Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

This thread is full of libtards arguing that the SELF DEFENSE claim won't be allowed, because Rittenhouse was supposedly violating some gun law.


If libtards HERE are willing to play that game, why would libtards THERE not be willing to do the same?

Rittenhouse can, and is, pleading not guilty based on self defense. That's his entitlement. What some are saying is that it will fail him in court for several possible reasons. For example, the prosecution is going to inform the jury self-defense is not a legal justification while the actor is in the commission of a crime, which Rittenhouse was. Or the prosecution may try to prove shooting Rosenbaum in the back was excessive force beyond what the law allows for self-defense. It's the judge's responsibility to instruct the jury about the laws of self-defense and how they apply to this case. It's then up to the jury to decide if the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the law did not provide Rittenhouse justification to kill in self-defense.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I disagree. A young man defending himself from a violent attack, by a blood thirsty mob, imo, paints a wonderful picture of Rittenhouse.

Well, then you should be calling for him to go to trial as soon as possible. After all, such a fine young man should be held out as an example of what wee all should be, yes?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse can, and is, pleading not guilty based on self defense. That's his entitlement. What some are saying is that it will fail him in court for several possible reasons. For example, the prosecution is going to inform the jury self-defense is not a legal justification while the actor is in the commission of a crime, which Rittenhouse was. Or the prosecution may try to prove shooting Rosenbaum in the back was excessive force beyond what the law allows for self-defense. It's the judge's responsibility to instruct the jury about the laws of self-defense and how they apply to this case. It's then up to the jury to decide if the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the law did not provide Rittenhouse justification to kill in self-defense.

You're gonna' scare Correll with all of those facts.

Rein it in, cowboy...

 

[Correll]

My God, I'm half a millisecond away from tossing you onto the steamy pile of human shit I refer to as my "ignore list".

IT CAN'T HAPPEN. IT WON'T HAPPEN.

Kyle Rittenhouse has a better chance of having a baby than he does of having the Judge tell him he can't claim self defense...

Not sure why you are getting so bent out of shape. You have explained what is supposed to happen. I fear that the rules are broken. You are confident that they are not.


It will not be that long before we find out.

 

[Correll]

Well, then you should be calling for him to go to trial as soon as possible. After all, such a fine young man should be held out as an example of what wee all should be, yes?

I thought I was clear about the lack of faith I have in the courts. Specifically any dems in them.

 

[Correll]

You're gonna' scare Correll with all of those facts.

Rein it in, cowboy...

From post 1698 from your friend Faun.



"...Especially since a person loses their legal right to invoke self-defense when the death occurs while the defendant was in the commission of a crime, which Rittenhouse was."

And he was not the only one pushing that theory. I did not make this shit up.

 

[Bobob]

Just WI law and the video evidence found everywhere in the internet.

And thus, you arent at -all- interested in the law or the proper application thereof.

The only way you can believe this is if you believe the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so

...WI law and the video evidence found everywhere on the internet.

If he went to the scene without that weapon, which he was too young to possess, none of this would have happened.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Not sure why you are getting so bent out of shape. You have explained what is supposed to happen. I fear that the rules are broken. You are confident that they are not.

I'm getting bent out of shape because you're acting like a fucking retard.

If you believe that Horses can levitate and shit rainbows, and I tell you that it can't happen, you'd be asking, if a horse DOES levitate and shit rainbows, will I believe as you do.

You, clearly, live in a fantasy world. Because horses levitating and shitting rainbows just isn't going to happen.

As for your unfounded concern that the Judge will tell Rittenhouse that he can't claim self defense, you keep asking "Well, if it DOES happen..." Well, it won't. It can't. So far as I know it's never been done before, nor can I imagine it ever happening in the future.

You're beginning to argue like a child, and it's sad to see...

 

[Faun]

Lawyers, reporters, ex-wives, and mothers, they have no credibility. Your attempt to spin this as something wrong with me, is just you being a troll.

