Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

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.

I'm not saying charges equals guilt. What I am am saying is because he was charged means it's not a clear case of self-defense. Had it been, he would not have been charged.

 

[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.

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.

Great, let's see your evidence the people who attempted to disarm him committed arson, robbery or assault....

 

[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.

Great, let's see your evidence the people who attempted to disarm him committed arson, robbery or assault....

Look at the videotapes.

The stores and homes didn't loot and burn themselves on their own.

If the police are doing their job, they'd have the whole group of rioters locked in their dungeon already waiting for trial

 

[Montrovant]

Yeah, because to conservatives, shooting someone in the back is self-defense.

Are you on some sort of drugs?

No worries, I'll include you among those who think shooting someone in the back is self-defense.

Seek professional help for those hallucinations.

And by professional help, I mean an icepick lobotomy.

This is for you too, dumbfuck...

Victims of Kenosha protest shooting tried to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse: Reports

Hannah Gittings, Huber's girlfriend, told WBBM-TV that he pushed her out of the way before chasing after the man others on the street had identified as the shooter.

abc11.com

​

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.​

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

Well, I can actually give a couple of times that shooting someone in the back could be considered self-defense.

1) While being threatened or attacked, you shoot the attacker. They are spun around by the first shot and you hit them in the back with a successive shot
2) Someone is running away from you, but turning and firing a weapon at you while doing so. You return fire, which hits them in the back. I believe this is similar to what appeared to happen when the cop shot a guy in a Wendy's parking lot not too long ago: the guy he was chasing took his taser and fired it at the cop while running away. The cop shot back and hit him in the back.

Obviously the second scenario didn't happen in this case, and I have no idea if the first did. I just wanted to point out that someone being shot in the back CAN happen during a self-defense shooting incident.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

If someone cannot imagine how a person could shoot a dog chewing on their ankle, in it's back, in self defense, they are pretty fucking retarded.

 

[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.

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.

Great, let's see your evidence the people who attempted to disarm him committed arson, robbery or assault....

Look at the videotapes.

The stores and homes didn't loot and burn themselves on their own.

If the police are doing their job, they'd have the whole group of rioters locked in their dungeon already waiting for trial

No worries, I accept that ^^^ diversion as evidence you have no evidence that the people who attempted to disarm Rittenhouse were involved in arson, robbery or assault.

 

[Muhammed]

Great, let's see your evidence the people who attempted to disarm him committed arson, robbery or assault....

Assault. As evidenced by the video, one of the terrorists threw a flying kick at that kid in the head. And then another one bashed him in the head with a skateboard and attempted to rob him. If you are exposed on video bashing some kid in the head with your skateboard and trying to grab his gun, that is clear evidence of attempted robbery.

 

[Mac-7]

I did not keep bringing up the subject.

Moonglow brought it uo and you jumped in on his side

 

[JoeB131]

You’re a sick little man.

Naw, I enjoy you guys investing yourself in this mass shooter....

 

[JoeB131]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It doesn't put any arbitrary restrictions on the dimensions of the armament.

Well regulated militias aren't organized on Facebook.

 

[2aguy]

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.

And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.

Hey, dumb shit....how is he a homicidal maniac?...each shot he fired was in self defense against a raging joe biden voter out to do him harm......that isn't the definition of a homicidal maniac...you dumb ass...

I will grant you that the term "homicidal maniac" is redundant.

Cute story about "self defense" bro ---- after the kid deliberately traveled to another state to get into the thick of it. Hey, maybe he was teleported there by your avatar, against his will. Yeah that's the ticket. He was just sitting at home in Illinois watching TV an old Star Trek and when Captain Kirk said "energize" --- off he went. Suddenly, out of nowhere, he's in Wisconsin. Had no idea what was going on. So he was just trying to escape, Kirk tried to teleport him a phaser but it came through the space-time contiuum as an AR15. Whattaya gonna do.

SMGDH

Same thing happened with James Fields. He was going grocery shopping in Toledo, took a wrong turn and suddenly ---- Charlottesville Virginia.

