Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[danielpalos]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

So?

Was it against the law for the BLM/Antifa/NAMBLA folks to have a riot?

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

 

[Polishprince]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not to hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

The records of the victims show their motivation, EEF.

You are assuming that Kyle didn't know what their motivation was, proving that will be the persecution's major problem.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Of which Rittenhouse was not a member...

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Of which Rittenhouse was not a member...

An Individual person of the People on his own initiative?

 

[Canon Shooter]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Of which Rittenhouse was not a member...

An Individual person of the People on his own initiative?

A single person does not an organized militia make.

And what in the holy fuck is "an individual person of the People"?

 

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Of which Rittenhouse was not a member...

An Individual person of the People on his own initiative?

A single person does not an organized militia make.

And what in the holy fuck is "an individual person of the People"?

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That should be considered a States' sovereign right.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That should be considered a States' sovereign right.

Except when it's illegal for someone to "keep and bear", as is the case with a 17 year old kid in Wisconsin...

 

[Meathead]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

 

[danielpalos]

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That should be considered a States' sovereign right.

Except when it's illegal for someone to "keep and bear", as is the case with a 17 year old kid in Wisconsin...

Especially when it is a person endangering the security of a free State.

 

[Meathead]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

BS

 

[Canon Shooter]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

BS

Fascinating.

Can you respond, perhaps, intelligently, or is that all we get?

 

[Meathead]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

BS

Fascinating.

Can you respond, perhaps, intelligently, or is that all we get?

There are times when a mere two letters suffice. Take it easy with the commas btw.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

BS

Fascinating.

Can you respond, perhaps, intelligently, or is that all we get?

There are times when a mere two letters suffice. Take it easy with the commas btw.

Two letter responses are appropriate when you can't counter an argument.

How would Rittenhouse have been aware of the backgrounds of strangers he encounters on the streets? That would be like me seeing you for the first time as you drive through a school zone and concluding that you sell drugs to children. There'd be no real basis for it, but, fuck it, you don't seem to be concerned with anything like that, anyway...

 

[Meathead]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

BS

Fascinating.

Can you respond, perhaps, intelligently, or is that all we get?

There are times when a mere two letters suffice. Take it easy with the commas btw.

Two letter responses are appropriate when you can't counter an argument.

How would Rittenhouse have been aware of the backgrounds of strangers he encounters on the streets? That would be like me seeing you for the first time as you drive through a school zone and concluding that you sell drugs to children. There'd be no real basis for it, but, fuck it, you don't seem to be concerned with anything like that, anyway...

Much better with the commas this time around. Sorry snowflake. Their records show a clear propensity to violence, especially Rosenbaum's, and this is a self-defense case.

 

[Faun]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

BS

Fascinating.

Can you respond, perhaps, intelligently, or is that all we get?

There are times when a mere two letters suffice. Take it easy with the commas btw.

Two letter responses are appropriate when you can't counter an argument.

How would Rittenhouse have been aware of the backgrounds of strangers he encounters on the streets? That would be like me seeing you for the first time as you drive through a school zone and concluding that you sell drugs to children. There'd be no real basis for it, but, fuck it, you don't seem to be concerned with anything like that, anyway...

Much better with the commas this time around. Sorry snowflake. Their records show a clear propensity to violence, especially Rosenbaum's, and this is a self-defense case.

Not something Rittenhouse was aware of. Renders it irrelevant to his defense.

 

[22lcidw]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

 

[Meathead]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

Killing thugs is never bad. He should be commended.