Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Shelzin]

The victims are dead.

And one is still alive. If you attack someone with a gun, you are trying to kill them. He killed them first. That's self defense. Given his opportunity to kill a great many more people, and didn't... Suggests he never wanted to shoot in the first place.

Or is it your contention that he had no more bullets?

 

[Faun]

The victims are dead.

And one is still alive. If you attack someone with a gun, you are trying to kill them. He killed them first. That's self defense. Given his opportunity to kill a great many more people, and didn't... Suggests he never wanted to shoot in the first place.

Or is it your contention that he had no more bullets?

People had the right to try and disarm someone they believed shot someone else.

 

[Shelzin]

He killed someone with a skateboard, not a gun. And people had the right to try and disarm someone they believed shot someone else.

If you KNOWINGLY ATTACK SOMEONE WITH A GUN you are trying to kill them. He defended himself from people trying to kill him.

It doesn't matter what weapon they have...

 

[Faun]

He killed someone with a skateboard, not a gun. And people had the right to try and disarm someone they believed shot someone else.

If you KNOWINGLY ATTACK SOMEONE WITH A GUN you are trying to kill them. He defended himself from people trying to kill him.

Edit: They could have no weapon at all, just their fists... If you attack someone KNOWINGLY WITH A GUN, it's self defense.

That is not necessarily true. Attacking someone with a gun could also be with the intent of disarming them, not killing them.

 

[Shelzin]

That is not necessarily true. Attacking someone with a gun could also be with the intent of disarming them, not killing them.

How is the gunman to know that? It's just morbidly stupid to attack someone with a gun. It's a justified killing, self defense.

Not to mention his life was being threatened. Did... You miss that somehow? It's in the video.

 

[Faun]

That is not necessarily true. Attacking someone with a gun could also be with the intent of disarming them, not killing them.

How is the gunman to know that? It's just morbidly stupid to attack someone with a gun. It's a justified killing, self defense.

Not to mention is life was being threatened. Did... You miss that somehow?

Again, it's not self-defense when you shoot someone in the back.

 

[Muhammed]

The medical examiner found that Rosenbaum was shot in the groin, back and left hand. The wounds fractured his pelvis and perforated his right lung and liver. He also suffered a superficial wound to his left thigh and a graze wound to his forehead.[/indent]

G'head, tell the forum again how shooting someone in the back is self-defense....

He gets cornered and turns around to face the attacker.

My wife injured my back earlier today. It's bleeding. She clawed the fuck out of it again. I think I'll gift her some fucking mittens for Christmas. How is it physically possible for her to claw my back even though we were face to face?

Idiots like you haven't a clue.

 

[Faun]

The medical examiner found that Rosenbaum was shot in the groin, back and left hand. The wounds fractured his pelvis and perforated his right lung and liver. He also suffered a superficial wound to his left thigh and a graze wound to his forehead.[/indent]

G'head, tell the forum again how shooting someone in the back is self-defense....

He gets cornered and turns around to face the attacker.

My wife injured my back earlier today. It's bleeding. She clawed the fuck out of it again. I think I'll gift her some fucking mittens for Christmas. How is it physically possible for her to claw my back even though we were face to face?

Idiots like you haven't a clue.

And if someone clawed your back and there was no one else clawing at you except your wife, that means what? That your back wasn't clawed? That your wife didn't claw you? Or that at some point, your back was actually facing her?

 

[Muhammed]

The medical examiner found that Rosenbaum was shot in the groin, back and left hand. The wounds fractured his pelvis and perforated his right lung and liver. He also suffered a superficial wound to his left thigh and a graze wound to his forehead.[/indent]

G'head, tell the forum again how shooting someone in the back is self-defense....

He gets cornered and turns around to face the attacker.

My wife injured my back earlier today. It's bleeding. She clawed the fuck out of it again. I think I'll gift her some fucking mittens for Christmas. How is it physically possible for her to claw my back even though we were face to face?

Idiots like you haven't a clue.

