Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[freyasman]

Well sure, that's what heavy bias is. I am sure your mind was made up upon reading the first headline.

No, it was made up when I watched the kid getting attacked over and over on video.

 

[SavannahMann]

No, it was made up when I watched the kid getting attacked over and over on video.

The video is good. It shows what happened during. It does not show us what led up to those events.

Like the McMichaels in Brunswick. The video shows us the events. But it does not show the sequence of events leading to the the shooting.

For that you need the narrative. And you need common sense.

In Fiction. The readers or viewers have to believe this could happen to be invested in the story. It is called suspension of disbelief.

In this case we have the same situation. We have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that Kyle was justified. We have to believe he had valid reasons for being where he should not have been. Okay we are running into problems.

As I said in my other response. He didn’t know anyone there. He wasn’t coming to the aid of a friend or family member.

We have to believe that Kyle didn’t expect trouble and was armed. Well just because. Yet he knew he was not permitted to legally own the weapon much less possess it. His associates were similarly armed and were talking about teaching the protestors a lesson. Well if Kyle didn’t expect trouble why would he go through the trouble to procure an illegal weapon?

Kyle claimed he was a paramedic. There was no way for him to be trained and certified at his age.

I believe in the right of self defense. I am a supporter. But for self defense to apply you have to be minding your own business before the event begins. You can’t start or escalate the situation. You can’t be looking for trouble.

If Kyle had been at the house of his sister when the people broke in and he killed them. I’d say justified. If Kyle had been at the car dealership owned by his uncle and was part of a family effort to defend it. I’d say probably justified. Maybe. Still the issue of the illegal weapon, but maybe.

But none of that is the case. Kyle wasn’t minding his business. Kyle was not where he belonged. Kyle was out playing life like a game. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

And that means self defense is going to be a hard sell if the Prosecutor is able to establish that narrative.

 

[freyasman]

The video is good. It shows what happened during. It does not show us what led up to those events.

Like the McMichaels in Brunswick. The video shows us the events. But it does not show the sequence of events leading to the the shooting.

For that you need the narrative. And you need common sense.

In Fiction. The readers or viewers have to believe this could happen to be invested in the story. It is called suspension of disbelief.

In this case we have the same situation. We have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that Kyle was justified. We have to believe he had valid reasons for being where he should not have been. Okay we are running into problems.

As I said in my other response. He didn’t know anyone there. He wasn’t coming to the aid of a friend or family member.

We have to believe that Kyle didn’t expect trouble and was armed. Well just because. Yet he knew he was not permitted to legally own the weapon much less possess it. His associates were similarly armed and were talking about teaching the protestors a lesson. Well if Kyle didn’t expect trouble why would he go through the trouble to procure an illegal weapon?

Kyle claimed he was a paramedic. There was no way for him to be trained and certified at his age.

I believe in the right of self defense. I am a supporter. But for self defense to apply you have to be minding your own business before the event begins. You can’t start or escalate the situation. You can’t be looking for trouble.

If Kyle had been at the house of his sister when the people broke in and he killed them. I’d say justified. If Kyle had been at the car dealership owned by his uncle and was part of a family effort to defend it. I’d say probably justified. Maybe. Still the issue of the illegal weapon, but maybe.

But none of that is the case. Kyle wasn’t minding his business. Kyle was not where he belonged. Kyle was out playing life like a game. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

And that means self defense is going to be a hard sell if the Prosecutor is able to establish that narrative.

I don't agree.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Note that just before this, there's...

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

For (c) to apply, the state must prove that whatever Rittenhouse supposedly did to provoke the opeople in question, he did so with the intent to use the attack as an excuse to kill them.

Good luck with that.

To believe Rittenmhouse did not act in self-defense is to believe the people he shot had the right to chase after him with the intent to cause him harm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In this case we have the same situation. We have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that Kyle was justified. We have to believe he had valid reasons for being where he should not have been. Okay we are running into problems.

Horsepoop.
To believe Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense, you have to believe the people he shot had a right to chase him with the intent to harm him.
Full stop.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I skimmed it. It was the usual. The problem is that you can’t claim self defense, or at least the claim is weak, if you are committing a crime, or looking for trouble. Kyle falls into both categories.

Nonsense.
Whatever Rittemhouse may have done to provoke a response - and at this point, no one knows - his right to self-defense resets as soon as he disengages:

939.48
(2)
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

To believe he had no right to self-defense necessitates the belief the people chasing him with the intent to do harm had the right to do so.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm willing to conjecture that if he had not been brandishing a wrongfully obtained weapon, brandishing it illegally in the state of Wisconsin.....well, this may just be me, but I suspect nobody would have been chasing him.

Why do you chase a person you know is armed with an AR15, othrt than to cause him harm?
When do you have a right to chase someone with the intent to cause him harm?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Of course the demonstrators had the right to harm Rittenhouse.

LOL
Please cite the section of WI law that allows a person to run someone down with the intent to harm him.

 

[freyasman]

If you are driving without a valid license, and someone attempts to carjack you, do you no longer have a right to defend yourself?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

To believe Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense, you have to believe the people he shot had a right to chase him with the intent to harm him.

