Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Canon Shooter]

Your request to have me look though his posts, is denied. You may now whine like a faggot some more.

Serious question: How old are you?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Do you understand what the term "people like you" means? Because the thread of attack you are joining in with, is pretending to be too retarded to understand that, and thinking that it means that I personally accused him of lying, right there and then.


Is that your intent, or have you been tricked, by their not very clever trick?

So you weren't accusing him of lying?

 

[Correll]

I have no idea.

But apparently the prosecution has a video of Rittenhouse saying he wanted to shoot rioters.

Such a video, if it exists, shows intent. I'm not certain you have a full understand of what that would do to his "self defense" claim?

I do see how that would be harmful to his case. THe fact of him running away from confrontation after confrontation, imo, speaks much louder than words, and shows his true intent.


What intent do you read from Rosenbaum in CHASING HIM? Cause it looks pretty hostile to me.

What about those who chased him AFTER HE ALREADY SHOT A GUY?? What was their intent?

That whooshing sound you heard was my point, as it sailed effortlessly over your head...

No, I got it. You want to consider the attacking rioters to not be responsible for their actions, for the act of rioting to be like an animal acting out of instinct with no ability to consider right and wrong.

You instead want to put the responsibility for the attack, not on the attackers, but on Rittenhouse for daring to be there, walking on a public street.


I get your point. I respectfully disagree.

 

[Correll]

Serious question: How old are you?

Middle aged. Why do you ask?

 

[Correll]

So you weren't accusing him of lying?

Not personally. It was a general statement. They are doing common lib tactic of pretending to be too retarded to understand simple concepts and using that as an excuse to accuse me of wrong doing.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I do see how that would be harmful to his case. THe fact of him running away from confrontation after confrontation, imo, speaks much louder than words, and shows his true intent.

Oh, not to me.

If he said he wanted to kill rioters, and then a week later kills rioters, he can ram his self-defense claim up his ass...

What intent do you read from Rosenbaum in CHASING HIM? Cause it looks pretty hostile to me.

Did he want to disarm him? That's been suggested by those on the scene. I know you won't even consider that as a possibility, but your denial of it doesn't mean it's not possible...

What about those who chased him AFTER HE ALREADY SHOT A GUY?? What was their intent?

I would say that would be definitely to try to disarm him. Such a scenario could suggest that THEY would be the ones then acting in self defense...

No, I got it. You want to consider the attacking rioters to not be responsible for their actions, for the act of rioting to be like an animal acting out of instinct with no ability to consider right and wrong.

Gee, Kreskin, how's that fail taste?

I never suggested any such thing.

My point, and it's one which you can't agree with simply due to the fact that you believe Rittenhouse, the 17 year old kid who conspired to break the law, is absolutely without fault. I allow for fault on both sides...

You instead want to put the responsibility for the attack, not on the attackers, but on Rittenhouse for daring to be there, walking on a public street.

Again, you make it sound as though he was out for an evening stroll. The fact of the matter is that he conspired with Dominick Black to illegally arm himself and jump into the fray. Apparently there's video of him stating his desire to kill rioters. If that video exists, I suspect ol' Kyle's gonna' end up someone's girlfriend in pretty short order once he hits GP...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Middle aged. Why do you ask?

Because the last time I saw someone call someone else a "faggot" in an argument, the participants were 12 and their balls hadn't dropped...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Not personally. It was a general statement. They are doing common lib tactic of pretending to be too retarded to understand simple concepts and using that as an excuse to accuse me of wrong doing.

You would do well to not paint with such wide a brush...

 

[Correll]

Oh, not to me.

If he said he wanted to kill rioters, and then a week later kills rioters, he can ram his self-defense claim up his ass...

Not if he was attacked and was defending himself.

Did he want to disarm him? That's been suggested by those on the scene. I know you won't even consider that as a possibility, but your denial of it doesn't mean it's not possible...

Oh, I'm happy to consider it as a possibility. Seems unlikely considering that Rosenbaum was there to riot. If he did "Disarm" Rittenhouse, what happens next? Hold him for the police? THe anti-police rioters hold him for the police?

Seems to me Rittenhouse would be very justified in fearing for his life and/or limb at that point, and thus, self defense is justified.

I would say that would be definitely to try to disarm him. Such a scenario could suggest that THEY would be the ones then acting in self defense...

Chasing someone who is running away, is self defense?

Gee, Kreskin, how's that fail taste?

I never suggested any such thing.

My point, and it's one which you can't agree with simply due to the fact that you believe Rittenhouse, the 17 year old kid who conspired to break the law, is absolutely without fault. I allow for fault on both sides...




Again, you make it sound as though he was out for an evening stroll. The fact of the matter is that he conspired with Dominick Black to illegally arm himself and jump into the fray. Apparently there's video of him stating his desire to kill rioters. If that video exists, I suspect ol' Kyle's gonna' end up someone's girlfriend in pretty short order once he hits GP...

He was there to stand guard on a building and to provide medical help to people that needed it. That is what we saw him doing earlier in the night.


That was what he did, when he "jumped into the fray".


That's legitimate.

 

[Correll]

Because the last time I saw someone call someone else a "faggot" in an argument, the participants were 12 and their balls hadn't dropped...

Liberals are very rude. I trying to treat them with the level of respect they deserve. Such rudeness does not come naturally to me.

It is not surprising that it comes across as strained or stiff.

If you have better insults to suggest, I am open to hearing them. THey have to be quite derogatory and should be vulgar.

 

[Faun]

Not if he was attacked and was defending himself.