Dumbass.

Dipshit.....the videos clearly show that the 3 thugs initiated the attacks against the Hispanic Teenager........he fired in self defense in each case....

You guys can lie about what happened but the video is clear......as is the first hand account by the reporter who saw the first attack....you fucking twit.

 

[2aguy]

(2) Kenosha Shooter TALKS w/ His Victim - Kyle Rittenhouse Video | LNOD - YouTube

Watch the video. It's a clear case of self-defense.

The prosecutor should be arrested for treason and punished to the full extent of the law. Capital punishment. The people demand it.

All 3 separate incidents where he shot people?
If he was threatened by 3 armed people, he would have been dead.
Only one person he killed was armed, and no weapon was ever drawn on him.

If he was threatened by armed people, he would be dead? Why is that? What kind of assumption is that? I think a safer assumption would be if he wasn’t armed himself, he may have been dead.

If by “armed” you mean in possession of a firearm... he didn’t kill the guy with the gun. He wounded him. what do you mean “no weapon was drawn on him”?? The guy had it in his hand as he came running up on rittenhouse as he was knocked to the ground. He is creeping up on him with it DRAWN in his hand as rittenhouse turns and blasts him (wounding him).
If by “armed” you meant in the traditional sense of the word... in possession of a weapon, then the guy hitting him with a skateboard who attempted to bash his head in would be considered “armed” as well. So there were 2 armed people.

You seem to be implying he wasn’t in danger in “all 3 seperate incidents where he shot people”.
Did you actually watch the videos??

Nonsense. If Rittenhouse wasn't armed, he would not have shot and killed anyone and the mob would not have been chasing him.

No...when he attempted to put out the fire in the dumpster...that the felons were using to try to set the gas pumps at the gas station on fire, they would have beaten him into the hospital or the morgue....

 

[2aguy]

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.

I'm not saying charges equals guilt. What I am am saying is because he was charged means it's not a clear case of self-defense. Had it been, he would not have been charged.

That's not true......when you have an anti-gun prosecutor, he can take the case to court simply to punish and exact pain and suffering on the actual victim of the crime....in this case, the hispanic teenager....

Clear cases of self defense routinely go to court simply because the prosecutor hates guns and gun owners and want to make examples of them...

 

[2aguy]

Great, let's see your evidence the people who attempted to disarm him committed arson, robbery or assault....

Assault. As evidenced by the video, one of the terrorists threw a flying kick at that kid in the head. And then another one bashed him in the head with a skateboard and attempted to rob him. If you are exposed on video bashing some kid in the head with your skateboard and trying to grab his gun, that is clear evidence of attempted robbery.

View attachment 425482



View attachment 425487

Murder too........

Anytime you strike someone with a fist, a foot or a skateboard you risk killing them, even unintentionally.

The former Mayor Daley of chicago has a nephew. The nephew got into an altercation with another guy outside of a bar.....the nephew punched the guy in the face...once.......the guy fell and hit his head on the ground and went into a coma, he never woke up and he died...

That skate board is a lot worse than a simple punch....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, because to conservatives, shooting someone in the back is self-defense.

Are you on some sort of drugs?

No worries, I'll include you among those who think shooting someone in the back is self-defense.

Seek professional help for those hallucinations.

And by professional help, I mean an icepick lobotomy.

This is for you too, dumbfuck...

Victims of Kenosha protest shooting tried to disarm Kyle Rittenhouse: Reports

Hannah Gittings, Huber's girlfriend, told WBBM-TV that he pushed her out of the way before chasing after the man others on the street had identified as the shooter.

abc11.com

​

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.​

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

Well, I can actually give a couple of times that shooting someone in the back could be considered self-defense.

1) While being threatened or attacked, you shoot the attacker. They are spun around by the first shot and you hit them in the back with a successive shot
2) Someone is running away from you, but turning and firing a weapon at you while doing so. You return fire, which hits them in the back. I believe this is similar to what appeared to happen when the cop shot a guy in a Wendy's parking lot not too long ago: the guy he was chasing took his taser and fired it at the cop while running away. The cop shot back and hit him in the back.

