of adrenaline and other hormones. He reacted out of fear, NOT out of bodily harm or valid reason to think his life was truly in danger. The police are RIGHT to charge him with murder. Unfortunately, despite the fact that this kid was a good kid, with a big heart obviously, who wanted to protect others….He straight up murdered several people with no valid reason to. Unfortunately, even if someone was on top of me slapping me or punching me, that STILL isnt valid reason to kill them. If my life isn’t in imminent danger, I have no right to do that. We still have to follow the law, whether someone else is or not, boys and girls. NO matter how much you hate “the left”, or “Antifa” or “BLM”, or anyone else, no matter how much hatred you have for these groups, this kids murders were not justified, with perhaps one exception. He committed unsubstantiated, illegal murder against at LEAST 2 human beings. He has to face the consequences for these actions, regardless of his intent in the beginning of this trip. Regardless of the chasing. Regardless of his little bit of fear, which judging from the 5 different angles I have seen both incidents from now, was very little actual fear. FACT: We have laws. They must be adhered to. It doesn’t matter if a Republican or a Democrat is murdered. It doesn’t actually even matter what they were doing, or whether we like it or not. If they weren’t putting this kids life in serious danger (they simply WERENT- Kyle sustained literally zero injuries other than self inflicted ones from tripping and falling), they were murdered. End of the sad, unfortunate story. Remove your absurd partisan emotions from the equation, guys. This was murder.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        2. avatar Codey Nash says:

          Albeit well written, that is the most ignorant comment concerning use of force and self defense I have ever heard, . CC you apparently have no idea what can happen in a physical encounter such as what is seen in KR’s case. The point you made that he shouldn’t have been there in the first place notwithstanding, when someone starts to smack you in the head with a piece of wood and steel such as a skate board ABSOLUTELY gives you the right to defend your life with deadly force. If you don’t understand that someone can cause great bodily harm and/or kill you with their bare hands or an implement such as a skate board you are terribly naive.

        3. avatar Dave Bolton says:

          I fortunately don’t know who CC Beecee is and I’m glad because I don’t want to know anyone that stupid. I’ll tell you what mr no reason to shoot someone. I’m not a very big or strong person and I’m sixty one years old. Make yourself available and only armed with a skate board I will change your whole demented view on wanting to defend yourself. After your lengthy hospitalization, after you learn how to proficiently propel yourself on your electric wheelchair by blowing in a tube, after your care giver wipes the food you’ve dribbled out of your mouth you can then tell me how much you wish you would have had a gun to stop me from turning you into a bigger worthless sack of skin than you are right now. You say things that are truly remarkable. What gave the guy the right to be at a violent riot and to assault another person with a dangerous weapon (skateboard) and expect not to be assaulted back. The kid with the gun has as much right to be there as anyone else did and as far as I know being outside with a rifle doesn’t constitute a crime if so there wouldn’t be any hunting in the U.S.A. Anyway, I can’t believe I actually took this much time out of my life to even comment to someone that is so blind and stupid. If I came and started beating you, your wife, your kids with a board what would you do. Call the police with an average response time of about thirty minutes. What would you do if there was a gun sitting within arms reach after I just bludgeoned your child to death? Pick it up and shoot me or ask me to please stop because there is no reason to shoot someone. Maybe by the time I beat your wife’s head in you could have convinced me to stop. Then after I beat your parents to death maybe by then you could have convinced me that I shouldn’t beat your dog to death too. I would probably leave you alive so you could look in the mirror and tell yourself that you did the right thing by not shooting me even at the cost of your loved ones death. Admit it genius, look at the picture, the guy with the skateboard is beating a man on the ground in the head. There was absolutely no reason in the world for the kid not to shoot that POS dead. Now everybody can rest assured that at least one violent POS won’t be assaulting anybody again.

        4. avatar Timothy says:

          This likely won’t get read, but you got a couple of things wrong and then proved yourself wrong.

          A, he was not illegally carrying a weapon. Wisconsin law specifically allows 16 and up to carry long guns. He also did not cross state lines with the gun. He was well within his legal right to carry that firearm.

          B, you then go on to say that he shot out of fear. WTF do you think constitutes a reasonable belief that your life is in danger?!? Maybe it’s FEAR as your attacker tries to take a weapon he could kill you with?!?!?! What do you want more than that? A signed affidavit stating intent to murder?

          At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this page is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

          It’s a shame you likely won’t come back to read this

        5. avatar Mark Walter says:

          Omg if the first guy threw a Molotov cocktail, and was shot. The second guy thinks I’ll bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard? What do you think will happen . The second guy was participating in a riot and thought he could do anything.

        6. avatar JIMMIE says:

          I Don’t Understand Why This Has Not Been Stopped In Our Country. I Went To Another Country To Help With Such As This and Now I am Told I Cannot bey My OATH I Made To My Country In 1956?>?>>??>?>?>?>?

        7. avatar Odin's Raven says:

          CC beecee Ok, you say it’s murder, I say it’s self defense. We will see what a jury thinks. PS I bet you the kid walks, and rightfully so. Also grown men should not play with toys “skateboard” it only goes to show immaturity and bad judgement.

        8. avatar Wing Chak says:

          You should be a reporter! I read your essay and it is an interesting read with common sense (at least to me).

        9. avatar Pat says:

          Maybe your not seeing the same photo I am, because the one I’m looking at clearly shows the kid getting hit in the head with a skateboard, a hit that could very easily kill someone. What you’re saying is if you were getting hit in the head with a baseball bat, it would be illegal to protect your life, by using a gun, even if 4 other people were about to join in on beating you. On the other hand, it is a crime to attack someone for simply carrying a weapon down the street. It’s not like the guy was throwing a nerf ball at him, he took first swing, and that was a swing with a weapon that hit the kid in the head and neck, a blow that could have paralyzed or killed someone. To look at that photo and not believe this, is pure ignorance. I agree, the kid shouldn’t of been there carrying an AR-15, that doesn’t give anybody the right, to try and kill him! The law! This kid will go free!

      8. avatar deprogramming services says:

        You fail to see an essential difference: this article is based in truth, while the CNN stories are lies.

      9. The morning after the kid defended himself CNN did an article and put up a map of the location of Kenosha in Wisconsin, the map places Kenosha 300 miles north of where it really is, they show it by Door County, and failed to report the kid lived 30 mins away, and works in Kenosha as a lifeguard. Don’t believe me? Google it, and google the location of Kenosha. CNN changes the news to whatever they want, they have no interest in the truth, and if you opened your eyes you would see that.

    2. avatar Jimbo says:

      Tar and feather!!! Let’s go old school

    3. avatar Ron says:

      You know how to tell when CNN is lying?

      When they’re broadcasting.

    4. avatar MisterB says:

      It just proves, you shouldn’t bring a skateboard to a gun fight.

    5. avatar Moop says:

      CNN defends deadly use of skateboards…

      Close CNN.

      “SANTA ANA, Calif. (KABC) — A man was killed after being hit in the head with a skateboard in an act of self-defense during a fight in a Santa Ana Starbucks.

      Around 12:30 p.m. Tuesday, a fight broke out between two men in the 3300 block of South Bristol Street. Authorities received calls regarding an assault with a deadly weapon inside the Starbucks.“

    6. avatar Southern Cross says:

      In the former Soviet Union the main mouthpieces of the party were Pravda and Izvestia, which translated as “the truth” and “the news”.

      There was a long running in-joke about there being “No news in the truth and no truth in the news”.

      When news is filtered through political requirements, the news services devolve to level of the former USSR. China’s “Global Times” is a more modern example.

    7. avatar Debbie Johnson says:

      I would love to smack Brian Smelter or whatever his name is thats the pujah at CNN right in the face with some skateboard trucks. Im pretty sure he would report the story “man assaulted by heavy machinery”.

    8. avatar frank speak says:

      perhaps they need to rerun what happened to that guy down in Texas when he tried to defend his property…a skateboard is often their weapon of choice….

  2. avatar Shire-man says:

    Somebody should beat Don Lemon with a skateboard.
    Just to prove how “nothing” it really is.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Shire-man,

      You sir win the Intertubez for best comment of the day!

    2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      don lemon would soil his underalls if you beat him with a wet noodle.

      1. avatar Grampsguns says:

        And like it…

    3. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

      How about people of the gun should make the point by going out and administering skate board beatings to random people (preferably liberal, anti-gun, pro rioters type people)? Given a little caution to avoid witnesses and security cameras, or wearing masks, the probability of attest and prosecution is nearly zero. Let the police find a free dozen carcasses with crushed skulls and may be people will understand that a skate board can be a deadly weapon.

      1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

        Ask any cop how many skateboards they have in the evidence locker that were used in homicides. It would surprise you. It happens far more than you’d imagine.

        They’re the perfect size, weight and shape for caving in someone’s skull or separating their spinal cord.

        1. avatar Donna Kent says:

          The perfect riot weapon, bash a few heads in then jump on it for a fast getaway!

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      Something tells me Don Lemon will resist putting himself in a situation where someone could, just for that reason.

    5. avatar The Huscarl says:

      When I run for Dictator of the United States, this will be part of my platform.

  3. avatar CarlosT says:

    So he was committing assault and battery with a blunt instrument. More and more support for the self-defense claim.