Oh, I'm happy to consider it as a possibility. Seems unlikely considering that Rosenbaum was there to riot. If he did "Disarm" Rittenhouse, what happens next? Hold him for the police? THe anti-police rioters hold him for the police?

Seems to me Rittenhouse would be very justified in fearing for his life and/or limb at that point, and thus, self defense is justified.



Chasing someone who is running away, is self defense?






He was there to stand guard on a building and to provide medical help to people that needed it. That is what we saw him doing earlier in the night.


That was what he did, when he "jumped into the fray".


That's legitimate.

Not legitimate given he was illegally armed and illegally impersonating an EMT.

 

[Correll]

Not legitimate given he was illegally armed and illegally impersonating an EMT.

Neither alleged issue, was readily apparent to the people that attacked him.


You love to talk about a lot of details, like the precise wording of gun laws, or Rittenhouse's EMT certification or lack there of.


But you just gloss over the fact that a violent mob attacked him.


That's kind of the whole point of this case. A violent mob attacked a man and the man defended himself.


YOu can dance around that a lot. But if the Defense is doing it's job, it should keep bringing the case back to that central fact.


SELF DEFENSE.

 

[Faun]

Neither alleged issue, was readily apparent to the people that attacked him.


You love to talk about a lot of details, like the precise wording of gun laws, or Rittenhouse's EMT certification or lack there of.


But you just gloss over the fact that a violent mob attacked him.


That's kind of the whole point of this case. A violent mob attacked a man and the man defended himself.


YOu can dance around that a lot. But if the Defense is doing it's job, it should keep bringing the case back to that central fact.


SELF DEFENSE.

You're lying again. Rosenbaum was the only one chasing him initially, not a "violent mob." You keep talking about Liberals lying yet here you are, lying repeatedly.

And it matters not that others were ignorant to Rittenhouse's crimes. You claimed he was there legitimately. He was not. He was breaking the law. Several laws, in fact.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But you just gloss over the fact that a violent mob attacked him.

Necessary to the position that Rittemhouse did not act in self-defense is the position that the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so.
None of the goombas who believe Rittenhouse is guilty of murder will address this fact.

 

[Correll]

You're lying again. Rosenbaum was the only one chasing him initially, not a "violent mob." You keep talking about Liberals lying yet here you are, lying repeatedly.

Rosenbaum was part of the violent mob. He attacked first and shortly there after more of the mob attacked.


Not sure what part of that you are not understanding.


is this the portion of the debate where you try to gin up some confusion about unimportant details to distract from the fact that this case boils down to



"young man attacked by violent rioters, and defends himself."?

 

[Correll]

Necessary to the position that Rittemhouse did not act in self-defense is the position that the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so.
None of the goombas who believe Rittenhouse is guilty of murder will address this fact.

Agreed. They just sort of want to gloss over the obviously hostile intent of the antifa rioters.


AND THEIR ACTUAL VIOLENT ACTIONS.

 

[Faun]

Rosenbaum was part of the violent mob. He attacked first and shortly there after more of the mob attacked.


Not sure what part of that you are not understanding.


is this the portion of the debate where you try to gin up some confusion about unimportant details to distract from the fact that this case boils down to



"young man attacked by violent rioters, and defends himself."?

Yes, he was part of a violent mob. But the violent mob hadn't attacked Rittenhouse, only Rosenbaum did at that point. And it's not an "unimportant detail."

 

[Correll]

Yes, he was part of a violent mob. But the violent mob hadn't attacked Rittenhouse, only Rosenbaum did at that point. And it's not an "unimportant detail."

Rosebaum attacked and Rittenhouse defended himself. Self Defense.


What part of this do you want to pretend to be confused about to distract from Rittenhouse's innocence?

 

[Faun]

Rosebaum attacked and Rittenhouse defended himself. Self Defense.


What part of this do you want to pretend to be confused about to distract from Rittenhouse's innocence?

So you say. I say Rittenhouse used excessive force which amounts to murder.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Not if he was attacked and was defending himself.

If there's video of him claiming that he wanted to shoot and kill rioters, and a week later he shoots and kills rioters, any video of him running away from someone will carry a lot less weight. That's something you need to wrap your head around. I would allow for the probability that he actually provoked the attack against him in order to have a reason to shoot...

Oh, I'm happy to consider it as a possibility. Seems unlikely considering that Rosenbaum was there to riot. If he did "Disarm" Rittenhouse, what happens next? Hold him for the police? THe anti-police rioters hold him for the police?

If he's shooting people, yeah...

Seems to me Rittenhouse would be very justified in fearing for his life and/or limb at that point, and thus, self defense is justified.

I know it seems that way to you. To you, though, it seems as though Rittenhouse can turn water into wine...

Chasing someone who is running away, is self defense?

You know what? I'm really fast on my feet, even at 59 years old. But I can't out run a bullet. If someone has just shot someone, and I think he might also want to shoot at me, yeah, I might try to disarm him, before he does that, sure...

He was there to stand guard on a building and to provide medical help to people that needed it. That is what we saw him doing earlier in the night.

Here's what I think about Rittenhouse:

Despite the fact that he conspired to break the law, I think his motives were admirable. I watched those riots last year and was sickened by them. But I also think he was a stupid kid, who made stupid decision. I think he was a stupid kid who didn't come close to having a true understanding of what it means to take a life, and who probably wouldn't have done so if he did. I think he was a stupid kid who had delusions of grandeur, believing his presence there could stem the violence already taking place. But, he was also a stupid kid who, when he took illegal possession of that rifle, made the transition from stupid kid to aggressive adult, and now he's wishing he was still just a stupid kid.

But he's not, and the state of Wisconsin is, rightfully, going to prosecute him for his actions...