Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Canon Shooter]

1. He was a member of a group that planned out a task, involving protecting a building from a violent mob, and providing first aid and other services to the community. And he did it. That type of shit, in normal times, would be a good resume builder.

We're not talking about building a resume, dumbfuck.

As for being a member of a group, who requested he join the group? Who approved his application to join said group.

The answer to both is "no one".

He was a hanger-on...

2. You lied about what he and his group was doing.

Nope...

3. The law, as it is written, could be reasonably interpreted to allow him to possess that firearm, for reasons I stated above.

Not even a little bit.

Show me where in the law it says anything about building a resume. How fucking stupid of you. You're mentally retarded...

 

[Canon Shooter]

He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.

What was the name of the group he was a member of?

 

[Correll]

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?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

The Law, as a concept. The rioters, were rioting and violating curfew and burning shit and the cops saw it and let it happen.


Rittenhouse? SLAMMED.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

I think that in an area and/or a time when cops are ordered to stand down and let rioters riot and burn and loot,


to then arrest someone and charge them, as though they were operating in Mayberry on a peaceful Sunday morning, instead of a freaking WARZONE, while still not caring about all the other crimes committed en mass that night?


Is a violation of the Right to be Equal before the Law.


And is so obviously unfair, that no sane person could truly support it.

That's fine, but doesn't really fall under the phrase "equal application of the law" as I understand it. That phrase is about different people having particular laws applied to them the same way, not completely different laws.

Additionally, other people were arrested during that week following the Blake shooting. It's possible, maybe probable, some of those arrests occurred the night of the Rittenhouse shooting. For example: Kenosha Police Reveal Most Riot Arrests Were From Outside The City

As far as charging someone, are you saying that because there were protests/riots, people were free to murder like some kind of Purge night? I disagree with the charges based on the videos of the incidents, but you seem to be arguing that if a person is in a dangerous place, they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with murder.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

 

[Correll]

1. He was a member of a group that planned out a task, involving protecting a building from a violent mob, and providing first aid and other services to the community. And he did it. That type of shit, in normal times, would be a good resume builder.

We're not talking about building a resume, dumbfuck.

As for being a member of a group, who requested he join the group? Who approved his application to join said group.

The answer to both is "no one".

He was a hanger-on...

2. You lied about what he and his group was doing.

Nope...

3. The law, as it is written, could be reasonably interpreted to allow him to possess that firearm, for reasons I stated above.

Not even a little bit.

Show me where in the law it says anything about building a resume. How fucking stupid of you. You're mentally retarded...

1. Irrelevant. It was certainly an educational experience, even before he was attacked.

2. Nothing "educates" like actually doing the tasks of the job. The group he was part of, was doing something that, in a healthy society, the cops would have been doing. That is educational. Sorry if my use of the term, "resume building" confused you.

 

[Correll]

He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.

What was the name of the group he was a member of?

Don't care. And I don't see how it is relevant.

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. Irrelevant. It was certainly an educational experience, even before he was attacked.

Well, if a father kicks the shit out of his kid for getting a failing grade on his report card, it's definitely going to be an "educational experience", but the father will still get arrested and charged for beating his kid...

2. Nothing "educates" like actually doing the tasks of the job. The group he was part of, was doing something that, in a healthy society, the cops would have been doing. That is educational. Sorry if my use of the term, "resume building" confused you.

The law refers to a formal course of instruction.

You're obviously too fucking thick-headed to understand what that means, and I'm not inclined to try to explain it to a fucking retard.

But I'll ask you again. You said he was a member of a group. What was the name of that group?

 

[SavannahMann]

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?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

The Law, as a concept. The rioters, were rioting and violating curfew and burning shit and the cops saw it and let it happen.


Rittenhouse? SLAMMED.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

I think that in an area and/or a time when cops are ordered to stand down and let rioters riot and burn and loot,


to then arrest someone and charge them, as though they were operating in Mayberry on a peaceful Sunday morning, instead of a freaking WARZONE, while still not caring about all the other crimes committed en mass that night?


Is a violation of the Right to be Equal before the Law.


And is so obviously unfair, that no sane person could truly support it.

That's fine, but doesn't really fall under the phrase "equal application of the law" as I understand it. That phrase is about different people having particular laws applied to them the same way, not completely different laws.

Additionally, other people were arrested during that week following the Blake shooting. It's possible, maybe probable, some of those arrests occurred the night of the Rittenhouse shooting. For example: Kenosha Police Reveal Most Riot Arrests Were From Outside The City

As far as charging someone, are you saying that because there were protests/riots, people were free to murder like some kind of Purge night? I disagree with the charges based on the videos of the incidents, but you seem to be arguing that if a person is in a dangerous place, they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with murder.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

Oh bullshit. Absolute Bullshit. That is like saying a speeding ticket is unconstitutional because every speeder does not get one. The weakest of all excuses is shouting in a childish way they did it too.

 

[Canon Shooter]

He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.

What was the name of the group he was a member of?

Don't care. And I don't see how it is relevant.

You said he was a member of a group.

What's the name of that group?

Why are you being such a chickenshit little coward?

The fact of the matter is that you don't answer the question because you know you can't.

Rittenhouse wasn't affiliated or a member of any group that was there...

 

[SavannahMann]

In previous incidents I have always given the same lesson to be learned. Learn what the law says. Not what you think it is. Not what you think it should be. But what it actually is.