  4. avatar RGP says:

    The misunderstood welfare offspring is dead. Good riddance.

    1. avatar Roger Johnson says:

      I suspect his family would take umbrage to this statement. He was a well paid fascist goon who received a salary, travel expenses, hotel accommodations, and a generous stipend for all the crimes he has committed. Soros/0bama/Nancy and Chuck were very proud of this young man.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        And a martyr for the cause.

        Saves being purged later.

  5. avatar Nope says:

    A disparity in force does not invalidate self defense.

    1. avatar Yep says:

      Yep. Dont bring a skateboard to a gunfight

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        If you find yourself in a fair fight, you’re doing something wrong.

        1. avatar saran wrappe says:

          Best words of wisdom I’ve heard in a while. WIN

    2. avatar gene says:

      People have been killed with strikes by a skateboard. It’s a serious deal.

  6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Of note, per the FBI UCR, “just a skateboard” (i.e. blunt instruments) is used to kill more people annually than long guns of all types (a mere subset of which is that scary, black AR15).

    “Just a skateboard”, indeed.

    1. avatar 9x39 says:

      As though anything other than propaganda would ever issue from a CNN talking head…

      Commie Newspeak Network.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        It’s just predictable “spin” from a liberal outlet….

    2. avatar J. Smith says:

      Thanks Chip you beat me to it, always on point and to the point.

  7. avatar 9x39 says:

    Anyone have an active link to the entire video? I keep finding dead links. A full court press to keep the full incident out of the public eye apparently.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      You know, now that you say it, I can’t find anything that was live just yesterday, either. I wonder if sites were given court orders to remove them, as they may have been classified as “sensitive evidence”??

      Fortunately for me, I downloaded the full version (1 hr 51 min) from YouTube showing all video relating to the event from that evening, in case it gets ghosted as well. It’s a bit long, but has a lot in it.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I see the Roof Koreans have spread their wisdom across the country now.
        (smile)

        1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          The Korean community should be thanked for illustrating the proper means of how individuals who have built up livelihoods through their own hard work can go through to protect their means of providing for themselves and their families.

          Taking the lead from how the Koreans protected their property during the LA riots, my suggestion to any who find themselves defending property from looters: In addition to having a show of force of a few armed folks out front of the structure, have people posted on the roof as well so the structure is occupied. If anyone throws a flaming molotov or other incendiary device into a building that is occupied, that is attempted murder. Use of lethal force is justified.

        2. avatar BennyRose says:

          I’ll thank the Korean community when they’re in Korea.

      2. avatar 9x39 says:

        Thnx, downloading it myself for posterity. Roger, looks like their playing whack-a-mole whenever it pops up. Lies by omission seems the game afoot.

        1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          How did you down load it? I can’t find the button.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          I don’t know how it compares to others but I found this one on CNET. https://www.yourvideofile.org/

        3. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          And it has been working fine for several months.

        4. avatar 9x39 says:

          @ Chris T

          Video Downloader Pro, works beautifully. Sorry for the late reply. Watched it and rebuilt my computer afterwards, new high(est) performance case in the house. 🙂

          No more dealing with my open air test bench (& the accompanying dust), except for actual testing purposes.

      3. avatar Paul says:

        No court orders necessary to pull videos offline. Google, Youtube, Facebook, and most of the rest are complicit in the liberal/left/progressive agenda, and they probably pulled all the videos because they are “hate speech”.

        The videos are still there, on the servers. Windows that have been open since yesterday will still play. But I can’t establish a new connection to the videos, with a browser, or with youtube-dl. Maybe if I were a real Linux guru I could figure out how to download them.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Yep, the technological Masters of the Universe need no government orders to censor and suppress information. They’re happy to do it to us all on their own. Because that’s the way they want it. And they like it.

        2. avatar Morelia1776 says:

          I recently started using Mint XFCE, a version of Ubuntu; search for Video Downloadhelper, its an easy to use plug-in for Firefox.

        3. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          Just go here https://y2mate.guru/en7/ and dump in the desired youtube link in it. If you’re on Linux, you’re safe and it’ll download the .mp4 file (I’m on Manjaro XFCE myself).

        4. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I’ve always used either http://www.y2mate.com, or used the right-click menu to ‘View Page Info’ and get the video address directly. Both work.

      4. avatar Ing says:

        Not likely to be taken down: https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=pmUV_1598507284

        This is a super cut that shows the relevant incidents from most of the best angles.

        1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          That’s still a crosslink to Youtube. I still recommend downloading the video. The more this is saved, the harder it will be to bury in the next few days.

          To download:
          Go here: https://y2mate.guru/en7/

          then copy and paste the following URL into the field, then click “Start”:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=7ro8hkfBDVw&feature=emb_logo

          I recommend the 720p file (native resolution). It’s only 86mb

        2. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          Also, if you don’t have a Youtube account and can’t login to watch this:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=7ro8hkfBDVw&feature=emb_logo

          add “nsfw” in front of the youtube part so it looks like this:

          https://www.nsfwyoutube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=7ro8hkfBDVw&feature=emb_logo

          So you can watch it without needing a login.

  8. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I have read of Klansman being armed with just a rope. I have also read of the SA in Germany only being armed with their fists. Of coarse it was several dozen of them attacking other people.
    I believe Jeffery Dahmer only used his hands to kill 27(?) other men, who he had sex with.
    You don’t need a gun to murder people. But you do need a gun to stop a murderer. Especially if you are in a vulnerable population.

    I understand the Ted Bundy was a very nice guy. In fact many women still have very nice things to say about him.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Wow. Just, wow.

    CNN’s article is not journalism. Rather, it is propaganda advancing some cause.

    The context of the entire event makes it clear that there was no righteous justification for skateboard man to jump-in on Mr. Rittenhouse — especially while wielding his skateboard as a weapon.

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      On CNN….its been that way for years…now they see no need to cloak their bias.

      Biden’s campaign (and other socialist-leftists) need to include CNN revenue in their contributions.

  10. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    This is OT, but isn’t today the deadline for our California A.G. Becerra to file a motion regarding the Ninth’s published opinion that our mag limit law is unconstitutional?

    1. avatar Dave says:

      Basura filed the petition today.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Oh…I didn’t see the page updated as of a couple of hours ago. Now it is. Here’s the petition.

        https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-28-Petition-for-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf

        Now we have to wait to see if the Ninth will vote to proceed with the en banc. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the two companies I purchased my mags from have already charged my CC but are waiting to ship. So if the Ninth approves the en banc and the hearing is scheduled out in the future, I suppose all our orders will be cancelled while we play the waiting game yet again…

        1. avatar SoCalJack says:

          On a side note, one of the 3 judges, Trump appointed, grew up on Koreatown during the LA Riots: http://www.asian-dawn.com/2020/08/15/korean-federal-judge-helps-strike-down-californias-ban-on-large-capacity-magazine-ban/amp/

        2. avatar LKB says:

          My prediction: they will string out the vote on whether to take it en banc until well after the election. And when they take it en banc (100% guarantee of that; no way are they gonna let the panel decision stand), they will either (1) stay it until they rule en banc on Young v. Hawaii, and after they get around on ruling on that in a couple more years they will then send the instant case back to the panel for reconsideration in light of that decision, or (2) just sit on it for several years. (If you doubt me, look at how long they have strung out Young.)

          Only way I see anything changing is if (1) PDT wins in November, (2) the GOP holds the Senate, and (3) RBG and/or Breyer go off the Court. If / when all 3 of those happen, then the writing will be on the wall. Otherwise, PotG in CA remain screwed.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “(If you doubt me, look at how long they have strung out Young.)”

          Look how long they have strung out “Nichols v. Brown”. (9yrs, and counting)
          https://californiaopencarry.com/status-of-my-federal-open-carry-lawsuit/

      2. avatar Ing says:

        Basura (Becerra) = Garbage. I dunno if you did that on purpose or not, but it fits.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          It’s purposed, other friends behind enemy lines say the same.

  11. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Projecting…

    1. avatar Specialist38 says:

      Ha….See gray must’ve had his comment booted…..it is to laugh

  12. avatar TommyGNR says:

    These people are all liars. They are playing the same game as the Nazi and Baath parties. Spring criminals from jail and then use them as muscle to intimidate the general populace into accepting their political agenda. Tool up people.

  13. avatar Markd says:

    Assault with a skateboard is ONLY a “skateboard”, excuse me CNN come here let me only assault you to just 30 seconds you sign a full waver first since it is only a skateboard! I dare you, double dare you, triple dare you. but lets take this bludgeoning device and say make it less flat and maybe a little more round and since there is the metal wheels lets change the shape just a little. I promise the weight and mass will be the same or less. Come on CNN just 30 seconds since it is “only” a skateboard, you should be more than willing to accept a bludgeoning to prove that it is just an “only” Oh the device will be she has a name Lucille, we all saw walking dead what Negan did with ONLY same mass and metal, surely stand up for your ONLY!

    1. avatar WI Patriot says:

      It wasn’t “assault”, it was battery…

      1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        Both, actually.

        I believe gun guy saw the threat coming, which makes it assault.

        interrsting that *threatening* violence is its own crime. Like maybe threats that don’t manifest are still bad. Or intimidatimg people with threats is a bad thing. Or both.