An easy narrative to establish. If they rightfully perceived a threat from the person with the deadly weapon, they had the right to chase him off or fight for their lives. I know you think you are making some sort of amazing point, but you really are not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you are driving without a valid license, and someone attempts to carjack you, do you no longer have a right to defend yourself?

You do. You are not looking for trouble or initiating or escalating violence.

 

[Correll]

Great, let's see your proof Rosenbaum reached for the gun...

That was a very sudden change of subject. Is that you way of admitting that I proved my point about leftard "reporters"?


Or, are you just sliming away from that for now, because I humiliated you, but you plan to come back to it later, late the Wally you are.

 

[Correll]

A mere lower ability thinking kid doesn't belong in a riot. Why would any parent let their kid go there? This doesn't to me play into the trial but that is the last place I'd let my kid go.

That "kid" handled himself better than ANYONE else there that night.

 

[Correll]

The video is good. It shows what happened during. It does not show us what led up to those events.

Like the McMichaels in Brunswick. The video shows us the events. But it does not show the sequence of events leading to the the shooting.

For that you need the narrative. And you need common sense.

In Fiction. The readers or viewers have to believe this could happen to be invested in the story. It is called suspension of disbelief.

In this case we have the same situation. We have to suspend disbelief to come to the conclusion that Kyle was justified. We have to believe he had valid reasons for being where he should not have been. Okay we are running into problems.

As I said in my other response. He didn’t know anyone there. He wasn’t coming to the aid of a friend or family member.

he knew that there was civil unrest going on. He went to help defend property from rioters. He was also looking to offer medical assistance to people who might get injured in the rioting. These are valid reasons to go.

We have to believe that Kyle didn’t expect trouble and was armed. Well just because.

That's stupid. He was armed to deter rioters from attempting to destroy the building they were defending. That is a valid reason to be armed. YOur dishonest attempt to pretend that there could be no legitimate reason for him to be armed, shows that on some level, you know that your position is weak.

Yet he knew he was not permitted to legally own the weapon much less possess it. His associates were similarly armed and were talking about teaching the protestors a lesson. Well if Kyle didn’t expect trouble why would he go through the trouble to procure an illegal weapon?

So he could help protect his community. Are you really unable to imagine that as a motive? That reflects very poorly on you.

Kyle claimed he was a paramedic. There was no way for him to be trained and certified at his age.

So, maybe he's trained and not certified. Whoop de fucking do.

I believe in the right of self defense. I am a supporter. But for self defense to apply you have to be minding your own business before the event begins. You can’t start or escalate the situation. You can’t be looking for trouble.

I don't believe that is true. I don't think that you have to "be minding your own business". If I am standing at a bus stop and a thug comes up and attacks a woman, I am not required to just stand there like a pussy, liberal, fucking coward, because he is not attacking me personally.

If Kyle had been at the house of his sister when the people broke in and he killed them. I’d say justified. If Kyle had been at the car dealership owned by his uncle and was part of a family effort to defend it. I’d say probably justified. Maybe. Still the issue of the illegal weapon, but maybe.

But none of that is the case. Kyle wasn’t minding his business. Kyle was not where he belonged. Kyle was out playing life like a game. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing the wrong thing.

And that means self defense is going to be a hard sell if the Prosecutor is able to establish that narrative.

The jury is supposed to be instructed to only find guilt, if the prosecutor proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


Simply "establishing a narrative" is not grounds for a conviction. Unless the court is biased and/or the jury is tainted.

 

[Faun]

That was a very sudden change of subject. Is that you way of admitting that I proved my point about leftard "reporters"?


Or, are you just sliming away from that for now, because I humiliated you, but you plan to come back to it later, late the Wally you are.


View attachment 521939

So you have no proof. Pretty much blows up Rittenhouse's shot at self-defense.

 

[freyasman]

An easy narrative to establish. If they rightfully perceived a threat from the person with the deadly weapon, they had the right to chase him off or fight for their lives. I know you think you are making some sort of amazing point, but you really are not.

Well that's not true at all.

 

[freyasman]

You do. You are not looking for trouble or initiating or escalating violence.

Neither was he.

And you have zero evidence that he was.

 

[initforme]

He is not too bright of a kid. That doesn't help.

 

[Correll]

So you have no proof. Pretty much blows up Rittenhouse's shot at self-defense.

LOL!!!! Chased by a mob, on video, and you think he needs evidence that the lead member of the attacking mob, did a specific attack?

LOL!!!


Your side has to prove that it was NOT self defense. If there is even a REASONABLE CHANCE THAT Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse,


which, considering the video, is very reasonable,


the jury has to acquit.


Unless the fix is in.

 

[Faun]

LOL!!!! Chased by a mob, on video, and you think he needs evidence that the lead member of the attacking mob, did a specific attack?

LOL!!!


Your side has to prove that it was NOT self defense. If there is even a REASONABLE CHANCE THAT Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse,


which, considering the video, is very reasonable,


the jury has to acquit.


Unless the fix is in.

Are you too dense to pay attention?

Seems so. Let's try this again .... prove Rosenbaum tried to take the gun from Rittenhouse....

^^^ that was the question. Who knows what question you answered?