Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[freyasman]

Poor analogy. If someone threatens you in the street with a rifle and you go at him, even if he is backing away, you wont get charged. And he doesn't get to shoot you and call it self defense.

But you are completely fabricating the story that he threatened anyone, and everyone knows it.

That won't fly.

 

[freyasman]

What was he doing there with an illegal weapon?

Getting attacked.

 

[Correll]

But you are completely fabricating the story that he threatened anyone, and everyone knows it.

That won't fly.

But they have a "reporter" who was there, and saw it. A "reporter"!!!

Probably "freelance". Who also self identifies as a wacial justice activist.

 

[freyasman]

But they have a "reporter" who was there, and saw it. A "reporter"!!!

Probably "freelance". Who also self identifies as a wacial justice activist.

If that was the guy right behind Rosenbaum when he was shot, I saw a video where HE stated that Rosenbaum was lunging and trying to grab the rifle.

 

[Faun]

Are you saying there is no evidence that Rosenbaum tried to grab the rifle away from him?

Correll implies there isn't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But you are completely fabricating the story that he threatened anyone, and everyone knows it.

Apparently not. There is enough evidence to support it that he is charged with murder. In addition, the prosecution does not strictly have to prove that he threatened anyone (though they will argue it, using evidence to support it).

Why do you say such dumb things? I mean, fine to have that opinion, but trying to embellish it for emotional effect the way you are only makes you look silly.

 

[freyasman]

Apparently not. There is enough evidence to support it that he is charged with murder. In addition, the prosecution does not strictly have to prove that he threatened anyone (though they will argue it, using evidence to support it).

Why do you say such dumb things? I mean, fine to have that opinion, but trying to embellish it for emotional effect the way you are only makes you look silly.

No, there isn't.

And yes, they do have to, in order to discredit his video evidence from multiple sources, that he was the victim.

You're just wrong.

 

[Correll]

Correll implies there isn't.

No, I didn't.

 

[Correll]

Apparently not. There is enough evidence to support it that he is charged with murder. In addition, the prosecution does not strictly have to prove that he threatened anyone (though they will argue it, using evidence to support it).

Why do you say such dumb things? I mean, fine to have that opinion, but trying to embellish it for emotional effect the way you are only makes you look silly.

The decision to prosecute was clearly a political one. THe video evidence clearly shows that Rittenhouse was chased and attacked by a violent mob of lefties.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, there isn't.

No, there isn't.

Yep, that's what the defense will say. They might need some good luck, given the video and testimony we already know about. And whatever else they may have that we haven't heard or seen.

And yes, they do have to, in order to discredit his video evidence from multiple sources, that he was the victim.

No, and that has already been well explained in the thread. The prosecution has a strong argument that he went there looking for trouble. Its well supported just by what we have seen and heard. Remember, the defense also have to convince 12 jurors.

 

[freyasman]

You folks are saying that he threatened someone simply by being there visibly armed, but several of the people rioting were also there, and also visibly armed.
You're also saying, that these people who he supposedly threatened, despite there being absolutely no evidence of it, were in such fear of their lives that they were compelled to chase him down as he was RUNNING AWAY, and attack him over and over, lest they be killed.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[freyasman]

Yep, that's what the defense will say. They might need some good luck, given the video and testimony we already know about. And whatever else they may have that we haven't heard or seen.



No, and that has already been well explained in the thread. The prosecution has a strong argument that he went there looking for trouble. Its well supported just by what we have seen and heard. Remember, the defense also have to convince 12 jurors.

Disagree.

 

[Correll]

You folks are saying that he threatened someone simply by being there visibly armed, but several of the people rioting were also there, and also visibly armed.
You're also saying, that these people who he supposedly threatened, despite there being absolutely no evidence of it, were in such fear of their lives that they were compelled to chase him down as he was RUNNING AWAY, and attack him over and over, lest they be killed.

Does that about sum it up?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You folks are saying that he threatened someone simply by being there visibly armed

Hmm, no. Not what i am saying. Others there were also visibly armed. They didn't get in confrontations with protestors. I am saying he confronted them. Pretty much one of the things he said he was.going there to do. From whom or what do you think he meant to "protect property" with his illegal rifle? Pigeons?

 

[Correll]

Hmm, no. Not what i am saying. Others there were also visibly armed. They didn't get in confrontations with protestors. I am saying he confronted them. Pretty much one of the things he said he was.going there to do. From whom or what do you think he meant to "protect property" with his illegal rifle? Pigeons?

Protecting property, (thank you for admitting that was his intent) does not require any confrontations.


It requires standing there and by their presence deterring sub human animals from attacking .

D"uh.

 

[freyasman]

Hmm, no. Not what i am saying. Others there were also visibly armed. They didn't get in confrontations with protestors. I am saying he confronted them. Pretty much one of the things he said he was.going there to do. From whom or what do you think he meant to "protect property" with his illegal rifle? Pigeons?

Who did he confront?

Give me a name.

 

[Faun]

No, I didn't.

Of course you did. I challenged you to prove Rosenbaum grabbed at his gun and you punted because you can't prove it. That you can't prove it is you implying it didn't happen.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Who did he confront?

Give me a name.

Could be any number of people. It doesn't have to be broken down that far. He went looking for trouble and found it. The other armed people didn't. But the kid all on his own with an illegal gun in a place he wasn't supposed to be found trouble. The prosecutors will argue he was looking for it, and that's how he found it. And that he gets no protection from self defense.

i get it, you aren't convinced. Good thing I am not a prosecutor, i guess.

 

[Correll]

Of course you did. I challenged you to prove Rosenbaum grabbed at his gun and you punted because you can't prove it. That you can't prove it is you implying it didn't happen.

None of what you just said it true.

 

[Faun]

None of what you just said it true.

Suuuure, uh-huh.

Then stop running from the challenge and prove Rosenbaum grabbed at his gun....