  14. avatar Omer says:

    I tell my kids the mind is the weapon, everything else is just a tool. And I always brought it up at their school when we saw the sign about no weapons on property.

    1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

      Subtle and appropriate warning.

    2. avatar coolbreeze says:

      Omer: very well done. Sir. I may borrow your wisdom.

  15. avatar JohnnyL says:

    Update Best Video Timeline Of Kenosha Wisconsin Shooting

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Excellent, Johnny. I have the full 1 hr 51 min version, but this is an excellent trimmed and notated vid.

      1. avatar JohnnyL says:

        This clearly shows Kyle was attacked multiple times and defended himself. All three individuals that were involved in attacking him we’re over the age of 25 and have criminal records. None of them support any type of positive political agenda they just wanted to go out and cause violence and property damage. The media can say whatever they want and clearly they want to make Kyle out as some Trump supporting white supremacist. But in the end I think history will remember him as someone who stood up to the mob and did the right thing while democratic leaders did nothing.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Kyle Rittenhouse did this nation a favor. We owe him.

          It’s strange to say of a 17-year-old kid, but this kid is a man among boys.

        2. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

          To donate to Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense fund:

          https://fightback.law/products/donations-for-kyle-rittenhouse?variant=36065873854631

          I’m not 100% sure this is legit but it’s the most legit donation site I’ve seen for him. If there are any more, or at least those we are sure are totally vetted as going to his defense fund, please post them as well.

  16. avatar WI Patriot says:

    ANYTHING can be a “weapon”, so to classify a skateboard as “only” is a misnomer…
    He used that skateboard as a weapon, a striking weapon, which proves intent to do harm…
    So it wasn’t “only a skateboard”, it was a skateboard used as a weapon…

  17. avatar Larry says:

    They love skateboards for a few reasons . It makes an ok shield , if you hold the trucks you can swing it with a whipping like action , and if you’re good at skateboarding it makes a decent get away vehicle .

    Maybe skateboarding is a crime ?

    1. avatar coolbreeze says:

      Excellent observations. And its only a toy for childish amusement. Only a skate board.

  18. avatar FedUp says:

    1. If successful, Antifa would have beat him unconscious at a minimum, just like the guy in Portland who tried to defend a Trans Woman that BLM was robbing.
    2. Rosenbaum may have been trying to severely beat him, or he might have shot him if he’d been successful in taking the AR away from him. Either way, substantial risk of serious bodily harm or death permits Kyle to use deadly force, especially after he was attacked without provocation, and pursued when he tried to flee.
    3. When he ran towards the police line to escape further attacks from Antifa, there were a couple dozen reasonably close pursuers, many of whom intended to murder him, certainly Huber and Grosskreutz were among the would be murderers.
    I’ll say it again. Huber tried to murder an innocent minor when he hit him in the head with that skateboard.

  19. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    As opposed to an active shooter, I wonder if Kyle would have shot if Mr. Huber had not launched himself “heroically” at him, tried to beat him, or tried to take his gun. Why were they attacking an armed person? It isn’t like Kyle was walking down the road gunning people down by the sound of it.

    1. avatar Newshawk says:

      But that’s what they want you to believe.

  20. avatar Chi-Chi Montezuma says:

    “He pushed me out of the way, like he was telling me to run off” -dead commie’s girlfriend
    umm how could you tell the difference between that and how he regularly setup to beat you? Did you know your boyfriend was a domestic abuse record holder?

    So convicted felons with guns and blunt objects and a history of violence attacked a child and were killed in self defense. Oh well.

    1. avatar Screams at Sandwiches says:

      Kyle did her a favor. It was only a matter of time before “heroic” skateboard domestic abuser strangled her and her kids like he did his previous “family”.

      Dude as a record as long as my…. well… it’s a pretty long record.

  21. avatar Kermit says:

    “Gittings says Huber launched at the armed individual to protect her and the people nearby.
    “He did a … heroic thing.”

    He didn’t protect anybody, he just go his dumb ass killed. Kyle didn’t shoot or hurt anybody that didn’t attack him first.

  22. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    And I hit the CNN reporters wife in the booty with “just a rubber“

    1. avatar Anton Solomyr says:

      I hope Lin wood sues the hell out of CNN again. They obviously didn’t learn their lesson after slandering Nick Sandmann and having to pay a $200+ mil settlement for their bullshit lies.

      Go for the (metaphorical) throat, Lin!

      1. avatar Huntmaster says:

        Hahahah

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Interestingly they’re showing this whole kerfuffle on Inside Edition right now. Stevie Wonder could see this kid shot righteously! The more ALL non-retarded/ evil muthaf###ers see crap the more votes Trump gets!!!

  24. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    What a Effin surprise, after all it comes from the Communist News Network.

  25. avatar Anymouse says:

    De Niro as Capone only had a baseball bat in “team” scene of The Untouchables.

  26. avatar GregV says:

    He played a stupid game and got the grand prize.

  27. avatar Jimmy James says:

    26 yr old habitual felon. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

  28. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    Seattle, Fat Tuesday-2001. Kris Kime was murdered by Jerrell Thomas. Thomas used a skateboard. He attacked a couple of other people with his skateboard. Thomas was convicted of second-degree murder and two counts of second-degree assault.
    CNN, cut the crap that a skateboard isn’t a weapon.

  29. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Far more people are murdered work blunt force instruments, such as skateboards, than are killed with rifles.

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

  30. avatar Ralph says:

    Anthony Huber will be a martyr to the neo-communist movement in America. Maybe they’ll make up a song about him, like the Nazis did with Horst Wessel. Ironically, Wessel was in the company of a prostitute when he was killed.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Wessel had already dropped out of the Party to fulfill his dream of being a pimp. His ‘ho’s ex-primp took exception.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      It would seem that Wessel and Huber had a lot in common.

  31. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Let’s see if I have it right. He was committing a violent felony when shot (never worked a skateboard homicide, but worked plenty of blunt instrument homicides. my favorite was the cast iron skillet.) and he was shot in commission of the said felony. And the problem is…?

    1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      Apologies to Billy Crystal and “Throw Mama From the Train.”

  32. avatar Hannibal says:

    The left is (openly) lionizing sex offenders and woman beaters

    what a time to be alive

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Hannibal,

      Oh, interesting perspective on the truth. I am going to shamelessly repeat your comment. Maybe, just maybe, that will get people to wake up.

      Oh, who am I kidding?!?!? I do seriously appreciate your comment, though, Hannibal.

    2. avatar Fondo Motz says:

      1000+

    3. avatar Dude says:

      Same stuff, different day. Ever heard of Ted Kennedy?

    4. avatar Mario Averselli says:

      This is not directed towards Hannibal (I just thought this was a good place to post this):

      If you’re reading this as a lurker, and you lament the loss of someone who was actively and violently chasing someone raging, screaming obscenities and his intent on causing bodily harm (“I’ll kill you!”), someone who was a convicted child molester, you should re-evaluate how you define “good” and “just” inside yourself.

      It’s ok to have issues with policing tactics, and to protest that. It’s not ok to try to loot/burn/terrorize people who had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT and are just trying to protect their livelihoods.

      You’re making more enemies than friends by doing this. This is why you’ll lose. Also, you are completely stupid to believe what you did in the first place, and that is also while you’ll lose. Your “change” will come one of two ways; homeless and destitute or in prison. Your paradigm needs to change, and you should stand up for what you believe in, but do it with people who make good life decisions and don’t lash out at random people.

    5. avatar gus says:

      I think the message is, they can lie their way into anything, and lie their way out of anything.

  33. avatar DoublePlusGreat says:

    The real question: were the streets of Kenosha quiet last night? Any more rioting and arson?

    3 well placed shots and POOF the Pantyfa crowd slinks away in their Soros rented vans.

    Hmm, makes you wonder why the cops just dont do what The Hero Kyle Rittenhouse did and end this crap…..

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      They don’t want to be in prison.

      Additionally, cops would hopefully be working in pairs (at least!) and be able to deal with the bald child molester without shooting him.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Why not just shoot him?

  34. avatar Sam I Am says:

    This event just doesn’t have a good foundation for acquittal. A prosecutor who can’t move a jury to convict an armed outsider (bringing a gun to a location of known unrest couldn’t have any intention other than shooting someone, regardless of provocation) should be disbarred. Kenosha unrest was not even an indirect threat to the shooter, had he stayed in his own town, his own state.

    Militia? Wisconsin did not request militia from Ill-noise come assist the local militia in maintaining law and order. No, the only reason this youth was present in Kenosha was the hope to participate in a thrill killing masquerading as defending peaceful citizens of Kenosha. The defendant was looking for a gunfight, and created one.

    This event just looks bad for the defendant. Glad he is getting experienced defense, but what a mountain of emotion-laden descriptions to overcome.

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      …bringing a gun to a location of known unrest couldn’t have any intention other than shooting someone, regardless of provocation…

      Wait; so, the rioters can show up armed, but people being otherwise lawful cannot?

      It is fairly well-established legal precedent that mere exercise of a constitutionally protected right, alone, cannot serve as evidence of intent to act unlawfully. So, “he showed up with a gun” is simply not evidence of anything other than that he was otherwise lawfully exercising constitutionally protected rights.

