.

He wasn't a resident of Wisconsin.

Im just glad that thug is in jail who the fuck in their right mind drives to another state with an assault riffle & kills 2 people man these are the type of people that become cops smfh. 

You are dead wrong as usual. In Illinois, the state he is a resident in, it is not legal for a 17 year old to own the rifle he was carrying, you must be 21 years of age and own a FOID license. In Wisconsin it is also not legal for anyone under 18 to have such a weapon and carry at a demonstration in public like he was doing. So he already broke the law and was a "criminal." 

"Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had."

As for Wisconsin self-defense and Stand your Ground laws, the self-defense claim will not apply here.

No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat.

Wisconsin doesn't require retreat, per se, before use of deadlly force, but whether someone could have, and did, and to what extent, is a factor for juries to consider in whether the shooter acted reasonably.

Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

More on this criminal killer's gun possession.

"In addition to the felonies, Wisconsin court records show that prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18."

"Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.”

Source: Politifact

Stop spewing nonsense when you clearly don't have a clue. Use a different source outside of Fox News, or OAN. 

This 17 year old moron clearly crossed state lines with a weapon he was not legally old enough to purchase in his home state (Illinois), and was seeking to cause trouble and do damage, which he accomplished. The defense of this violent criminal is really unbelievable in this forum. 

My wife made a good point. Under different circumstances, nobody would be saying he was just defending himself from a mob. They would say a mob was pursuing an active shooter. Put a turban on that same kid and the "mob" would be heroes.

Actually, your wife is low IQ. This isn't whatever imaginary different circumstance you are dreaming up. This is this circumstance 

[You are dead wrong as usual. In Illinois, the state he is a resident in, it is not legal for a 17 year old to own the rifle he was carrying, you must be 21 years of age and own a FOID license. In Wisconsin it is also not legal for anyone under 18 to have such a weapon and carry at a demonstration in public like he was doing. So he already broke the law and was a "criminal."  "Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had." As for Wisconsin self-defense and Stand your Ground laws, the self-defense claim will not apply here. No. Such laws, like in Florida, say you can threaten or use deadly force in response to a perceived threat of great bodily harm without first having to try to retreat or escape the threat. Wisconsin doesn't require retreat, per se, before use of deadlly force, but whether someone could have, and did, and to what extent, is a factor for juries to consider in whether the shooter acted reasonably. Wisconsin does recognize the so-called Castle Doctrine, which presumes a person acted lawfully in self-defense when they use deadly force within their home, vehicle or business. But that presumption can be overcome with evidence that the use of force was unreasonable. Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel More on this criminal killer's gun possession. "In addition to the felonies, Wisconsin court records show that prosecutors have charged Rittenhouse with one misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18." "Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.” Source: Politifact Stop spewing nonsense when you clearly don't have a clue. Use a different source outside of Fox News, or OAN.  This 17 year old moron clearly crossed state lines with a weapon he was not legally old enough to purchase in his home state (Illinois), and was seeking to cause trouble and do damage, which he accomplished. The defense of this violent criminal is really unbelievable in this forum. My wife made a good point. Under different circumstances, nobody would be saying he was just defending himself from a mob. They would say a mob was pursuing an active shooter. Put a turban on that same kid and the "mob" would be heroes.[/Quote]

He didn't need a turban, let's be real. Imagine if the kid had been black. He would have been framed as a violent BLM thug, or a member of Antifa taking the lives of innocent, White American Wisconsin citizens. Instead, people on the right, are trying to make this White criminal, killer a hero when he broke numerous laws before he accomplished his killings. 

If I was using a fox news source id be spewing the stuff you're saying. What is a "dangerous weapon"? Be more fucking specific. That could be a fork. You sound like a liberal snowflake. Watch the videos of the breakdownn of events that happened that night.

Actual laws and statutes:

Wisconsin 948.60 is their regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Article (3)(c) states "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

In other words, The regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon under 18 has an exception when you have a rifle or shotgun. You must not be in violation of 941.28 and you can't be out of compliance with 29.304 or 29.593.

