Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Canon Shooter]

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.

No, I want to place blame where it belongs, and it belongs to both parties.

You want to exonerate Rittenhouse without a trial.

Ain't happenin'...

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're being ignorant.

I want to place blame where it belongs, and it belongs to both parties.

You're trying to make it as if Rittenhouse was simply walking down the street to the corner drug store.

That's not the case at all, and you know it's not...

 

[Correll]

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

Nonsense.

 

[Correll]

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...

I could see it carrying "less weight",


But still, it is him RUNNING AWAY TRYING TO AVOID CONFRONTATION OR VIOLENCE.

Actions speak louder than words.

Provoked? Like he SAID words that drove Rosenbaum to violence? Possibly. But nothing he said, would change the fact that ROSENBAUM decided to attack Rittenhouse. Thus Self Defense.

If he's shooting people, yeah...



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

I don't buy it. At BEST, Rosenbaum was going to beat the shit out of that kid. Being beaten to death or being shot with his own gun, were certainly reasonable fears for Rittenhouse.

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...

And he's showing he wants to shot you, by running from you? What an odd way of showing aggression.

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...

I think his delusions were of America still being a civilized land where a howling mob, confronted by an armed group, would stand down and wander off to seek easier targets.


That did happen. Except that the police prevented Rittenhouse from rejoining his group, and the mob had a lone target to attack. He was armed, but young and alone. They managed to get their nerve up for an attack. THey sent in the crazy ex-con first. When he went down, the rest charged. But it did not work out the way they wanted.

BUT, their friends the dems, are trying to save the day after the fact, by making an example of Rittenhouse, as to what happens when you fight back against the mob.

 

[Correll]

No, I want to place blame where it belongs, and it belongs to both parties.

You want to exonerate Rittenhouse without a trial.

Ain't happenin'...



Again, you're being ignorant.

I want to place blame where it belongs, and it belongs to both parties.

You're trying to make it as if Rittenhouse was simply walking down the street to the corner drug store.

That's not the case at all, and you know it's not...

If Rittenhouse goes to jail, for not letting the mob beat him to death, the lesson for America is that the street belongs to the mob. The mob comes for you, and you fight back?


You lose, they kill you. You win, the police arrest you, because you do not have the right to defend yourself.


This time the excuse is that Rittenhouse was too young to own that gun and was dumb to go to that place.


Next time it will be some other excuse.


You are kidding yourself if you think this is not political.

 

[Canon Shooter]

I could see it carrying "less weight",


But still, it is him RUNNING AWAY TRYING TO AVOID CONFRONTATION OR VIOLENCE.

Actions speak louder than words.

Provoked? Like he SAID words that drove Rosenbaum to violence? Possibly. But nothing he said, would change the fact that ROSENBAUM decided to attack Rittenhouse. Thus Self Defense.

I don't buy it. At BEST, Rosenbaum was going to beat the shit out of that kid. Being beaten to death or being shot with his own gun, were certainly reasonable fears for Rittenhouse.

And he's showing he wants to shot you, by running from you? What an odd way of showing aggression.

I think his delusions were of America still being a civilized land where a howling mob, confronted by an armed group, would stand down and wander off to seek easier targets.

That did happen. Except that the police prevented Rittenhouse from rejoining his group, and the mob had a lone target to attack. He was armed, but young and alone. They managed to get their nerve up for an attack. THey sent in the crazy ex-con first. When he went down, the rest charged. But it did not work out the way they wanted.

BUT, their friends the dems, are trying to save the day after the fact, by making an example of Rittenhouse, as to what happens when you fight back against the mob.

If I wanted to shoot and kill rioters, which is what, apparently, Rittenhouse said he wanted to do, what better way to set that in motion that to provoke the rioters to chase me?

 

[Canon Shooter]

If Rittenhouse goes to jail, for not letting the mob beat him to death, the lesson for America is that the street belongs to the mob. The mob comes for you, and you fight back?


You lose, they kill you. You win, the police arrest you, because you do not have the right to defend yourself.


This time the excuse is that Rittenhouse was too young to own that gun and was dumb to go to that place.


Next time it will be some other excuse.


You are kidding yourself if you think this is not political.

As I said, Rittenhouse was apparently recorded saying that he wanted to shoot and kill rioters. Apparently, his defense team is fighting to have that recording kept from being introduced into evidence. Why? Because it's damning as Hell. It shows premeditation. It shows intent.

If such a recording were to be entered into evidence at his trial, he'll be convicted of murder in the first degree. In Wisconsin, the minimum sentence for that is life in prison...

 

[Correll]

If I wanted to shoot and kill rioters, which is what, apparently, Rittenhouse said he wanted to do, what better way to set that in motion that to provoke the rioters to chase me?

The depends on the rioter being so violent and crazed that they would attack a man carrying a rifle with their bare hands.


Because he said something mean.


Seems like an odd plan to me.


If Rittenhouse had a concealed weapon, that he whipped out as his attackers approached him, that might make more sense.