      Kenosha unrest was not even an indirect threat to the shooter, had he stayed in his own town, his own state.

      I didn’t realize that leaving one’s own town or state was now forbidden, or that doing so would otherwise deprive one of justifiable use of deadly force in self defense.

      o, the only reason this youth was present in Kenosha was the hope to participate in a thrill killing masquerading as defending peaceful citizens of Kenosha. The defendant was looking for a gunfight, and created one.

      And your evidence of his intent is… what, exactly? (I don’t suppose that any of the other relevant facts about his actions that day would matter here? Surely not…)

      Nevertheless, regardless of his intent or his wishes, his actions were not otherwise unlawful and did nothing otherwise to deprive him of lawful, justifiable use of deadly force in self-defense at the moment that force was used (which is, conveniently enough, the legal standard).

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Wait; so, the rioters can show up armed, but people being otherwise lawful cannot?”

        Exactly. That’s what it has come to. The jury will not be picked in Ill-noise, but Wisconsin. Tough to argue that an out-of-state shooter is different from the mob the shooter allegeldy traveled to defend Kenosha citizens and businesses against. The equivalency arguement doesn’t seem in the shooter’s favor.

        “So, “he showed up with a gun” is simply not evidence of anything…”

        But it is, sorta. The charge will not necessarily be related to “showing up with a gun”, but the argument about motive is not evidence. Not being charged for exercising constitutional right, but using that constitutional right with the intention of shooting someone, otherwise there was no reason to cross state lines…shooter could exercise constitutional right in his own locale.

        “I didn’t realize that leaving one’s own town or state was now forbidden, or that doing so would otherwise deprive one of justifiable use of deadly force in self defense.”

        Not knowing the laws of transport of firearms between the two states, decided to bypass that complication, and stay with the murder charges. Thus, the notation that the shooter left safety for the purpose of being in a place of unrest not his own, possessing a firearm at the scene of unrest, is manifestation of intent to use that firearm. Else, the shooter could have reasonably traveled to be a counter-protester, an observer, a bystander, or any other activity not requiring possession of a firearm. Despite theory, motive is an important element in charging a person with murder. There was nothing forcing the shooter to travel to Kenosha, but the fact the shooter believed he would need to defend himself is evidence he didn’t accidentally end up in Kenosha… irresponsibly put himself in a situation where armed self-defense might be necessary, thus the intent is clear.

        “And your evidence of his intent is… what, exactly?”

        The shooter had no personal business in Kenosha, went out of his way to get involved in a flammable situation, expecting to need to use a firearm. Don’t need “evidence” of intent, only the reasoning that the shooter provoked the attacks on him. The jury isn’t going to be stuffed with 2A defenders. Once the idea of unreasonable actions by the shooter is entered into the testimony, the jury cannot unhear the proposition.

        “Nevertheless, regardless of his intent or his wishes, his actions were not otherwise unlawful…”

        Avoided any discussion of whether the shooter was in legal possession of a firearm, whether in Ill-noise, or Wisconsin. IF, the shooter was in illegal possession, then I would take the position that not only did the shooter intend to shootsome, anyone, the shooter knowingly broke firearm possession in one state, or the other; or both. A person knowingly breaking the laws cannot then be allowed to claim his subsquent actions were lawful.

        I just doubt this case will rise or fall on the law, but on the emotions of a jury.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          There are so many holes and contradictions in that counter-argument it made my head hurt. But unfortunately, the baffle ’em with bullshit technique all too frequently works.

          The kid’s got good lawyers on his side, though, so I think they’ll have the chops to make sure truth and justice win the day. The only question is how long the bullshit spectacle lasts and how bad it gets before the end.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “There are so many holes and contradictions in that counter-argument…”

          Indeed. Always remember that the prosecution is not trying to find a way to absolve a person. Never forget that any error in a self-defense action will be used to convict. It is not prudent to first act illegally with a gun (prohibited owner/possessor, prohibited place), then claim self-defense.

          “The System” is not about justice, but about “the law”. Best intentions of the defendant are situational to the defendant; prosecutors and jurors have their own ideas. The courts and the authorities never have your best interest in mind. Even if the prosecutor is charging the defendent, with the plan to lose at trial in order to shut down the event, it is a political decision; politics is/are fickle. Appeals courts do not retry cases.

        3. avatar Mike V says:

          “Else, the shooter could have reasonably traveled to be a counter-protester, an observer, a bystander, or any other activity not requiring possession of a firearm.”

          Not required, determined by who?

          To exercise our liberty we can only do so when others say it’s safe to?

          I believe the kid stated that he was there to protect the business from criminal activity and render aid to injured as needed. Also stated that he carried to protect himself. Indicated no malice or premeditation as far as I’m aware.

          Is that illegal?

          May not be wise for a 17 year old to do that, but there is zero evidence available that can be used to demonstrate that he desired a conflict so as to allow him an opportunity to exersise “self defense”.

          He may be guilty of something regarding interstate, his age, I dunno. But murder? No way.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Not required, determined by who?”

          Prosecutor’s case, prosecutor’s court. Jury will detrmine whether the shooter required a firearm in order to be an attendee.

          “Right” don’t make “right” in court. We are not living in a theoretical world. Unless a prosecutor commits reversible error, a guilty verdict won’t easily be overturned on appeal. If the prosecutor convinces a jury that because of a chain of unreasonable, maybe illegal acts, the shooter is guilty, the conviction cannot be appealed on grounds “the jury got it wrong”.

          Point being our self-approved idea of what is legal, constitutional, “right” is irrelevant to court proceedings. Likely none of us will be in the jury deliberations to educate the group on the Second Amendment, and self-defense laws. Indeed, that might even get us removed from jury deliberations. This case, like others, is not cut-and-dried because we say it is so. Nor should we govern ourselves on the idea that if we are, in our minds, right, then we cannot be in legal jeopardy.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I don’t think this plays out quite like you envision it.

          he jury will not be picked in Ill-noise, but Wisconsin.

          Yes: Wisconsin, where law-abiding citizens have just endured utterly unjustified mob rioting.

          Tough to argue that an out-of-state shooter is different from the mob the shooter allegeldy traveled to defend Kenosha citizens and businesses against. The equivalency arguement doesn’t seem in the shooter’s favor.

          Alternately, that the defendant did, in fact, have to use deadly force to defend his life against unlawful risk of death or great bodily harm, is prima facie evidence of the reasonableness of availing himself of the right to bear arms in the conduct of his affairs that day. (The words of his attackers, including the one who stated his desire to kill the defendant, will be especially helpful here.)

          “So, “he showed up with a gun” is simply not evidence of anything…”

          But it is, sorta. The charge will not necessarily be related to “showing up with a gun”, but the argument about motive is not evidence. Not being charged for exercising constitutional right, but using that constitutional right with the intention of shooting someone, otherwise there was no reason to cross state lines…shooter could exercise constitutional right in his own locale.

          Again, he had every right to cross state lines, to be where he was that day, and to be armed with a rifle while there. (In fact, being armed with a rifle was the only lawful means for him to be armed, as a 17-year-old.) And the counter-argument to implied motive is the use of unlawful force against him that necessitated, and justified, his use of deadly force in self-defense.

          Not knowing the laws of transport of firearms between the two states, decided to bypass that complication, and stay with the murder charges.

          I’ll make it easy for you: he didn’t transport a firearm across state lines, so those laws are moot.

          Thus, the notation that the shooter left safety for the purpose of being in a place of unrest not his own, possessing a firearm at the scene of unrest, is manifestation of intent to use that firearm.

          No, it is not. Carrying around a firearm in an area where one may reasonably be exposed to threats justifying the use of said firearm is no more a manifestation of intent to use said firearm than carrying around my penis daily when encountering females is a manifestation of intent to commit rape – or than carrying around my tongue or a pen in situations in which I am likely to use my tongue or pen is a manifestation of intent to commit slander or libel.

          If what you are arguing had any legal merit whatsoever, then every person who has an EDC and eventually has to perform a DGU in a sketchy area would be subject to the very same legal scrutiny.

          Else, the shooter could have reasonably traveled to be a counter-protester, an observer, a bystander, or any other activity not requiring possession of a firearm.

          Conveniently, the defendant is known to have engaged in other endeavors that day, reportedly including cleaning graffiti, and carrying around a med kit.

          Despite theory, motive is an important element in charging a person with murder.

          And the motive – the only motive – that matters is the motive at the moment deadly force was used (provided that he wasn’t otherwise engaged in unlawful activity, wasn’t the initial aggressor, and similar qualifiers). His motive in going to Kenosha is, by and large, irrelevant – unless there is evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he purposefully went to Kenosha to shoot a firearm at protesters.

          There was nothing forcing the shooter to travel to Kenosha, but the fact the shooter believed he would need to defend himself is evidence he didn’t accidentally end up in Kenosha.

          Indeed, the defendant went to Kenosha intentionally. That he armed himself when he got there proved to be prescient, considering that he was attacked while he was there. That he went there, and subsequently armed himself, are not, however, evidence of intent to use the firearm unlawfully.

          The shooter had no personal business in Kenosha, went out of his way to get involved in a flammable situation, expecting to need to use a firearm.

