Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[M14 Shooter]

It is relevant because Rittenhouse just might be a racist looking for someone to shoot.

He might be an alien in an Edgar suit.

The film may not be the complete story.

It fully asnwers the questions you raised.

 

[Bobob]

He might be an alien in an Edgar suit.

It fully asnwers the questions you raised.

No it does not answer the questions that I raised because the film may be a complete showing of the activity. You have not answered my question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No it does not answer the questions that I raised...

It does. Should you actually watch it, you'll understand.

 

[freyasman]

It is relevant because Rittenhouse just might be a racist looking for someone to shoot.
The film may not be the complete story.

Do you fucking hear yourself?

 

[freyasman]

It does. Should you actually watch it, you'll understand.

I don't think he will.

He doesn't want to.

 

[Canon Shooter]

But you -do- agree that pretty much everyone goes everywhere with the willingness to kill in self-defense.
That being the case, how/why does the fact Rittenenhouse armed himself has any bearing in his claim of self-defense?

Well, when he armed himself he broke the law. That's going to come into play during his trial, and it's not going to be very favorable for him...

 

[Bobob]

Do you fucking hear yourself?

Do you fucking understand that their may be more than the film shows?

 

[Correll]

He was not forced. He was ordered to leave the area. He refused.

Kyle would not be facing prison right now if he had obeyed the law just one time.

Think about it. He could have not purchased the weapon illegally. He could have not taken it with him. He could have not gone to an area he wasn’t supposed to be in. He could have not trespassed on private property without the owners permission. He could have left the area when instructed.

If he had obeyed the law just once in that chain. Just one time. He would be talking to recruiters or in basic training now. Not even every time. Just once.

But like all tragedies there is a chain of events. And all you have to do to stop the tragedy from occurring is not break the rules one time. Break the chain.

Kyle made every decision cognizant that he was breaking the law. If he didn’t believe there would be consequences then blame his parents for not exposing that to him. He made every choice based upon his delusions of glorious heroics.

And if things went badly he had to answer for his choices. Things went badly. And now he’s screwed. He forged every link in the chain of disaster. All he had to do to avoid all of this is just do what he was told to by the law just one time. Just one time.

You are ignoring the entire chain of events on the side of antifa/the cops that could have led to no violence.


1. The cops could have left Rittenhouse rejoin his group, which the brave mob was afraid to attack.

2. Rittenhouse and hte rest of the mob could had obeyed the curfew and not been there.

3. Rittenhouse and the rest of the mob could have NOT attacked Rittenhouse.


And THREE is the big one. If the Antifa Mob had not made a violent attack on Rittenhouse, he would not have had to defended himself.



You are choosing to put all the responsibility on Rittenhouse, AND denying him his right to self defense for political reasons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, when he armed himself he broke the law.

If you pick up a fallen police officer's gun and use it to protect said police officer, you have broken the law

That's going to come into play during his trial, and it's not going to be very favorable for him...

How does the fact he may have been in illegal possession a firearm negate his claim of self-defense?

 

[Canon Shooter]

If you pick up a fallen police officer's gun and use it to protect said police officer, you have broken the law

Please cite that law.

Let me save you time: I haven't broken the law...

How does the fact he may have been in illegal possession a firearm negate his claim of self-defense?

As I've already stated, he was breaking the law by being there with an illegally obtained AR-15. Since he'd already broken the law, it's going to be difficult for the defense to demonstrate that the kid was some law abiding citizen just try to protect property. Showing that he had a predisposition for violence, as evidenced by him carrying an illegal firearm in some town in a different state than his residence, will be a comparatively easy road to travel...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please cite that law.
Let me save you time: You haven't broken the law...

It;'s legal to steal a gun from a police officer?

As I've already stated, he was breaking the law by being there with an illegally obtained AR-15.

This is irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

Since he'd already broken the law, it's going to be difficult for the defense to demonstrate that the kid was some law abiding citizen just try to protect property.

This is irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

Showing that he had a presdisposition for violence, as evidenced by him carrying an illegal firearm ...

No firearms are illegal
Non-sequitur.
There is no demonstrable necessary relationship between carrying a weapon - illegally or otherwise - and a predisposition for violence.

in some town in a different state than his residence...

This is irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

I ask again:
How does the fact he may have been in illegal possession a firearm negate his claim of self-defense?

 

[Canon Shooter]

It;'s legal to steal a gun from a police officer?

If I'm using it to defend the downed cop and myself, where is the theft?

This is irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

Seriously?

