Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Correll]

Drama Queen, he is facing life in prison for murder. Not for breaking curfew. Not for impersonating an EMT. Not for illegally carrying a dangerous weapon.

I addressed that. My point stands. His claim of self defense should be examined based on it's merits, not thrown out because of legal technicalities.

 

[Correll]

There was no "violent mob" attacking him when he shot Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum, hadn't attacked him, he alone ran after Rittenhouse.

REally?

Kenosha unrest shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The beginning of the first confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum was witnessed by McGinniss to whom it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum then tried to "engage" Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse managed to avoid this by sidestepping and running away."

 

[Faun]

I addressed that. My point stands. His claim of self defense should be examined based on it's merits, not thrown out because of legal technicalities.

Unfortunately for him, that's not how the law is written in Wisconsin.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Do you want the claim of self defense to be looked at based on it's merits?

Absolutely. Why would I not?

 

[Faun]

REally?

Kenosha unrest shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The beginning of the first confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum was witnessed by McGinniss to whom it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum then tried to "engage" Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse managed to avoid this by sidestepping and running away."

LOLOL

You can’t go by what McGinnis says.

Try harder next time.

 

[Correll]

Unfortunately for him, that's not how the law is written in Wisconsin.

Law should be tempered by Justice.

It is not Just to prosecute a man for crimes while refusing to look at the merits of the case because he was supposedly a "child" at teh time of the alleged crimes.


That is why we have Judges and Juries and not fill in the bloc forms.

 

[Correll]

Absolutely. Why would I not?

Because many do not. It has been speculated by many that the prosecutors will attempt to bar Rittenhouse from claiming self defense because he was a minor at the time of the attack, and thus "breaking the law" by possessing a firearm.

Would it bother you if he was found guilty, WITHOUT being allowed to claim self defense?

 

[Correll]

LOLOL

You can’t go by what McGinnis says.

Try harder next time.

You want to back that up? What is wrong with McGinnis?

 

[Faun]

Law should be tempered by Justice.

It is not Just to prosecute a man for crimes while refusing to look at the merits of the case because he was supposedly a "child" at teh time of the alleged crimes.


That is why we have Judges and Juries and not fill in the bloc forms.


View attachment 527518

The law guides the merits of the case. The law will not be ignored because idiots like you want law ignored that you find pesky and inconvenient.

 

[Correll]

The law guides the merits of the case. The law will not be ignored because idiots like you want law ignored that you find pesky and inconvenient.

The law does not "guide the merits of the case". That doesn't even make sense.


The merits of the case ARE. They exist. You are the one that wants to have a trial without looking at the actual facts of what happened. YOu want to USE the Law to have an excuse to have a trial, without looking at the facts of the case.



That is what you are.

 

[Faun]

You want to back that up? What is wrong with McGinnis?

LOLOL

YOU impeached him as a witness.

Because he is not really a reporter. Even "real" reporters are more often political activists now days, specifically lefty anti-American political activists.

SOrry, you have the word of a "reporter" that clashes with video evidence, and the "reporters" words are worth NOTHING.

Yes, a reporter. So why can't he be trusted?

Sure he wasn't. Let me guess. A "reporter" covering the riot for his... objective and non-partisan youtube channel?


LOL!!!

​

McGinnis is the same witness I referred to who said he observed Rittenhouse not handling his gun "very well." Which you want to dismiss because you think he can't be trusted. Only now that you discover he also described the initial chase, NOW you want to trust him.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I addressed that. My point stands. His claim of self defense should be examined based on it's merits, not thrown out because of legal technicalities.

But if you had your way, those legal technicalities would be completely ignored.

That's not right, either...

 

[Faun]

The law does not "guide the merits of the case". That doesn't even make sense.


The merits of the case ARE. They exist. You are the one that wants to have a trial without looking at the actual facts of what happened. YOu want to USE the Law to have an excuse to have a trial, without looking at the facts of the case.



That is what you are.

The merits are governed by the law. And I never said I don't want them looked at in trial. They should be. And if I'm right, the court will rule this was not a case of self-defense.

 

[Correll]

LOLOL

YOU impeached him as a witness.

​

McGinnis is the same witness I referred to who said he observed Rittenhouse not handling his gun "very well." Which you want to dismiss because you think he can't be trusted. Only now that you discover he also described the initial chase, NOW you want to trust him.

The burden of proof in on those that want to put Rittenhouse away. You are the one that needs to paint Rosenbaums chase and approach and interaction with Rittenhouse as NOT an attack, to refute the claim to self defense.