          The defendant didn’t need “personal business” in Kenosha. Interest in the ongoing events there more than suffices, and he was well-within his legal and constitutional rights to go there. I have gone places expecting that I might need to use my firearm; thankfully, unlike this defendant, I have never had to. You may argue that it would have been personally more wise for him to avoid the situation in which he found himself; but lack of wisdom of his actions does not cause his actions to be unlawful.

          Don’t need “evidence” of intent, only the reasoning that the shooter provoked the attacks on him.

          IANAL, but I am fairly certain that a charge of first-degree murder does, in fact, require evidence of intent.

          As for the defendant provoking the attacks on him: surely you have evidence of the defendant being the initial aggressor? (And before you try it: no, mere possession of a firearm, from a legal/statutory perspective, does not represent initial aggression. Initial aggression must be comprised of some form of use or threat of use of unlawful force.)

          Once the idea of unreasonable actions by the shooter is entered into the testimony, the jury cannot unhear the proposition.

          I’m not sure this ever even gets to a jury. If Wisconsin has provisions for pre-trial/summary judgement on the basis of justified use of deadly force in self-defense, I’m certain it won’t.

          A person knowingly breaking the laws cannot then be allowed to claim his subsquent actions were lawful.

          That is not true. I know that it is not true here in Indiana. The unlawful action has to be relevant/tied to the use of deadly force. For example, carrying around a joint (where such possession is illegal) does not prohibit someone from claiming justified use of deadly force in self-defense. (I want to say that the relevant case law here is Mayes v State or Fuentes v State?) Not sure what it is in Wisconsin, but I’ll assume that it is the same or similar.

          It might get trickier if he were illegally possessing the rifle, but, again: he wasn’t. Carry of the rifle was perfectly lawful under applicable WI statutes.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Chip, all your arguments are from the standpoint of the endpoint; self-defense. By its very nature, a murder charge utterly discounts self-defense as a reasonable act…in this case. As in so much law, it is not what is right/wrong, but what the prosecution can prove. The act being charged is not frivilous. Either the prosecutor believes a conviction is fairly certain, or is acting with non-apparent underlying reasons.

          The issue I raised is not whether the shooter is right or wrong, but what a prosecutor might do to support the prosecution. We cannot depend on the authorities to do what is right, but what they are convinced they can accomplish. While I agree with you the jury just might be pissed-off enough to tell the DA to stuff it, juries are notoriously unpredictable. The conviction of innocent persons is not a rarity, and not every erroneous guilty verdict is predicated on treachery by the DA.

          In the end, I am not making a claim that the shooter was justified or not, only that there is great risk at trial, and in a case like this, the risk may be even greater. We should temper our decisions with full knowledge of the risks, not just deciding our righteousness will prevent our conviction at trial.

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The only part I’m addressing at the moment:

          Chip, all your arguments are from the standpoint of the endpoint; self-defense.

          Yes. That is by design, because that is generally how affirmative defenses work, including, it appears, in Wisconsin: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/III/48

          Once successfully raised as a defense by the defendant, the state must disprove the self-defense claim beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet this hurdle, none of the evidence of the underlying alleged crimes matters.

          So, your theoretical ability to prove murder will never matter once the defense successfully raises a self-defense claim.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The “affirmative” defense of “self-defense” raises a barrier, but simply raising the barrier is not a bullet-proof shield. The charge of murder was issued despite the ability of the shooter to raise an affirmative defense. One has to aks, “Why?”. Presupposing there is no gamesmanship in the murder charge, the prosecutor would have already considered the “self-defense” claim, and concluded the claim could be defeated.

          If I understand correctly, the “self-defense” affirmation is vulnerable to the question of “reason”, “reasonable”, under the circumstances. “Reason” is where the arguments to a jury (rather than a judge) can be determinative. Essentially, is it reasonable to travel a distance, insert oneself into the chaos, a firearm admitting the likelihood of use, and then claim “self-defense” when there would be no need for “self-defense” had the shooter remained in his resident town/state? Is it reasonable to be on the street with a firearm, or more reasonable to join with others in establishing a defense position of persons and property standing in, or infront of a business?

          Essentially, outside of warfare, is it reasonable to create conditions where firearms would need to be discharged, when a reasonable person (the jury) would, and thousands did, avoid the chaos and confrontation. Is is reasonable to go looking for trouble, then claiming self-defense when the expected trouble arrives? A natural, human and civil right to be somewhere does not mean it is reasonable, under the circumstances, to tempt fate by traveling to that legally occupied location/space.

          Juries are not sophistocated enough to grasp concepts such as “exercising a codified right”, “affirmative defense”, etc. (BTW, the jury, not the defendant or prosecutor, determine whether the “affirmative defense” applies). If the simple assertion of “self-defense” were sufficient to avoid a murder charge, bringing such charges against a defender would be utterly futile. The demand, “prove me wrong” allows room for just such proof, and a decision by uninformed, reluctant, and fickle jurors. The defendant proclaims protection of an affirmative defense, the prosecution mounts a counter, the jury decides.

          The shooter could be perfectly, unassailably correct, but the jury can see it different. The result is a conviction that cannot be overturned just because the jury “got it wrong” according to people not part of the jury. In these affirmative defense cases, the roles are truly reversed; the prosecutor now only needs to create reasonable doubt that the defendant acted legally, and let the jury take it from there. (reasonable doubt of the self-defense claim, by a single juror could, at worst, result in a mistrial). Self-defense claims can be defeated, and have been.

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          The “affirmative” defense of “self-defense” raises a barrier, but simply raising the barrier is not a bullet-proof shield. The charge of murder was issued despite the ability of the shooter to raise an affirmative defense. One has to aks, “Why?”. Presupposing there is no gamesmanship in the murder charge, the prosecutor would have already considered the “self-defense” claim, and concluded the claim could be defeated.

          This misses the point. With an affirmative defense, the prosecutor first has to disprove the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt before even getting the chance to prove the underlying charges. it doesn’t matter how well the prosecutor can prove the underlying charges; if the affirmative defense isn’t first disproved, then the underlying charges are never considered.

          This is explicitly how jury instructions read. Should the prosecution go to trial, the jury must first consider the affirmative defense when rendering a verdict.

          And in states where self-defense grants pre-trial immunity, that is exactly what happens: if the prosecutor cannot disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, then the case is dismissed, the defendant never sees a jury, and the prosecutor never gets to attempt to prove the underlying charges.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “And in states where self-defense grants pre-trial immunity, that is exactly what happens: if the prosecutor cannot disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt to the judge, then the case is dismissed, the defendant never sees a jury, and the prosecutor never gets to attempt to prove the underlying charges.”

          Which again calls to question the filing of murder charges in the first place. If we rule out strategems to reach a plea bargin by overcharging, it is ridiculous for the DA to file murder charges if there is actually no chance to fend off the likely self-defense claim (barring strategems to accomplish other purposes). Affirmative defenses can be overcome, else there would be no trials, motions, challenging that defense.

          The reason behind this entire string is to point out that being “right” is not a guarantee of verdict. Not every defense lawyer is competent to manage a self-defense claim, either.

        11. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          If I understand correctly, the “self-defense” affirmation is vulnerable to the question of “reason”, “reasonable”, under the circumstances. “Reason” is where the arguments to a jury (rather than a judge) can be determinative.

          The only questions of “reasonableness” that the jury gets to consider are 1) whether the fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at the moment deadly force was used was reasonable, and 2) whether the use of deadly force in self-defense at the moment deadly force was used was a reasonable use of force in response to that fear.

          A competent defense lawyer is going to forcefully and successfully exclude any of the following considerations pre-trial, via motions in limine, because they are legally irrelevant to the charges and prejudicial against the defendant.

          Essentially, is it reasonable to travel a distance…

          Not up for jury consideration.

          …insert oneself into the chaos…

          Not up for jury consideration.

          …a firearm admitting the likelihood of use…

          Not up for jury consideration.

          …and then claim “self-defense” when there would be no need for “self-defense” had the shooter remained in his resident town/state?

          Not up for jury consideration. All that matters is a) were the defendant’s actions otherwise lawful, and b) were the defendant’s fear and resulting action reasonable at the moment deadly force was used.

          Is it reasonable to be on the street with a firearm, or more reasonable to join with others in establishing a defense position of persons and property standing in, or infront of a business?

          Not up for jury consideration. All that matters is a) were the defendant’s actions otherwise lawful, and b) were the defendant’s fear and resulting action reasonable at the moment deadly force was used.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If the matter actually gets to jury, each of those considerations can be put forth to blunt the argument of reasonableness of self-defense. Prosecution is not barred from gathering testimony indicating the defnedant acted unreasonably. Thinking also, that witesses can be called in pleading before the judge regarding the affirmative defense. For instance….

          The affirmative defense is presented to the judge. The defendant declares the act was something the reasonable person would do. The prosecutor has witness testimony that the shooter declared, just before the shooting, the defendant stated, “Watch this shit; gonna put down some commie useful idiots”. That testimony would not be barred by the judge as a challenge to the premise of “self-defense”. Once cleared for trial, the prosecutor could bring that same testimony into the trial, supporting pre-meditated murder.

          Again, if “self-defense” is an unassailable claim, a slam-dunk win for the defendant, the defense attorney could simply mail in a formal statement, and be done with it. We know that isn’t the case.