His claim of self-defense, and his possession of an illegally obtained firearm, are going to be central issues in his trial. If you believe otherwise, please let me know and I'll not engage you further...

This is irrelevant to his claim of self-defense..

See above...

No firearms are illegal

Illegally obtained, illegal, synonymous...

Non-sequitur.
There is no demonstrable necessary relationship between carrying a weapon - illegally or otherwise - and a predisposition for violence.

Again, this is something which is likely to be central to the prosecution's case. Believing it's not relevant is simply stupid...

This is irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

I ask again:
How does the fact he may have been in illegal possession a firearm negate his claim of self-defense?

Okay, Rain Man, I'm about done with you and your idiocy. I've explained this. If you're too stupid to comprehend it, c'est la vie. I'll move on to discussions with people who have IQ's which exceed their shoe size...

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I'm using it to defend the downed cop and myself, where is the theft?

You took possession of it w/o permission.
Theft.

His claim of self-defense, and his possession of an illegally obtained firearm, are going to be central issues in his trial.

Repeating yourself does not make you correct.
Illegal possession of a firearm does not negate -any - of the basic tenets of self-defense as laid out n WI law.
If you believe otherwise, please let me know and I'll not engage you further...

Illegally obtained, illegal, synonymous...

False.
An "illegal weapon" is a weapon that is illegal or anyone to possess.
"Illegal possession" means, because of the particulars of the law, it is illegal for certain people to possess.
It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm; that does not make said firearm illegal.
Non synonymous.

Again, this is something which is likely to be central to the prosecution's case. Believing it's not relevant is simply stupid...

Repeating yourself does not make you correct.
You -know- you cannot demonstrate how his possibly illegal possession of a firearm negates -any - of the basic tenets of self-defende as laid out in WI law.

Okay, Rain Man, I'm about done with you and your idiocy. I've explained this.

Yes. And your explanations hold ZERO water under WI laws re: self-defense

If you're too stupid to comprehend

I accept your surrender.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You took possession of it w/o permission.
Theft.

If I took possession of it and left the scene, that would be theft.

Think of it this way: If I pick up a downed cops gun and use it to defend him and me, and I don't leave the scene until more cops show up, what prosecutor is going to charge me with theft?

Right...

Repeating yourself does not make you correct.

Physician heal thyself...

Illegal possession of a firearm does not negate -any - of the basic tenets of self-defense as laid out n WI law.

And that's why I made no such claim. Stop lying about what I've said...

If you believe otherwise, please let me know and I'll not engage you further...

False.
An "illegal weapon" is a weapon that is illegal or anyone to possess.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

My six year old nephew does the same thing...

"Illegal possession" means, because of the particulars of the law, it is illegal for certain people to possess.

No shit. See, I thought you were intelligent enough to understand that, when I say "illegal firearm" that I'm referring to the legality of a minor possessing it...

It is illegal for a felon to possess a firearm; that does not make said firearm illegal.
Non synonymous.

Again, Rain Man.

For someone who wants to be critical of me repeating myself, you sure do repeat yourself...

Repeating yourself does not make you correct.

You seem to think... never mind...

You -know- you cannot demonstrate how his possibly illegal possession of a firearm negates -any - of the basic tenets of self-defende as laid out in WI law.

Again, I made mo such claim. I said I believe it will be easy to demonstrate that Rittenhouse had a predisposition to violence, which could impact the voracity of his self-defense claim.

And there's no "possible ill.egal possession". The law on this is crystal clear...

Yes. And your explanations hold ZERO water under WI laws re: self-defense

Well, I'm also not bar certified in Wisconsin, so that's neither here nor there.

There's no debate that Rittenhouse illegally obtained the rifle. The law is clear. There's no debate that he was in possession of said illegally obtained firearm when he shot and killed two people. Those are inarguable facts...

I accept your surrender.

Ha, what a fucking fool.

Your inability to comprehend simp[le concepts doesn't constitute a "win" for you. All it does is prove that you're dumber than a bag of hammers...

 

[initforme]

Why is anyone opposed to a trial? This way the facts come out. This is the best result for the young man.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I took possession of it and left the scene, that would be theft.

That's possibly right.
If you take the gun w/o permission, that's illegal possession.
According to you, being in illegal possession of a firearm means you cannot legally defend the police officer with same.

Physician heal thyself...

When you can show me how the possibly illegal possession of a firearm negates -any - of the basic tenets of self-defende as laid out in WI law, let me know - else you're simply repeating yourself.
Absent such a demonstration, your argument to that effect holds zero water.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

I accept your admission of your error

My six year old nephew does the same thing...