And if someone clawed your back and there was no one else clawing at you except your wife, that means what? That your back wasn't clawed? That your wife didn't claw you? Or that at some point, your back was actually facing her?

You're a clueless idiot.

 

[Shelzin]

Again, it's not self-defense when you shoot someone in the back.

Sometimes it does. If he wasn't dead after the first two shots to the front, I'll damn sure shoot you in the back afterwards to make sure you are dead if you attack me while I'm holding a gun.

Not to mention the rest of the circumstances surrounding this. ESPECIALLY with the circumstances surrounding this.

Edit: To be MORE CLEAR... If I have a gun, presented and out in the open.... If you attack me. I think you have a gun/weapon as well. You are trying to kill me. It's insanity to think anything else. You're just intentionally trying to be dense.

 

[Muhammed]

Again, it's not self-defense when you shoot someone in the back.

Sometimes it does. If he wasn't dead after the first two shots to the front, I'll damn sure shoot you in the back afterwards to make sure you are dead if you attack me while I'm holding a gun.

Not to mention the rest of the circumstances surrounding this. ESPECIALLY with the circumstances surrounding this.

Edit: To be MORE CLEAR... If I have a gun, presented and out in the open.... If you attack me. I think you have a gun/weapon as well. You are trying to kill me. It's insanity to think anything else. You're just intentionally trying to be dense.

I don't think so. I think Faun really is that dense. People tend to overestimate the intelligence of stupid moonbats.

Sometimes, they really are that stupid.

 

[Shelzin]

I don't think so. I think Faun really is that dense. People tend to overestimate the intelligence of stupid moonbats.

Sometimes, they really are that stupid.

I disagree. Sometimes people have thought of things I haven't. And I stop and go... oh... yeah. Ok.

This person isn't Dana. Not yet. Not to me.

 

[Faun]

The medical examiner found that Rosenbaum was shot in the groin, back and left hand. The wounds fractured his pelvis and perforated his right lung and liver. He also suffered a superficial wound to his left thigh and a graze wound to his forehead.[/indent]

G'head, tell the forum again how shooting someone in the back is self-defense....

He gets cornered and turns around to face the attacker.

My wife injured my back earlier today. It's bleeding. She clawed the fuck out of it again. I think I'll gift her some fucking mittens for Christmas. How is it physically possible for her to claw my back even though we were face to face?

Idiots like you haven't a clue.

And if someone clawed your back and there was no one else clawing at you except your wife, that means what? That your back wasn't clawed? That your wife didn't claw you? Or that at some point, your back was actually facing her?

You're a clueless idiot.

LOLOL

Dumbfuck, the answer couldn't have been more obvious. Even for a retard like you. Just like with Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, at some point, your back would have to have been facing your wife.

 

[Faun]

Again, it's not self-defense when you shoot someone in the back.

Sometimes it does. If he wasn't dead after the first two shots to the front, I'll damn sure shoot you in the back afterwards to make sure you are dead if you attack me while I'm holding a gun.

Not to mention the rest of the circumstances surrounding this. ESPECIALLY with the circumstances surrounding this.

Edit: To be MORE CLEAR... If I have a gun, presented and out in the open.... If you attack me. I think you have a gun/weapon as well. You are trying to kill me. It's insanity to think anything else. You're just intentionally trying to be dense.

The law does not allow you to shoot someone until they're dead. It only allows you to shoot someone to stop the threat. That could mean having kill someone depending on the circumstances; but that would not include shooting someone in the back. someone who's back is facing you while falling to the ground is not a lethal threat to you.

 

[Faun]

Again, it's not self-defense when you shoot someone in the back.

Sometimes it does. If he wasn't dead after the first two shots to the front, I'll damn sure shoot you in the back afterwards to make sure you are dead if you attack me while I'm holding a gun.

Not to mention the rest of the circumstances surrounding this. ESPECIALLY with the circumstances surrounding this.

Edit: To be MORE CLEAR... If I have a gun, presented and out in the open.... If you attack me. I think you have a gun/weapon as well. You are trying to kill me. It's insanity to think anything else. You're just intentionally trying to be dense.

