Kyle Rittenhouse trial...already disproving SO MANY LIES from the left

[jc456]

He wasn't defending himself. The punk came armed looing for trouble.

so did quite a few. Who did Rittenhouse go after? Name someone.

 

[Flash]

 

[Rigby5]

so you admit youre wont post a law because you dont understand them,,

so why are you wasting our time??

I understand law and the fact that real law is higher abstractions than mere legislation.
For example, the War on Drugs is completely and totally illegal.
The authority for law comes from the delegates rights of those the laws defend, but drug laws defend no one and instead are arbitrary abuses of power.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Repub support for a criminal is disturbing but not surprising…

Huh? I haven't seen ONE Repub in this entire thread supporting the rioters...??

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong,

It does not matter why he was carrying it. You are assuming his motives. The fact is yes he was carrying it illegally but that does not justify attacking him. Rosenbaum was not engaged in self defense as he was chading and attacking Rittenhouse.

Big difference and once again you are wrong about the law.

It does nhot matter what Rosenvaum WOULD have done what matters is what he did and regardless of intent chasing and attacking and attempting to forceibly disarm rittenhouse was a lethal threat.

Those are legal facts and others were carrying and shooting guns as well. The only violation by Rittenhouse was to go armed which despite your stupud objection does NOT negate his right to self defense

Nope.
Since Rittenhouse irresponsibly brought a rifle to a demonstration, then clearly any responsible person would they want to take it from him before he harmed someone.
Taking a weapon from an irresponsible person is not a lethal threat in any way.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact the weapon was not illegal aside...
This only holds water if you know the weapon is illegal .
Prove this to be the case.

The rifle was illegal because Rittenhouse was under age.
But that is irrelevant.
What was the most illegal was the provocative intimidation of bringing it to a demonstration he was against.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Well....the defense has to earn their paychecks...they now get to make a defense...I know that it seems like the prosecution has been proving Kyle's case all along...but it really hasn't been trying. It's the most pathetic excuse for a prosecution to date.

If OJ got off....Kyle is going for malicious prosecution. And likely win all legal fees.

Maybe that is the game---prosecutor is going to offer a plea deal--sign and we will stop harassing you, just also agree not to sue us.

 

[progressive hunter]

I understand law and the fact that real law is higher abstractions than mere legislation.
For example, the War on Drugs is completely and totally illegal.
The authority for law comes from the delegates rights of those the laws defend, but drug laws defend no one and instead are arbitrary abuses of power.

based on your comments and refusal to prove your claims with a link to the law you dont know what youre talking about and I dont believe a word you say,,

 

[Rigby5]

He provoked no one
Running from his attackers to seeek police assistance is not a provocation and that is precisely what he did

He only ran to the police after he shot 3 people.
He should have known you can't bring a rifle to a demonstration.
He should have expected what did actually happen.
Any rational person could tell you something like that was bound to happen.
That is why no one has ever before brought a rifle to a demonstration.

What if the demonstrators had all done that?
If they had, then the police would have had no choice but to open fire on them.
That is because bringing a rifle to a demonstration is a deliberate deadly threat.

 

[Leo123]

The rifle was illegal because Rittenhouse was under age.
But that is irrelevant.
What was the most illegal was the provocative intimidation of bringing it to a demonstration he was against.

Does that go for the guy that pointed an handgun at Rittenhouse and got his bicep shot off too?

 

[Rigby5]

Well....the defense has to earn their paychecks...they now get to make a defense...I know that it seems like the prosecution has been proving Kyle's case all along...but it really hasn't been trying. It's the most pathetic excuse for a prosecution to date.

If OJ got off....Kyle is going for malicious prosecution. And likely win all legal fees.

Wrong.
OJ got off because they had no actual evidence that OJ did or was even there.
With Kyle there is no question he was there and he did it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Nope.
Since Rittenhouse irresponsibly brought a rifle to a demonstration, then clearly any responsible person would they want to take it from him before he harmed someone.
Taking a weapon from an irresponsible person is not a lethal threat in any way.

It was a riot not a demonstration. No one would have any way of knowing that it was illegal.

He did not act irresponsibly with it and you are proven wrong

 

[Rigby5]

Does that go for the guy that pointed an handgun at Rittenhouse and got his bicep shot off too?

The guy with the hand gun was not brandishing it, so it was risky but legal until he drew it.
At that point, it became equal to Rittenhouse's rifle.
Openly displaying a firearm at a demonstration is a very provocative and deliberately intimidating thing to do.
The problem is the Rittenhouse did it first, so then the guy drawing the handgun was justified in defense.
Rittenhouse has no such defense, because he brandished first, without provocation.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
OJ got off because they had no actual evidence that OJ did or was even there.
With Kyle there is no question he was there and he did it.

No question he did it in self defense.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The guy with the hand gun was not brandishing it, so it was risky but legal until he drew it.
At that point, it became equal to Rittenhouse's rifle.
Openly displaying a firearm at a demonstration is a very provocative and deliberately intimidating thing to do.
The problem is the Rittenhouse did it first, so then the guy drawing the handgun was justified in defense.
Rittenhouse has no such defense, because he brandished first, without provocation.

The guy drawing the handgun was not justified. He did so only after Rittenhouse was on the ground and being attacked.

He also testified he spoke to Rittenhous who informed him that he ( ritenhouse ) was running to find a cop.

The illegal and violent riot is itself a provocation

 

[Rigby5]

It was a riot not a demonstration. No one would have any way of knowing that it was illegal.

He did not act irresponsibly with it and you are proven wrong

Riot or demonstration makes no difference.
The point is no one should ever take a weapon openly to a location where it is know there is going to be physical but non-lethal violence.

Has anyone else ever done that without getting arrested?

 

[progressive hunter]

The guy with the hand gun was not brandishing it, so it was risky but legal until he drew it.
At that point, it became equal to Rittenhouse's rifle.
Openly displaying a firearm at a demonstration is a very provocative and deliberately intimidating thing to do.
The problem is the Rittenhouse did it first, so then the guy drawing the handgun was justified in defense.
Rittenhouse has no such defense, because he brandished first, without provocation.

imagine that,, you got it wrong again,,

 

[Rigby5]

No question he did it in self defense.

The person who initiates a provocative confrontation is not eligible for a self defense plea.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He only ran to the police after he shot 3 people.
He should have known you can't bring a rifle to a demonstration.
He should have expected what did actually happen.
Any rational person could tell you something like that was bound to happen.
That is why no one has ever before brought a rifle to a demonstration.

What if the demonstrators had all done that?
If they had, then the police would have had no choice but to open fire on them.
That is because bringing a rifle to a demonstration is a deliberate deadly threat.

It was a riot not a demonstration and yes others have done it as well

 

[Soupnazi630]

The person who initiates a provocative confrontation is not eligible for a self defense plea.

And there is no evidence rittenhouse initiated any such provocation there is in fact evidence he fled from such provocation which under the law restores his right to self defense.