        13. avatar Mike V says:

          Sam I Am,
          “Prosecutor’s case, prosecutor’s court. Jury will detrmine whether the shooter required a firearm in order to be an attendee.”

          Sure, but then again is the comment section of a blog court? We state our opinions for and against knowing all the while others will be doing the judging for real.

          Crazy shit in the courts seems to happen often enough that one may chose other courses of action to prevent the possibility.

        14. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Agree that TTAG is a place for opinions. My opinion is many are likely to mistake pretend (opinions posted online) with reality, discounting the risks in favor of thinking chest-thumping will overcome reality.

          So, my opinion is that whether the shooter is right or wrong, there are avenues for the prosecutor to use in gaining a conviction, regardless of our chest-thumping, and we are not prudent if we ignore them. Nothing more. Not trying to suppress any other opinion, only challenging the rationale.

        15. avatar strych9 says:

          The issue at the heart of this isn’t what story the prosecutor tells it’s what story they’re allowed to tell the jury.

          Yes, you can spin bullshit all day. But defense counsel can challenge your ability to present said bullshit to the jury. And if the just is fair they’ll disallow many potential arguments the prosecution might wish to make.

          Really good lawyers are not just good at telling a story. They’re excellent on Rules of Evidence and Procedure, particularly in regard to items that are prejudicial. They use this abilities to prevent the other lawyer from telling the story they wish to. Seen it from the jury box, something to behold when someone’s mastered this art. Half the Prosecutions case disappears on day one and most of the rest on day two. You sit outside waiting to be called back in.

          I can’t imagine that a competent trial judge would, upon objection, allow a DA to argue that merely exercising a codified right is evidence of a crime. At that point the DA’s to suggest to the jury that the guy’s carrying of a rifle is evidence of… anything other than carrying a rifle.

        16. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I can’t imagine that a competent trial judge would, upon objection, allow a DA to argue that merely exercising a codified right is evidence of a crime.”

          That wouldn’t be the line of attack, rather the exercising of a codified right for illegal purposes. The shooter intended to create a situation where self-defense wold be necessary. Not sure a judge could stop a prosecutor from putting forth a therory of motive resulting in the intended use of self-defense.

          Yes, the prosecution and defense propose arguments, and battle each other. But the juries are not versed in the law, procedure, or any other nicety of court protocol. Juries are made up of people who cannot escape jury duty. They want to go home and back to work. Juries can be swayed by a good story. Especially one that reinforces the general notion that only the guilty are arrested and brought to trial. Being a veteran of three juries (city, state, federal) I have absolutely no interest in turning my future over to those good citizens.

          In all, my comments are not about right/wrong, legal/illegal, but prudence in opinions, and prudence in acting out our opinions. In the extant case, my opinion is that the shooter is at high risk for conviction. New informatin can, of course, alter that opinion.

        17. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          That wouldn’t be the line of attack, rather the exercising of a codified right for illegal purposes. The shooter intended to create a situation where self-defense wold be necessary. Not sure a judge could stop a prosecutor from putting forth a therory of motive resulting in the intended use of self-defense.

          Prezenting such a theory would require the prosecutor to present evidence that she does not – and cannot – have. (And, again, mere – lawful – carry of a firearm does not constitute such evidence.)

        18. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Prezenting such a theory would require the prosecutor to present evidence that she does not – and cannot – have.”

          Not actually. Testimony can be used in place of evidence. Just ask an uncomfortable question, and let the jury see how uncomfortable the defendant, or defendant witnesses are. The questions only need be on point, not based on some physical piece of “evidence”. It is why defendants are discouraged from testifying; providing “evidence” by what they say. As a prosecutor, I would try to find gun owners who were present in the same place, who didn’t end up using their gun, and pose those against the defendant’s actions.

          Again, if claims of self-defense were bulletproof, prosecutors would not bring charges. A defendant is only “right” if a jury says so.

        19. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Prezenting such a theory would require the prosecutor to present evidence that she does not – and cannot – have.”

          Not actually. Testimony can be used in place of evidence.

          Okay, I’ll bite: who’s testimony will the prosecutor use, to demonstrate the defendant’s intent to go to the scene of the protests to use his firearm to shoot protesters? Or, as you phrased it, his intent to create a situation in which he would need to use deadly force in self-defense?

        20. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Okay, I’ll bite: who’s testimony will the prosecutor use, to demonstrate the defendant’s intent to go to the scene of the protests to use his firearm to shoot protesters?”

          Witness statements resulting from investigation, for starters. Statements captured from the defendant during the initial police response. Are you envisioning a situation where the attorneys appear before the judge, and are only allowed to present unsubstianted claims from from each attorney, and the judge then rules on the affirmative defense? That the event unrolls thus: “Judge, we are convinced the shooting was pre-meditated. Judge, we are convinced the shooting was self-defense; we await your ruling.”?

          I’m hinking the reality is that the prosecution will be able to say, “Well, Judge, we have these videos and witness statements that demonstrate pre-meditation. Materials gathered from investigation that show the defendant came looking for an opportunity to use his gun.”

          Cannot see where results of an investigation cannot be presented at a hearing regarding assertion of affirmative defense. Not knowing every jurisdiction, perhaps live witness testimony is permitted in order to allow the defense to question the truth of the investigative record. How is a judge to determine the validity of the affirmative defense, if no testimony, written or oral, is permitted?

        21. avatar strych9 says:

          *and if the judge is fair.

          Damn broken phone screen. Sorry about that.

        22. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Damn broken phone screen. Sorry about that.”

          Your words were clear enough, given the context. Didn’t even notice the “error”.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Brings up the question of the dipshit shot in the arm. So, is he under arrest, felon in possession? That’s open and shut, are we going to ignore it?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I do believe that the prosecutor is going to ignore it, yes.

    2. avatar Hannibal says:

      Interesting. How about the rioters who were there? They didn’t have to be there. They had no legitimate purpose.

      What about the one that brought a gun (despite being a prohibited person)?

      It would seem that the legal theory you are operating under basically convicts anyone who wins a fight that someone else starts.

      How do you feel about women walking down dark alleys? They shouldn’t be there at night- it’s dangerous! If someone tries to rape them and gets shot, does the woman go to prison?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Interesting. How about the rioters who were there? They didn’t have to be there. They had no legitimate purpose.”

        The haven’t been arrested and charged. They are irrelevant to the justification of self-defense…unless one tries to use their presence as the reason to be armed in response, which opens the door to attacking the shooter for attending an event where he thought self-defense most likely. Don’t we generally call that “stupid people, in stupid places, winning stupid prizes?

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Don’t we generally call that “stupid people, in stupid places, winning stupid prizes?

          Indeed, we do. What we don’t call it is illegal.

    3. avatar FedUp says:

      IIRC, the one armed burglar traveled about twice as far to get to Kenosha as Kyle did.

      Kyle came to help clean up the mess previously made by “Lefty” and his comrades, and was invited to stay for the evening and loaned a rifle. Too bad he left the location his friends were at for whatever reason, and LE blocked him from rejoining them.

      Lefty brought a G26 with him, carried it illegally concealed, for the purpose of serving as a ‘combat medic’ for a known terrorist organization. He’s the third such ‘medic’ to try to murder an innocent citizen with a handgun this summer that I know of. The most well known being the one who fired several shots at Daniel Perry in Austin. Probably many more armed violent ‘medics’ I don’t know about.

      I believe Huber was local to Kenosha. Kyle was reasonably local, had friends there, his only known charges are from getting pulled over for speeding on the 16th, in Kenosha, before that idiot got himself shot by Kenosha police.

  35. avatar james says:

    Remember the press is not bias, they represent what ever the political party the higher ups follow and what the advertisers pay for. They don’t represent the Truth nor the people but for creating interest to gain views to advertise and make money. Not for the Service of the People nor the Truth.

  36. avatar J. Smith says:

    So, now that we know days and months later, Floyd was dying of an over dose and not kneehicular homocide, shooting someone shooting a taser at cops is justified, shooting someone with an active warrant with a knife is justified, shooting three thugs attacking a young lad is justified, defending your McMansion with guns from a violent mob is justified what will happen when the “bad men” are acquitted. And more so what are we prepared to do in response? Personally, Im going with the unicorns and rainbows course of action which lends me to seek refuge on camp couch and a few cold ones in response.

    Oh, yeah and dont leave out when Trump wins 2020….by a landslide. I hear that quiet majority is a thing.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      By George, I think you’ve finally got it!! And yeah, the week prior to Nov 3 would be a good time to stock up on toilet paper.

  37. avatar Chris Morton says:

    British writer Joe Orton’s boyfriend only had a claw hammer.

    Has Orton published anything lately?

  38. avatar SpecialEd says:

    Always either the hero or the victim. This time he’s both. Can’t wait till mom breaks out the baby pictures, oh so much untapped potential, blah, blah, blah.

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      We can’t allow this kid to be struck down.

      On two occasions he attempts to flee danger and only fires on his attackers as a last resort.

      He did what we all claim we stand for. He defended an ideal and at personal risk. Is it possible that at 17 he sees his future America flushed down the toilet? Is it wrong for him to try to stop it? Can anyone with a straight face say that any other course of action would have resulted in a more positive defense of our ideals, our future?