Which is why you are hoping that the claim never gets looked at, based on it's merits.


If McGinnis is a self identified leftard, and I'm willing to bet he is, and his testimony UNDERMINES the idea that his fellow leftards were innocent victims, that is him testifying COUNTER to his expected biases.


That supports his credibility.


You show me a mother who says her child is innocent, and I don't find that credible. You show me a mother than admits her child is guilty, that carries weight.


This is the portion of the discussion where the liberal pretends to be too stupid to understand a simple concept.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Because many do not.

Well, then talk to them.

Don't stupidly make the assumption that I'm going to go along with the crowd.

I'm actually a bit of an anomaly with regards to this case. I'm not calling for his head on a pike, nor am I shouting that he needs to be released. I'm saying we should take everything surrounding this case into consideration and, based on the entirety of that, we should allow him to stand and be judged...

It has been speculated by many that the prosecutors will attempt to bar Rittenhouse from claiming self defense because he was a minor at the time of the attack, and thus "breaking the law" by possessing a firearm.

[/QUOTE]

Okay, and?

His age has nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of the self-defense claim.

And I don't understand why you put "breaking the law" in quotations. It's exactly what he did. That's an inarguable fact of this case...

Would it bother you if he was found guilty, WITHOUT being allowed to claim self defense?

The court can't keep him from making the claim of self defense. The prosecution cannot keep him from making the claim of self defense. He can claim whatever he wants...

 

[Faun]

The burden of proof in on those that want to put Rittenhouse away. You are the one that needs to paint Rosenbaums chase and approach and interaction with Rittenhouse as NOT an attack, to refute the claim to self defense.


Which is why you are hoping that the claim never gets looked at, based on it's merits.


If McGinnis is a self identified leftard, and I'm willing to bet he is, and his testimony UNDERMINES the idea that his fellow leftards were innocent victims, that is him testifying COUNTER to his expected biases.


That supports his credibility.


You show me a mother who says her child is innocent, and I don't find that credible. You show me a mother than admits her child is guilty, that carries weight.


This is the portion of the discussion where the liberal pretends to be too stupid to understand a simple concept.

LOLOL

Moron, you don't get to cherry pick testimony you like from a witness you yourself impeached.



Either he's a credible witness or he's not.

You say he's not. So don't use anything based on his testimony unless your goal here is to be two-faced.

 

[Correll]

But if you had your way, those legal technicalities would be completely ignored.

That's not right, either...

The purpose of the Law is to find Justice.

The question is, was Rittenhouse defending himself from a violent attack, or was he the violent attacker?


Using a law as an excuse to NOT LOOK AT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, is not right. If a certain law requires that, then we have a conflict between the Law and Justice.


I'm not sure what the LEGAL fix for that is, but finding it should be the goal, not running down the code like a soulless robot and putting a man away for life, without looking at the actual merits of his case.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The burden of proof in on those that want to put Rittenhouse away.

Why can't you simply accept that there's just cause to take this to trial?

Which is why you are hoping that the claim never gets looked at, based on it's merits.

So, if and when this goes to trial, and the "merits" of the case are all brought forward and considered,

You show me a mother who says her child is innocent, and I don't find that credible. You show me a mother than admits her child is guilty, that carries weight.

What if the child actually is innocent?

This is the portion of the discussion where the liberal pretends to be too stupid to understand a simple concept.

Well, if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, nothing is...

 

[Correll]

The merits are governed by the law. And I never said I don't want them looked at in trial. They should be. And if I'm right, the court will rule this was not a case of self-defense.

Really? Why all the whining about the rifle then?


If they put him away WITHOUT looking at the merits of the self defense claim, will you support that?

 

[Correll]

Well, then talk to them.

Don't stupidly make the assumption that I'm going to go along with the crowd.

I'm actually a bit of an anomaly with regards to this case. I'm not calling for his head on a pike, nor am I shouting that he needs to be released. I'm saying we should take everything surrounding this case into consideration and, based on the entirety of that, we should allow him to stand and be judged...

Okay, and?

His age has nothing to do with the validity, or lack thereof, of the self-defense claim.

And I don't understand why you put "breaking the law" in quotations. It's exactly what he did. That's an inarguable fact of this case...



The court can't keep him from making the claim of self defense. The prosecution cannot keep him from making the claim of self defense. He can claim whatever he wants...
[/QUOTE]


Would it bother you if they do "keep him from making that claim"?