941.28 is a regulation on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Kyles rifle was not a short-barreled rifle, so he was not in violation of 941.28.

29.304 pertains to regulations of firearms for individuals under 16 years of age. Kyle is 17, so 29.304 doesn't even apply to him.

Section 29.593 requires anyone born 1973 or later to essentially attend a hunter safety course to go hunting (with any weapon bow, rifle, etc). Kyle was not hunting, so he was in compliance.

So per Wisconsin state law, a person under 18 cannot posses a dangerous weapon, unless that weapon is a rifle or shotgun! If a person posses a rifle or shotgun and is under the age of 18, and over the age of 16, and they are not hunting, section 948.60 does not apply to them per the letter of Wisconsin law! There us no regulation against them having the rifle or shotgun.

Further, Wisconsin's open carry originates from their Constitution and allows anyone firearm that can be legally carried, to be openly carried by anyone legally able to do so. Thus, since Kyle's rifle was a firearm that could be legally owned, and since there was no law against Kyle possessing that rifle, he could legally open carry it.

Simply incorrect, which is why he is being charged with illegal possession of a firearm in addition to homicide and 1st degree murder charges. You are also applying Wisconsin statutes to a non-Wisconsin resident for legal possession of a firearm, which do not apply.

Any way you slice it, you are simply wrong.

Anyway

"whether or not Rittenhouse legally possessed the rifle is trifling compared to the homicide charges."

Liberal snowflake? You sound like another radical right moron. Keep defending this violent, criminal, killer to support your absurd ideology. Call me whatever names you want, I am not a violent killer like your 17 year old hero, who will be serving life in prison. 

Again,

Since Rittenhouse is 17 years old, he would not qualify for a concealed carry permit in Illinois. It is against Wisconsin law for someone younger than 18 to possess “a dangerous weapon.” 

Pretty sure an assault rifle constitutes as "dangerous weapon" according to Wisconsin line. Any way you look at it, he was not carrying the gun legally. Turns out he is claiming the gun wasn't even his to try and avoid being charged for illegal ownership. Going to be tough to argue that considering he posted pics with the gun online weeks prior. 

Wisconsin "law"

I already know you're a liberal snowflake because you called his ar15 an assault rifle. 

Assault rifle: select fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.

Actually... i'll slap the shit out of you, Alex. For one, I promise my wife has a higher IQ than you. For two, the point is that it isn't some imaginary circumstance. The kid was an active shooter. A domestic terrorist. The mob was pursuing him, risking their collective life, to mitigate potential casualties. Spin it however you like. Those are the facts.

What we call AR-15s are not AR-15s but AR-15 style rifles. The original AR-15 was/is an assault rifle. All of it's derivatives are assault style rifles, only lacking select fire, but put an AR-15 style rifle in the hands of a man who knows how to use it and see that he doesn't mow shit down. AR-15s, what we call AR-15s, are commonly misidentified as assault rifles but lets no act as if he's misidentifying a Winchester model 70. It is the civilian equivalent of an assault rifle. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be so popular. A 5-round mag and a bolt action does the job for both hunting and target shooting but it's not what i'd shoulder to defend myself.

...but I get it. You want an excuse to call somebody snowflake and sound tough when I can tell that you don't know anything about firearms yourself. I know you googled "assault rifle".

Interestingly enough, when Blake came out of his coma, the first thing he asked wasn’t why they shot him but whey they had to shoot him 7 times! I think there is a tacit acknowledgement in his question that suggests he understands why the cop had to shoot him but doesn’t understand the excessive use of force (i.e., 7 shots into his back). I think if everyone could at least agree on this point, people might not be rioting. 

I'm Canadian and I can tell you the u.s.a  has the best constitution in the world. You need to be able to defend yourself against corrupt forces. Governments are very powerful in most countries and could easily take away your freedoms without anyway to defend yourself.