Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

The guy filming it. He was running along behind them. Was he alone, or was he surrounded by people. Such as the people that immediately moved up to continue the attack on Rittenhouse.


NOte the lack of a question mark. That was not a mistake.

That guy wasn't chasing Rittenhouse. Try harder next time.

 

[freyasman]

Yep! They prosecution will speak to events not in the video, also.

I don't think there is "no case" for self defense. I think the case is weak.

Did you know Rittenhouse is also charged with reckless endangerment? Do you know why? Honest question. If not, you should look it up.

I did hear that.

Isn't that guy the one who saw Rosenbaum trying to attack him and steal the rifle?

 

[Canon Shooter]

The burden of proof in not on the accused.

Well, the prosecution won't do anything with it, then.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

I understand the desire to seer the kid go free. After all, the vermin he killed were part of a nationwide scourge that was destroying our country. It's easy to romanticize his actions in defense of those less capable and hold him up as a hero.

But there are some undeniable truths which, when considered, paint a bleak picture for the young Rittenhouse.

Rittenhouse illegally acquired the rifle he had. That can't even be debated. That, in and of itself, is a misdemeanor (although the friend who got it for him faces more serious charges). He could not legally possess the firearm whether he was home in Illinois or in Kenosha where the shooting took place. The fact that he used that weapon to kill two people could elevate the possession of the weapon to a felony, which in turn elevates the severity of all other charges connected to the case.

I don't want to see the kid go to prison, but I think he's going to. It's far more important that the rule of law be a higher priority than some stupid kid who wanted to be a vigilante...

 

[K9Buck]

than some stupid kid who wanted to be a vigilante...

The local authorities were refusing to protect citizens and their property. Do you believe that everyone who stands up to a group of arsonists is a "vigilante"?

 

[SavannahMann]

Getting attacked.

So two criminals were fighting? Glad to see you are finally beginning to understand why he was charged.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes it does.

And if he was there looking for trouble, then how were the armed rioters NOT doing the same?

I hate to reiterate upon reiteration. But I’m going to say it again. There were no good guys there that night.

 

[K9Buck]

False. No one but Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse initially. It was not a mob chasing Rittenhouse; it was one guy with a zip lock baggie holding a deodorant stick.

What do you believe Rittenhouse should be convicted of?

 

[SavannahMann]

The local authorities were refusing to protect citizens and their property. Do you believe that everyone who stands up to a group of arsonists is a "vigilante"?

If it isn’t your property. Yes. That is literally the definition of vigilante.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The local authorities were refusing to protect citizens and their property. Do you believe that everyone who stands up to a group of arsonists is a "vigilante"?

Well, yeah.

Here's the definition of "vigilante": a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.

So, by definition, everyone who stands up to a group of arsonists is, in fact, a vigilante.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't necessarily have a problem with vigilantes. But when a kid arms himself illegally there are other potential issues which could easily manifest themselves.

Rittenhouse had no business being there with a gun...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Isn't that guy the one who saw Rosenbaum trying to attack him and steal the rifle?

The whole world saw Rosenbaum go at him and try to get to the rifle, really.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What do you believe Rittenhouse should be convicted of?

I initially said manslaughter but, after some more reading, I've found that "manslaughter" actually doesn't exist in Wisconsin. It's now known as second-degree intentional homicide and is a Class B felony punishable by up to 60 years in prison...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you believe Rittenhouse should be convicted of?

And that's the real question. That should be the thread title of the main topic on this. And it's okay if minds change, if more information comes out.

I admit, i think he should be convicted of something, but still he was a child. Basically, slightly mentally challenged. 17 years old. I for one would not judge the child a psychotic or a sociopath over only this, given that I know very little about his mentality.. Did he not understand the seriousness of what he was doing. Or did he?

Was he hoping to "bag a protestor"? If so, he should pay the price for 1st degree murder, psychotic or not.

But, just a stupid kid with delusions of grandeur and too much time alone with his fantasies? Does that deserve life in prison? I don't think it does.

 

[freyasman]

So two criminals were fighting? Glad to see you are finally beginning to understand why he was charged.

I didn't see any "fight"; I did see multiple assaults and and the victim defending himself.

 

[freyasman]

I hate to reiterate upon reiteration. But I’m going to say it again. There were no good guys there that night.

But there were attackers and defenders.

 

[Faun]

What do you believe Rittenhouse should be convicted of?

Murder.

 

[K9Buck]

Murder.

Wow.

And if a woman shoots her rapist, you probably want her charged with murder too. I hope you never serve on a jury. You are not a reasonable person.

 

[K9Buck]

And that's the real question. That should be the thread title of the main topic on this. And it's okay if minds change, if more information comes out.

I admit, i think he should be convicted of something, but still he was a child. Basically, slightly mentally challenged. 17 years old. I for one would not judge the child a psychotic or a sociopath over only this, given that I know very little about his mentality.. Did he not understand the seriousness of what he was doing. Or did he?

Was he hoping to "bag a protestor"? If so, he should pay the price for 1st degree murder, psychotic or not.

But, just a stupid kid with delusions of grandeur and too much time alone with his fantasies? Does that deserve life in prison? I don't think it does.

He was cleaning graffiti off of walls earlier in the day. He smartly carried a gun for protection as the left is notoriously violent. Later that night, leftists were committing acts of arson and the local government refused to protect private property. Rittenhouse put out a fire and that's when one of the violent leftists attacked him, or at least, tried to attack. You see, Rittenhouse RAN AWAY. The violent leftist, for whatever reason, chose to chase Rittenhouse in order to attack him.

Do you believe that Rittenhouse was justified in protecting himself?

 

[SavannahMann]

I didn't see any "fight"; I did see multiple assaults and and the victim defending himself.

So let’s say an armed robber kills the clerk because the clerk attacked the robber. Is that also self defense?

 

[SavannahMann]

But there were attackers and defenders.

And both were engaged in illegal activity when attacking and defending.

 

[Faun]

Wow.

And if a woman shoots her rapist, you probably want her charged with murder too. I hope you never serve on a jury. You are not a reasonable person.

No, you're just retarded.