There is something wrong with you. Very wrong. You're a flamin' nut. I cant help you there.

Dumbfuck -- YOU literally relied on that same witnesses account of how the chase began.

YOU are literally relying on the eyewitness account of the very same eyewitness YOU claim can't be trusted. And YOU claimed, without a stitch of evidence, he was on the lefts' side; when in fact, he's employed by the Daily Caller, a rightwing site created by Tucker Carlson.

You are fucking brain-dead.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If he went to the scene without that weapon, which he was too young to possess, none of this would have happened.

This does not in any way address anything I said, and does nothing to negate his legal claim of self-defense.

 

[Correll]

If he went to the scene without that weapon, which he was too young to possess, none of this would have happened.

You sure? Antifa often attacks unarmed people. Maybe Rittenhouse would just be one of those many who died during the antifa/blm riots, with barely a mention.

 

[Faun]

I disagree. A young man defending himself from a violent attack, by a blood thirsty mob, imo, paints a wonderful picture of Rittenhouse.

Oh? Who did that mob attack to define them as "blood thirsty?"

 

[Canon Shooter]

From post 1698 from your friend Faun.



"...Especially since a person loses their legal right to invoke self-defense when the death occurs while the defendant was in the commission of a crime, which Rittenhouse was."

And he was not the only one pushing that theory. I did not make this shit up.

That speaks to the practicality of the argument. If I smack someone, then they smack me, and I kick the shit out of them, I can claim self defense all I want. The finding will be that I did not act in self defense. So, while I can certainly claim it, from a practicality standpoint I can't do it, simply because it doesn't make sense.

Nothing legally precludes me, though, from making that claim in a court of law, and no Judge would ever tell me I couldn't...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I thought I was clear about the lack of faith I have in the courts. Specifically any dems in them.

Well, you'd better hop the fuck on board, because that's the only way this goes.

You keep talking about "dems". This case isn't political, despite your desire that it was. You look more and more stupid the more you mention that...

 

[Faun]

Not sure why you are getting so bent out of shape. You have explained what is supposed to happen. I fear that the rules are broken. You are confident that they are not.


It will not be that long before we find out.

Dumbfuck, if the "rules are broken," that's grounds for a mistrial.

You really are dumber than dirt. Again I suggest -- learn how our Judiciary operates before opining on judicial matters. Shit, at least watch Judge Judy to get an inkling of an idea.

 

[Correll]

That speaks to the practicality of the argument. If I smack someone, then they smack me, and I kick the shit out of them, I can claim self defense all I want. The finding will be that I did not act in self defense. So, while I can certainly claim it, from a practicality standpoint I can't do it, simply because it doesn't make sense.

Nothing legally precludes me, though, from making that claim in a court of law, and no Judge would ever tell me I couldn't...

Being the one that STARTS A FIGHT, is a far cry from defending yourself from a violent attack, with a gun that might be in violation of some gun law.

 

[Faun]

From post 1698 from your friend Faun.



"...Especially since a person loses their legal right to invoke self-defense when the death occurs while the defendant was in the commission of a crime, which Rittenhouse was."

And he was not the only one pushing that theory. I did not make this shit up.

Where did I say that precludes Rittenhouse from pleading not guilty by reason of self-defense, ya lunatic?

 

[Winco]

Rittenhouse

Make poor choices, win stupid prizes.......bonus......try to blame others.

This young man ruined his life by making a POOR choice.
Politics are the ONLY thing that will save you KR.

 

[Correll]

Well, you'd better hop the fuck on board, because that's the only way this goes.

You keep talking about "dems". This case isn't political, despite your desire that it was. You look more and more stupid the more you mention that...

This case is completely political.

 

[Correll]

Where did I say that precludes Rittenhouse from pleading not guilty by reason of self-defense, ya lunatic?

" loses their legal right to invoke self-defense"