I don't think so. I think Faun really is that dense. People tend to overestimate the intelligence of stupid moonbats.

Sometimes, they really are that stupid.

If what you were saying were true, Rittenhouse would not be facing murder charges.

 

[Shelzin]

The law does not allow you to shoot someone until they're dead. It only allows you to shoot someone to stop the threat.

If I believe he has a gun, and I have no reason not to he just attacked me knowing I had one... If he's alive.. He's a threat. Especially if people in a Riot are now running at me. New threats are coming.

As shown by the rest of the video where he's attacked twice more.

 

[Shelzin]

If what you were saying were true, Rittenhouse would not be facing murder charges.

Charges != guilty.

Edit: It should be said that what I would do, is not what Kyle did. All shots on the first attack were in quick succession. He went to help after he shot the man, and then said fuck that after more showed up with intentions to harm him. I would have put another bullet in him. There would have been a pause, and another shot before others showed up. He didn't do that.

 

[Polishprince]

He killed someone with a skateboard, not a gun. And people had the right to try and disarm someone they believed shot someone else.

If you KNOWINGLY ATTACK SOMEONE WITH A GUN you are trying to kill them. He defended himself from people trying to kill him.

Edit: They could have no weapon at all, just their fists... If you attack someone KNOWINGLY WITH A GUN, it's self defense.

That is not necessarily true. Attacking someone with a gun could also be with the intent of disarming them, not killing them.

They had no right to try and disarm Rittenhouse as they were in the commission of a Felony (arson, robbery, assault).

They should have minded their own beeswax.

Further, if they weren't engaged in the Felony of Rioting, the Paedophile Rosenbaum would have never been killed. IMHO, they belong in the dock as well in this crime as committing Felony Murder. Sure, they didn't want the Chomo to die, but die he did, and they should pay the price.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Looks like Kyle is going to stand trial for his alleged crimes:

Kyle Rittenhouse, teen charged with killings at Jacob Blake protest, ordered to stand trial

Kyle Rittenhouse — the 17-year-old charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the shooting of Jacob Blake — will stand trial on charges of felony homicide and other crimes, a court commissioner ruled Thursday.
During a preliminary hearing at Kenosha County Circuit Court, which was held via video link, commissioner Loren Keating ruled that there was enough evidence to send Rittenhouse to trial over the Aug. 25 killings of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26.
Rittenhouse also faces charges of possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18 and felony attempted homicide for injuring a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz.
Lawyers for Rittenhouse argued that the teen, who has been praised by right-wing commentators and viewed sympathetically by the Trump administration, had acted in self-defense when he opened fire.
But Keating said those arguments were issues for trial — not a preliminary hearing. The teen’s lawyers also asked Keating to dismiss two charges, including possession of a dangerous weapon, but the commissioner declined, saying that was also an issue for trial.
Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was released on $2 million bond last month, money mostly raised by conservatives through a legal defense fund.

And in related news..the 19yo who posed as a straw buyer for Kyle's gun has been charged:

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse

The friend of Rittenhouse, 17, purchased the gun later used to allegedly fatally shoot two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, prosecutors say.

www.nbcnews.com

Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.
According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

the guy that bought the gun for Rittenhouse committed a crime and his father who allowed Rittenhouse access to it also committed a crime but Rittenhouse's only crime was misdemeanor possession of a firearm

It's perfectly justifiable to shoot people who attack you even if you're not supposed to have a particular weapon

 

[Faun]

The law does not allow you to shoot someone until they're dead. It only allows you to shoot someone to stop the threat.

If I believe he has a gun, and I have no reason not to he just attacked me knowing I had one... If he's alive.. He's a threat. Especially if people in a Riot are now running at me. New threats are coming.

As shown by the rest of the video where he's attacked twice more.

I'm talking only about Rosenbaum, not what occurred after. Even if he believed Rosenbaum had a gun, that didn't give him legal authority to shoot Rosenbaum in the back.