And is likely better at it than you.

Again, I made mo such claim. I said I believe it will be easy to demonstrate that Rittenhouse had a predisposition to violence....

Again - there is no demonstrably necessary relationship between the possible illegal possession of a fiirrarm and a predisposition to violence,
Disagree?
Demonstrate that necessary relationship -- it should be "easy", you say

And there's no "possible ill.egal possession". The law on this is crystal clear...

Think so?
Cite the relevant section of WI law you believe he violated, and copy/paste the text to that effect.

Ha, what a fucking fool.\

I accept your surrender.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why is anyone opposed to a trial? This way the facts come out. This is the best result for the young man.

The Democrats wanted a trial, and welcome the rioting an acquittal will bring.

 

[Canon Shooter]

That's possibly right.
If you take the gun w/o permission, that's illegal possession.
According to you, being in illegal possession of a firearm means you cannot legally defend the police officer with same.

Fine.

Cite the law which shows it's theft.

I can, and have numerous times, cited the law which shows Rittenhouse illegally posses the AR-15 he hs.

Do the same for me and a downed cop's gun, or admit that you simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about...

When you can show me how the possibly illegal possession of a firearm negates -any - of the basic tenets of self-defende as laid out in WI law, let me know - else you're simply repeating yourself.
Absent such a demonstration, your argument to that effect holds zero water.

Exactly how fucking ignorant are you?

You're asking me to show you something I've never claimed to be the case. I never said it negates the tenets of self-defense (not that you would actually know what those are). Since I've never made such a claim, why are you asking me to prove some fantasy claim that I did?

I accept your admission of your error

My only error was assuming you were intelligent enough to carry on a reasoned discussion of the topic.

You're not.

You're an insolent child...

And is likely better at it than you.

You're an idiot.

I was comparing him to you, simpleton...

Again - there is no demonstrably necessary relationship between the possible illegal possession of a fiirrarm and a predisposition to violence,
Disagree?

You are officially the dumbest motherfucker on the internet.

No, I do not disagree with you. I'm saying that the prosecution will make that a central part of their case. You're an absolute dipshit if you believe they won't...

Demonstrate that necessary relationship -- it should be "easy", you say

God, I can't believe how stupid you are.

The prosecution will make that case. Do you believe they won't?

Think so?
Cite the relevant section of WI law you believe he violated, and copy/paste the text to that effect.

This is probably the fifth or sixth time I've posted this. Then only reason I'm doing it again is that you're clearly not intelligent enough to go back and find it:

(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(3)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

Just to remind you, Rittenhouse was 17 years of age.

Those are from the website of the Wisconsin State Legislature, so I'll assume it's a reliable source...

Now, cite the law that says that if I use a downed cop's gun to defend him and me that I'm guilty of theft.

I challenge you, although I'm absolutely certain you'll prove to be a complete and utter failure at doing so...

I accept your surrender.

Again, Rain Man, when you prove that you're too goddamn stupid to wrap your pointed head around simple concepts, the only place that might be considered a "surrender" is in the aforementioned pointed little head...

 

[Correll]

Why is anyone opposed to a trial? This way the facts come out. This is the best result for the young man.

Because it is a clear case of self defense and there is thus no need for a trial with all the cost and trouble this causes for the community and the people involved.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly how fucking ignorant are you?

Translation:
You know you can not meet the challenge put to you .

You're asking me to show you something I've never claimed to be the case. I never said it negates the tenets of self-defense...

So you agree:
The fact he he may have illegally possessed a firearm in no way negates his claim of self-defense.
Good.

My only error was assuming you were intelligent enough to carry on a reasoned discussion of the topic.
You're not.
You're an insolent child...
You're an idiot.

Translation:
You know you can not meet the challenge put to you .

I was comparing him to you, simpleton...

I'm sorry you don;t like the fact your 6yr old nephew is better at arguing semnatics than you, but there's nothing I can do about it.

No, I do not disagree with you. I'm saying that the prosecution will make that a central part of their case.

And, as you agree there is no necessary relationship between the illegal possession of a firearm and a propensity to violence, you must also agree they will fail in their attempt to do so.

This is probably the fifth or sixth time I've posted this. Then only reason I'm doing it again is that you're clearly not intelligent enough to go back and find it:
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(3)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.

You forgot this section:
(3)
(c) 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.
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. - does not apply
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age - does not apply
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval - does not apply

So, your claim that he was in illegal possession of a firearm is tenuous., at best.

Again, Rain Man, when you prove that you're too goddamn stupid...

I accept your surrender.