Obviously the second scenario didn't happen in this case, and I have no idea if the first did. I just wanted to point out that someone being shot in the back CAN happen during a self-defense shooting incident.

Your number one point is likely what happened since the reporter who saw the first shooting stated the guy was grabbing for the hispanic teenagers gun and was then shot.....he likely spun with the first round and took one in the back as he fell.....or, someone else shot him...we still haven't seen the ballistic report on the bullet that killed him.

 

[2aguy]

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.

I'm not saying charges equals guilt. What I am am saying is because he was charged means it's not a clear case of self-defense. Had it been, he would not have been charged.

Sorry....that isn't even close to being true......

A look at self defense and the criminal justice establishment...

What we’re talking about here is the very rare aberration, just as certainly as having to use a gun to shoot another human being in self defense is an aberration. Most of us are going to go through our lives without having to kill somebody; most of those who do have to kill someone in self defense, will be ruled justifiable, and after that, at least the criminal side–if not the plaintiff’s side–will be over.

But every now and then, the aberration occurs. There is the false testimony by the surviving perpetrator and his partner. There are the witnesses who can misperceive what happened, who can confabulate what happened, who literally do not know what happened in front of them because they not only were not looking and therefore did not see, but had they been looking, would not have recognized what they saw in terms of the subtle cues and indications of danger.
-------
Ayoob: Certainly, we should not spill our guts at the scene. The involved victim of the near-death experience will experience distorted perceptions: you’ll not be able to keep count of your shots, and the attacker may appear to be closer and larger than he was. Answers to questions like, “Exactly what words did he say before you shot him?

Exactly how many shots did you fire? Exactly how far was he in feet and inches and how many centimeters long was his knife?” will invariably be wrong. To people who’ve never been in that situation, it will look as if you are lying or exaggerating.

You do need to establish at the scene that you were the intended victim; he was the perpetrator. You need to establish at the scene that you are the complainant and he is the perpetrator and suspect. You need to point out the evidence before it disappears. Spent cases get picked up in shoe treads, and I’ve seen them literally blown away in the wind. You need to point out the witnesses. You tell the truth of what happened before they decide, “We don’t want to get involved,” and walk away. And then, you need the self-discipline to say, “Officer, you know how serious this is, you’ll have my full cooperation, after I’ve spoken with counsel.” And stick to that.

eJournal: And this happens between you and the responding officers, because your attorney can’t roll in with a blue light on top of his or her car and be there right after the shooting?

Ayoob: Marty Hayes and I just spent an hour this week trying to do damage control for a case I can’t discuss in detail because its not yet been adjudicated. But essentially, the guy who fired was very well trained in how to shoot but had less than I would have liked him to have in how to justify why he shot. He did what he was told, he said, “I’m not saying anything until my attorney gets here.”

Well, lies were being told by three different participants, who were the perpetrators, if you accept the defense theory of the case. The witnesses, the ear witnesses who heard shouts and gunfire, are basically fungible. The key evidence that could have been locked in at the scene has disappeared, things that should have been tested that could have determined distance and threat level have not been tested and it’s a coin toss whether we will ever be able to now.

It is much easier for the defense attorney and us, if the defendant says, “The evidence is here,” and thus that evidence is preserved. “The witnesses are there,” and now those witness statement are locked in, it’s not something they can begin to confabulate a year later, or maybe someone just didn’t want to be involved, and a year later they read in the newspaper or on the Internet, “Man Convicted,” and they go, “Oh, man, I SAW that thing. The guy was coming at him with a knife and they arrested HIM? Geez!” Well, it’s a little late for that!

eJournal: What is the likelihood of a mere mortal like myself or another Network member having the presence of mind after a life-threatening incident to say enough but not too much?