      Those guys weren’t out to water the garden and sing songs, they were there to tear down the city, last I checked, that’s how a country ends up destroyed.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Can anyone with a straight face say that any other course of action would have resulted in a more positive defense of our ideals, our future?”

        Irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial. If the shooter broke any law regarding firearm possession and/or transport he is responsible for what happened next. If he was legally in possession of a firearm, legally transporting it across state lines, and in legal possession of the firearm at the site of the event, it may be more difficult to get a guilty verdict, but not impossible. We must get beyond the idea that “right” and legal are interchangeable words. Prosecutors are not there to get a “right” verdict, but a legal verdict.

        Generally, prosecutors don’t try cases they are convinced they are likely to lose. So the fact that charges were brought should give pause. However, in a high profile case like this, prosecutors might charge and take to trial a case that has enormous public attention even if the proseuctor is unsure of victory.

        Don’t presume your/our idea or a righteous shooting is Kryptonite to a guilty verdict. When it comes to firearms, think carefully about any act you might undertake. It is the responsible thing to do. Also, none of us will do the time for the shooter, if it turns out we are wrong; that can influence how we observe things.

        1. avatar Mike V says:

          “Irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial.”

          Where did I say that I was his legal representation and this is our defense?

          I’m not his lawyer, I’m not the prosecution, I’m not even his friend. I’m representing my opinion as a fellow citizen, does it mean
          anything? We’ll see.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Where did I say that I was his legal representation and this is our defense?”

          You didn’t. You threw down the glove and dared anyone to argue that what the shooter did overcomes any other consideration. My response to a portion of your opinion was that what the non-involved parties did is not germane to a claim that what the shooter did was a good thing, and justified acts that are the catalyst for a murder charge.

          To say that what the shooter did was a good thing, legal or not, is an opinion. To claim that what the shooter did is justified is, indeed, a defense (a defacto opinion on the relevant laws). I could claim that what the shooter did was wrong because nobody should get shot. That would be an opinion. To use elements of the law to support my opinion is a form of justification for the prosecution.

          Your original comment was, “Can anyone with a straight face say that any other course of action would have resulted in a more positive defense of our ideals, our future?” My answer is “yes”, I can. The decision of the shooter puts our ideals at risk because the circumstances are not clear-cut in our favor, and are just as easily used to justify further restrictions on our ideals. The entire episode could have been easily avoided.

        3. avatar Mike V says:

          “When it comes to firearms, think carefully about any act you might undertake. It is the responsible thing to do.”

          Obviously…

          And here we are.

          The mob torches and busts up your city at the perception of official wrongdoing, and we argue about whether we can guarantee with 100% certainty that our actions will be punished by the same system that allows the mob the opportunity.

          It takes great courage to undertake that which may cost you everything in more ways than one.

          We’re going to need that, I hope I can be that when It’s my time.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We’re going to need that, I hope I can be that when It’s my time.”

          Think about that. The shooter decided it was “his time”. Where were all the other patriots, 2A defenders? Why did not more make the effort to go to Kenosha (or anywhere) to add to the protection of persons and property? Absolutely nobody else had time or means to join the defense of Kenosha? Or did the vast majority of patriots and 2A defenders decide that it would be foolish to leave home, drive to another state, and become and armed counter-protester? I did not go to Kenosha because I considered it an unreasonable act, likely to go sideways, and likely to end up with good people being touted as crazies with guns. When the rodeo comes to my town, it will be gut check time for me, but not in someone else’s town.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Think about that. The shooter decided it was “his time”.

          To begin with, your premise is false. As I understand it, he was in Kenosha first visiting friends, then later cleaning graffiti, and only that evening did he join a group who decided to protect property that had previously been vandalized.

          Regardless, if that was his thought process, he’s in good company. Until the turn of the 20th century, the enlistment age for military service for all wars, including the Revolutionary War and up through the Spanish American war and Philippine Insurrection, was 16.

          Our country’s freedom was won by young men his age.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “To begin with, your premise is false. As I understand it, he was in Kenosha first visiting friends, then later cleaning graffiti, and only that evening did he join a group who decided to protect property that had previously been vandalized.”

          Now, that is news. Had not seen/read that he was already in town for other reasons. It would moot referring to the travel as indication of intent to engage in activities requiring self-defense.

          As to the history lesson, not relevant at trial regarding self-defense. The only way age would factor in, is if age was a prohibition to owning/transporting a long gun in either state. The military accomplishment of 16/17yr olds is not, as you noted, “evidence” to be presented at trial.

          (Sidebar) There are people on TTAG who cannot understand that explaining a theory is not the same as endorsing a theory. Many overlook the fact that I have not expressed an opinion about whether the shooter acted correctly, or not. I know you are not one of those, but this string is an opportunity to make the statement.

          Cheers

        7. avatar Mike V says:

          “The decision of the shooter puts our ideals at risk because the circumstances are not clear-cut in our favor, and are just as easily used to justify further restrictions on our ideals. The entire episode could have been easily avoided.”

          Let us know when that clear cut opportunity presents itself.

          One could rationally say that isn’t likely to happen all things considered.
          We have been in here a riot there a riot mode for several monthes. Does anyone think that with the huge number of people either sympathetic or participating in the protests and riots that an environment exists whereby good honest citizens can do what’s right with zero fear of a downside?

          There are risks that can’t be avoided, me and my little family have a lot of life left to live and our country is approaching a fork in the road, we’re running out of time.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Does anyone think …an environment exists whereby good honest citizens can do what’s right with zero fear of a downside?”

          Zero risk isn’t the goal, but prudent calculation the risk.

          As I noted elsewhere, why is it only one (apparently) 2A defender from out of state showed up? Could it be the rest recognized the calculus was not favorable for traveling to a different state, and inserting themselves into a situation that could instantly spin out of control? It was along the line of considering and evaluating risk that I posed possible prosecutorial approaches to overcome the claim of legal self-defense; nothing more.

        9. avatar Ad Astra says:

          Ya sure sam a prosecutor has never filed BS politically motivated charges ever, totally unheard of. And as we all know if you get arrested you must be guilty right?
          Lay off the green ham it starting to rot your brain.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Ya sure sam a prosecutor has never filed BS politically motivated charges ever, totally unheard of. And as we all know if you get arrested you must be guilty right?”

          Politically motivated criminal charges are a thing, and, if done properly, still result in guilty verdicts. If the prosecution wins within the law, motivation is irrelevant to the verdict.

          Over-charging the crime is a thing, and if the prosecutor can get a guilty plea on a lesser charge that results in permanent loss of 2A rights….victory for the prosecution.

          “Lay off the green ham it starting to rot your brain.”

          Believing slogans and chest-thumping are sufficient defense at trial is actual evidence of brain rot. Closely associated with the determination to reject any idea/thought counter to one’s own.

        11. avatar Mike V says:

          “Think about that. The shooter decided it was “his time”. Where were all the other patriots, 2A defenders? Why did not more make the effort to go to Kenosha (or anywhere)”

          Maybe that’s the problem.

          A handful decide to act when hundreds, thousands, were needed.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Maybe that’s the problem. A handful decide to act when hundreds, thousands, were needed.”

          ‘Tis a curiosity, isn’t it?

          In my alternate proposition, the lack of similar actions by a notable cohort would be a line of attack, showing that even POTG do not see the shooter as acting reasonably. However….in reality, I have been educated to understand that the shooter did not travel to Kenosha specifically to participate in “security”.

  39. avatar Missouri_Mule Resident Historian says:

    Teenager Beaten to Death With a Skateboard
    Los Angels Times
    JAN. 21, 1998 12 AM
    ASSOCIATED PRESS
    VISTA, Calif. — A 16-year-old boy was beaten to death with a skateboard after he and a friend were attacked by three teenagers at a condominium complex, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department reported Tuesday.
    Richard Johnson was unconscious when police found him Monday afternoon. He was airlifted to Palomar Medical Center in Escondido, where he died of head injuries, police said.

    Johnson’s friend, whose name was not released, was treated for minor injuries and released.

    The friend told investigators that he and Johnson went to the condominium complex to skateboard when they were confronted by the three teenagers. Without provocation, the teenagers took their skateboards and started to beat them, he said.

    The friend said he fled to one of the condominiums to get help. When he returned, Johnson had been struck several times in the head with a skateboard.

    The teenagers ran to another condominium, where they were later arrested by police. They were charged with murder and robbery.

    The teenagers were detained in Juvenile Hall pending a hearing.

  40. avatar Ark says:

    “but he still ran toward the danger, his girlfriend says.”

    Said girlfriend should write Kyle a thank-you card for saving her from the repeated, convicted felon domestic abuser she was dating.

  41. avatar JOHN THAYER says:

    Huber looks like he’s modeling the “Che Guevara look”. Now he has more to share with comrade Che.