But the open carry and the running away, undermines that scenario.


As does the fact that he was only roaming around alone, because the police did not let him rejoin his group.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The depends on the rioter being so violent and crazed that they would attack a man carrying a rifle with their bare hands.


Because he said something mean.


Seems like an odd plan to me.


If Rittenhouse had a concealed weapon, that he whipped out as his attackers approached him, that might make more sense.


But the open carry and the running away, undermines that scenario.


As does the fact that he was only roaming around alone, because the police did not let him rejoin his group.

He didn't have a "group".

The groups he claims to have associated with in Kenosha have no idea who he was...

 

[Correll]

As I said, Rittenhouse was apparently recorded saying that he wanted to shoot and kill rioters. Apparently, his defense team is fighting to have that recording kept from being introduced into evidence. Why? Because it's damning as Hell. It shows premeditation. It shows intent.

If such a recording were to be entered into evidence at his trial, he'll be convicted of murder in the first degree. In Wisconsin, the minimum sentence for that is life in prison...

What kind of emails or videos do you think are out there, showing what Rosenbaum and the others were fantasizing about doing?

 

[Correll]

He didn't have a "group".

The groups he claims to have associated with in Kenosha have no idea who he was...

Irrelevant to my point. He was only a lone target, because the police prevented him from rejoining them.

If he was planning to kill rioters, depending on the police to make sure he was in a situation were that could reasonable occur, without the rioters being scared away by the armed group,


would be, not possible to do. How would he had known that would happen, before it happened? I mean, it makes no sense.

 

[Canon Shooter]

What kind of emails or videos do you think are out there, showing what Rosenbaum and the others were fantasizing about doing?

I have no idea.

Since you're such a Rittenhouse cheerleader, though, you might want to start praying that there are some.

But, ever if they existed, they would do nothing to mitigate the intent on the part of Rittenhouse. You seem to think they'd cancel each other out, and they wouldn't. Not even close...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Irrelevant to my point. He was only a lone target, because the police prevented him from rejoining them.

It's not irrelevant at all. He couldn't rejoin a group he was never part of...

If he was planning to kill rioters, depending on the police to make sure he was in a situation were that could reasonable occur, without the rioters being scared away by the armed group,


would be, not possible to do. How would he had known that would happen, before it happened? I mean, it makes no sense.

I think all of the would be germane if he had also stated how he wanted to go about shooting them.

Odds are, if that was his intent, he'd just look for the most opportune moment.

Rittenhouse doesn't really strike me as the sharpest crayon in the box. It's clear he didn't really think any of this through at all...

 

[Correll]

I have no idea.

Since you're such a Rittenhouse cheerleader, though, you might want to start praying that there are some.

But, ever if they existed, they would do nothing to mitigate the intent on the part of Rittenhouse. You seem to think they'd cancel each other out, and they wouldn't. Not even close...

What if the rioters were talking about how they wanted to kill "nazis" or whoever they imagined was out there?

Hell, what if texts show that the attack on Rittenhouse was coordinated? What if they were looking for a chance to take out one of those armed vigilantes that prevented them from destroying some property?

 

[Correll]

It's not irrelevant at all. He couldn't rejoin a group he was never part of...



I think all of the would be germane if he had also stated how he wanted to go about shooting them.

Odds are, if that was his intent, he'd just look for the most opportune moment.

Rittenhouse doesn't really strike me as the sharpest crayon in the box. It's clear he didn't really think any of this through at all...

The reports I've read, was that he left the group to go give someone some first aid, and then was prevented from rejoining the group by the police.


You can argue semantics about whether he was a formal member of that group, but he was only alone to be attacked by the pack of feral animals, because of the actions of the police.


That does not sound like someone hunting for a chance to kill someone. That sounds like someone forced into a vulnerable situation by events he could not have foreseen and then attacked by some bad actors, ie the antifa mob.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Not true at all. A lawyer you are not.

 

[Correll]

Not true at all. A lawyer you are not.

Do you think they were chasing him with the intent of being nice to him?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you think they were chasing him with the intent of being nice to him?

I am not your assistant. make your points.

 

[Correll]

I am not your assistant. make your points.

They were chasing him with the intent to commit violent attacks on him. He stopped them from doing that, by shooting them.

That is the text book definition of self defense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They were chasing him with the intent to commit violent attacks on him. He stopped them from doing that, by shooting them.

That is the text book definition of self defense.

That's nice. But those aren't the only things that happened. So, at this point, no, you have not completely outsmarted people who have dedicated their lives to prosecuting crimes.

 

[Correll]

That's nice. But those aren't the only things that happened. So, at this point, no, you have not completely outsmarted people who have dedicated their lives to prosecuting crimes.

It is the core of what happened. You can spin as much bullshit as you want about the gun or the which round struck where, but the fundamentals of the case is a young man attacked by a violent mob and defending himself.


If you punish him for this, regardless of your excuses, you are sending a message that defending yourself from the mob, is not allowed.