Ayoob: It would be about the same as ordinary mortals who have the presence of mind to shoot the bad guy enough but not too much, which we know happens virtually every day in America.
-----
eJournal: So the armed citizen gets through the initial police response; now their lawyer is present. How do they keep that lawyer on the right track? What can they do if their lawyer goes off point, maybe they want to plead out, for example?

Ayoob: First, if the guy says, “Plead to something,” when you’ve done nothing wrong, fire him now! He does not understand how to defend innocent people; that is the strategy of the guilty man’s lawyer. My experience has been that a guilty man’s lawyer who gives you a guilty man’s defense, will get you a guilty man’s verdict.

When in doubt, call the Network. We’ll find someone for you.

eJournal: So don’t try to salvage that lawyer?

Ayoob: You’ve done the right thing! Don’t plead because the guy tells you to plead because it is going to be easier for him and cheaper for you! Is it going to be cheaper for you to be a convicted felon for the rest of your life, unable to protect your family, unable to get the kinds of jobs to earn the living that you might have earned otherwise? That does not strike me as victory. It’s the kind of thing that people do when they’re terrified of things they don’t understand and they are, in essence, being blackmailed by the other side’s threats.

eJournal: If the lawyer doesn’t exactly understand how to defend the innocent client, how can you, the self-defense expert, help?

Ayoob: A good attorney has worked in enough different areas to know that he’s not an expert in any one discipline. But if he’s got the right expert, and that expert has done a great many of those kinds of cases, the attorney asks him, “OK, in all the cases you did, what was the most successful strategy, tell me why, tell me how I can use that here.”

eJournal: And those strategies are?

Ayoob: We will establish that you (the defendant) knew certain things that the average layperson on the jury does not know, or for that matter, the average law school graduate who has a job in the prosecutor’s office and ramrods this thing through the grand jury, does not know.

Because the standard is, “What would a reasonable and prudent person have done in the same situation knowing what the defendant knew?” we will educate the jury so they understand why you recognized danger cues that the average layperson would not. We’ll explain why it would not be reasonable or prudent for you to try to kick the knife out of the hand of the man who was lunging at you and your spouse.

We can do reaction, time and motion demonstrations that no material witness can.

eJournal: What’s the difference between the expert and the lay witness? Is there greater latitude?

Ayoob: Oh, hugely! The expert, once retained as such, has access to all the discovery materials, all the reports. We can interview witnesses so long as those witnesses are agreeable to it. We can literally do a full second-stage homicide investigation, and find things that might have been missed in the beginning.

404

armedcitizensnetwork.org

 

[Shelzin]

I'm not saying charges equals guilt. What I am am saying is because he was charged means it's not a clear case of self-defense. Had it been, he would not have been charged.

That's fair. I disagree, but it's a fair stance. Well met.

 

[Faun]

Great, let's see your evidence the people who attempted to disarm him committed arson, robbery or assault....

Assault. As evidenced by the video, one of the terrorists threw a flying kick at that kid in the head. And then another one bashed him in the head with a skateboard and attempted to rob him. If you are exposed on video bashing some kid in the head with your skateboard and trying to grab his gun, that is clear evidence of attempted robbery.

View attachment 425482



View attachment 425487

It's not assault to disarm a killer.

 

[Faun]

I did not keep bringing up the subject.

Moonglow brought it uo and you jumped in on his side

One post by me and your deformed conservative brain translates that into "keep bringing up the subject."

Have you always been this retarded? Seems so because you make claims you can't prove, i.e., hallucinate.

 

[2aguy]

Great, let's see your evidence the people who attempted to disarm him committed arson, robbery or assault....

Assault. As evidenced by the video, one of the terrorists threw a flying kick at that kid in the head. And then another one bashed him in the head with a skateboard and attempted to rob him. If you are exposed on video bashing some kid in the head with your skateboard and trying to grab his gun, that is clear evidence of attempted robbery.

View attachment 425482



View attachment 425487

It's not assault to disarm a killer.

It is assault to attack an innocent man.........