  42. avatar Po' Boy says:

    Yes…. you people with the $ and the time need to step-up….. this kid did stand up for all the things we espouse on a daily basis….
    If there was ever a time to make a difference it’s now!…. To help this 17 year old adolescent who made a decision that will forever change his life….. and hopefully not for the worse!….
    He had GOOD INTENTIONS!!!…. YOU SAW HOW VIOLENT THESE ATTACKERS WERE…. CHASING HIM AND THROWING OBJECTS AT HIM…

    If I had the means I would do whatever I could… unfortunately i’m poor 🙁

  43. avatar former water walker says:

    JUST watched Mrgunsngear & yankeemarshall on YouTube. I swore I’d never watch YM again but it popped up under MR. Mrgunsngear oddly was quite complimentary toward young Klyles skill especially his single point sling. And YM was reasonable for once but “blamed” someone older for aiding & abetting. With ZERO proof. If the leftards want to make him an “example” so be it. He can be a cause celeb aa it were for good folks!!!

  44. avatar Mr no says:

    What did you expect from the Clinton news network just bullshit I believe I see what appears to be a bad ass black rifle under him!!!! Fuck the Clinton news network

  45. avatar TexasJack says:

    Oh fkn’n well.. the kid should have shot him more just for giggles.. he was a p.o.s. and good riddance

  46. avatar tdiinva says:

    Huber and Rosenbaum did not die in vain. Due to their heroic sacrifice the rioting has ended. /sarc.

    Kyle Rittenhouse exercised mor restrain in the application of deadly force than some police officers. He stopped the threat and ended it there.

  47. avatar Wally1 says:

    Kyle Rittenhouse is the spark in the next revolution. It’s starting now. The left has no idea what is waiting for them in the November elections. The silent majority of Americans will vote. We will not take their crap anymore.

  48. avatar strych9 says:

    Most people at CNN would probably be entirely at the mercy of an empty-handed person with six months martial arts training.

    There’s a reason for the joke that it’s “practicing murder with your friends”.

    Regardless, this is a f(l)ail article. Anyone with two braincells that actually work can see, in between bites of paste and nibbles of paint chips, that CNN is in full shark-jump mode at this point.

  49. avatar W says:

    Hey CNN. Banana.

    A 17 year old is chased by a mob containing adult felons. One fires a handgun in the air. At that point, Attorney Lin Wood’s case is made. It’s self defense from there on out. And the DA is an [expletive deleted] for not charging the one who fired the pistol at the start of the action.

    Bonus, why does CNN root for adult males chasing minors? Do they have something that they need to share?

  50. avatar Ralph says:

    The G is going to do everything in its power to destroy that kid. Because that’s what government does best — destroy.

  51. avatar coolbreeze says:

    A point I haven’t seen made yet.: the skateboard stiff, er, pseudo-martyr, made NO attempt to disarm Kyle who was prostrate on the ground with the rifle lying against the pavement pointing away from Sk8bd guy. His only intent and action was to strike an aimed blow to the head of Kyle.
    Also, Kyle was the focus of attention earlier with the “Shoot me, n*****” taunt. Predators seek out those who they think they can easily intimidate. Being 17 with a young man’s face probably triggered the predatory instincts in the gathered felons. Guess them “chose poorly”.
    Given the abundance of video evidence showing: 1. His stated purpose for being there and reason for being openly armed given prior to the violent threats against him, 2. His attempt to retreat from assailants, not once, but twice, 3.his running to seek out the police and attempt to immediately cooperate with them.; If he is not completely exonerated, it is a blow to all of our right to self defense, legally speaking. That is truly a great concern and should be loudly monitored by those who guard their freedom.

  52. avatar coolbreeze says:

    A point I haven’t seen made yet.: the skateboard stiff, er, pseudo-martyr, made NO attempt to disarm Kyle who was prostrate on the ground with the rifle lying against the pavement pointing away from Sk8bd guy. His only intent and action was to strike an aimed blow to the head of Kyle.
    Also, Kyle was the focus of attention earlier with the “Shoot me, n*****” taunt. Predators seek out those who they think they can easily intimidate. Being 17 with a young man’s face probably triggered the predatory instincts in the gathered felons. Guess they “chose poorly”.
    Given the abundance of video evidence showing: 1. His stated purpose for being there and reason for being openly armed given prior to the violent threats against him, 2. His attempt to retreat from assailants, not once, but twice, 3.his running to seek out the police and attempt to immediately cooperate with them.; If he is not completely exonerated, it is a blow to all of our right to self defense, legally speaking. That is truly a great concern and should be loudly monitored by those who guard their freedom.

  53. avatar Areolas Grande says:

    That’s the poser with a skateboard who got clapped by Kyle lol. He definitely deserved it 😂😭

  54. avatar Steve B says:

    A valuable lesson can learned from this incident…..Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight!

  55. avatar Shiffrod says:

    The felony arrest record people have pulled up for the Grosskruetz guy states that he was 43 at the time of arrest but he is 26. Not the same person. Look at it again.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Pardon me, please, we’re talking about the shithead whose arm got blowed up? Jackass in video was not 26, no way. 43 is believable.

  56. avatar Debbie W. says:

    “He pushed me out of the way, like he was telling me to run off, and I tried to grab him,” Hannah Gittings told CNN. “I should have been there, but there was going to be no changing his mind.”

    If Hannah Gittings was my daughter she would be in surgery having my foot removed from her extremely ignorant pathetic behind.

    TRUMP/PENCE 2020.

    1. avatar neiowa says:

      Then yank that hog ring out of the dimwit’s nose.

      I’m sure you’re all want to contribute to her get rich/retrieve keys fund. 1625 moron got there already though.

  57. avatar Gary Griffiths says:

    Gee, Kyle shoulda remembered Joe Biden’s advice: “When an unarmed individual comes at you with a knife, shoot him in the leg, not to kill.” — NOT!!!

  58. avatar Taffy says:

    CNN plz come see me let hit you upside head several times with a “skateboard”. This so called new station is disgusting. Everyone one of you. May God have mercy on your souls. O and Trump2020

  59. avatar Dr. Blue says:

    In the 80’s, I guy I went to high school with killed a guy with a skateboard. They got in an argument and he round-housed the guy with the edge of his board, right in the side of his head. Guy died in the parking lot of the Hermosa Beach pier parking lot.

  60. avatar Robert Sylvester says:

    Anthony Huber basically shot himself! After hitting Kyle Rittenhouse with a skateboard he grabbed the rifle and pulled on it attempting to take it away. This brought the barrel up into his chest and forced Kyle to pull the trigger at the same time.

  61. avatar Frank Visone says:

    Here is the best, most thorough examination of this entire situation, given to us by a 2A lawyer. Try and remove your personal cognitive bias and listen, because he lays it out plain as day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3ykyVw6smxnr58eXZQOXwkgP7hAe0tlbiJryDgXH4JbKbGS7rEU3lCZ60&has_verified=1&bpctr=1598905416

  62. avatar justme says:

    This is quite a long post and comments and I couldn’t read it all, so maybe someone has already brought up this observation already. If not then here goes. The video that everyone is talking about shows the kid, Rittenhouse, with the gun running away, and then tripping and falling, then shooting two men. One of the men died and the other was hit in the arm and will survive. But the kid is being charged with TWO murders, and one injury. From what I gathered there was another killing that this kid was running away from. There is no video (yet) of this first shooting. It seems that witnesses say that they saw Rittenhouse shoot another man named Rosenbaum, who was the other man who died. He THEN turned and ran away, where the only existing video then sees him running. If this is the case then everything is turned on it’s head. YOU CAN’T CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE IF YOU HAVE JUST COMMITTED A MURDER, AND THEN RAN AWAY FROM PEOPLE TRYING TO DISARM YOU! So I hope that a video of this FIRST KILLING surfaces so we all can see what really happened with the dude Rosenbaum being shot and killed. .

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      YOU CAN’T CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE IF YOU HAVE JUST COMMITTED A MURDER, AND THEN RAN AWAY FROM PEOPLE TRYING TO DISARM YOU!

      A true statement that has absolutely nothing to do with the circumstances of facts of this case.

  63. avatar Robert Roger says:

    Shit bags got what they created. They harrassed an armed male trying to prevent anarchy and arson to pvt businesses. Shitbags threw molotov cocktail a deadly weapon, they missed. Kid ran they advanced. Shitbags tried to remove long gun, he fired to keep his gun from being used against him. They lost with deadly consequences. Kid ran again, they continued to chase and engage. The shitbags pulled a gun and was shot through the
    forearm. The other shitbag slammed a skate board at the kid on the ground and 2 others charged the kid to attack and remove his AR. They too were blasted. This kid did everything right under the law. We send 17 y/o’s to war at 17. This kid is no different than an army grunt or marine. Snowflakes now know stupid ideology will get them killed. Stay off the street pussies.. No safe spaces, no aclu to hide behind, chris cuomo from cnn cant help you.

    And President Trump will be re-elected you stupid fucks. Go home to mom, and go find a job..The streets are not video game. You will get your soul snatched for attacking armed men.

  64. avatar Ernie Anyway says:

    He will not be missed,

  65. avatar Wasiechu says:

    Gaige Grosskreutz was described by the media has having a gun, but “Didn’t point it at anyone.”

  66. avatar Joe blue says:

    Your just an idiot if you think a skateboard can’t kill by blunt force trauma. People die sometimes from blunt force trauma from being punched with a bare fist… Your parents are probably idiots too…. And why wasn’t the dude that got his arm shot with being a prohibited possessor makes me sense…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email