 

[Canon Shooter]

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

No, it's not.

The position you're advocating is that two wrongs should make a right.

Try that in any criminal trial and see how far you get, F. Lee...

 

[Montrovant]

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?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

The Law, as a concept. The rioters, were rioting and violating curfew and burning shit and the cops saw it and let it happen.


Rittenhouse? SLAMMED.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

I think that in an area and/or a time when cops are ordered to stand down and let rioters riot and burn and loot,


to then arrest someone and charge them, as though they were operating in Mayberry on a peaceful Sunday morning, instead of a freaking WARZONE, while still not caring about all the other crimes committed en mass that night?


Is a violation of the Right to be Equal before the Law.


And is so obviously unfair, that no sane person could truly support it.

That's fine, but doesn't really fall under the phrase "equal application of the law" as I understand it. That phrase is about different people having particular laws applied to them the same way, not completely different laws.

Additionally, other people were arrested during that week following the Blake shooting. It's possible, maybe probable, some of those arrests occurred the night of the Rittenhouse shooting. For example: Kenosha Police Reveal Most Riot Arrests Were From Outside The City

As far as charging someone, are you saying that because there were protests/riots, people were free to murder like some kind of Purge night? I disagree with the charges based on the videos of the incidents, but you seem to be arguing that if a person is in a dangerous place, they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with murder.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

1. In the case of curfews, Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with breaking one, was he?

2. Rittenhouse is being charged with murder. Right or wrong, it’s more than “technical violations of the letter of the law.”

 

[Correll]

1. Irrelevant. It was certainly an educational experience, even before he was attacked.

Well, if a father kicks the shit out of his kid for getting a failing grade on his report card, it's definitely going to be an "educational experience", but the father will still get arrested and charged for beating his kid...

2. Nothing "educates" like actually doing the tasks of the job. The group he was part of, was doing something that, in a healthy society, the cops would have been doing. That is educational. Sorry if my use of the term, "resume building" confused you.

The law refers to a formal course of instruction.

You're obviously too fucking thick-headed to understand what that means, and I'm not inclined to try to explain it to a fucking retard.

But I'll ask you again. You said he was a member of a group. What was the name of that group?

1. Big difference between protecting a building and a beating. My point stands. It was educational.

2. Sorry, could you post the law again? I don't recall the law saying it had to be a "formal" course.

3. As I said before, I don't know, nor do I see how it is relevant. Do you have a point to make?

 

[Correll]

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?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

The Law, as a concept. The rioters, were rioting and violating curfew and burning shit and the cops saw it and let it happen.


Rittenhouse? SLAMMED.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

I think that in an area and/or a time when cops are ordered to stand down and let rioters riot and burn and loot,


to then arrest someone and charge them, as though they were operating in Mayberry on a peaceful Sunday morning, instead of a freaking WARZONE, while still not caring about all the other crimes committed en mass that night?


Is a violation of the Right to be Equal before the Law.


And is so obviously unfair, that no sane person could truly support it.

That's fine, but doesn't really fall under the phrase "equal application of the law" as I understand it. That phrase is about different people having particular laws applied to them the same way, not completely different laws.

Additionally, other people were arrested during that week following the Blake shooting. It's possible, maybe probable, some of those arrests occurred the night of the Rittenhouse shooting. For example: Kenosha Police Reveal Most Riot Arrests Were From Outside The City

As far as charging someone, are you saying that because there were protests/riots, people were free to murder like some kind of Purge night? I disagree with the charges based on the videos of the incidents, but you seem to be arguing that if a person is in a dangerous place, they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with murder.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

Oh bullshit. Absolute Bullshit. That is like saying a speeding ticket is unconstitutional because every speeder does not get one. The weakest of all excuses is shouting in a childish way they did it too.

You watch several hundred people break the law, and choose to slam just ONE, I want to know why.

 

[Correll]

He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.

What was the name of the group he was a member of?

Don't care. And I don't see how it is relevant.

You said he was a member of a group.

What's the name of that group?

Why are you being such a chickenshit little coward?

The fact of the matter is that you don't answer the question because you know you can't.

Rittenhouse wasn't affiliated or a member of any group that was there...

This is the first I've heard this claim. Can you back that up?

 

[Correll]

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

No, it's not.

The position you're advocating is that two wrongs should make a right.

Try that in any criminal trial and see how far you get, F. Lee...

I assume that your "first" wrong is the minor technical gun violation, if so, then what is the second "wrong"?

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. Big difference between protecting a building and a beating. My point stands. It was educational.

What building was Rittenhouse protecting?

2. Sorry, could you post the law again? I don't recall the law saying it had to be a "formal" course.

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However, the exception is: "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."

There was no adult leading "a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use" of anything.

At 17 years old, Rittenhouse shouldn't have had that firearm.

If he's tried as an adult, he's completely fucked...

3. As I said before, I don't know, nor do I see how it is relevant. Do you have a point to make?

No, this is the first time you're stating that you don't know. You wanted to belch out your nonsense and simply have people accept it.

You're not real bright, I'll say that much.

It's relevant because you can't name the group. You can't name the group Rittenhouse was a member of because he wasn't a member of any group.

I don't know for which I pity you more: The fact that you resort to making up complete fabrications in order make an argument or the fact that you're profoundly retarded...

 

[Canon Shooter]

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

No, it's not.

The position you're advocating is that two wrongs should make a right.

Try that in any criminal trial and see how far you get, F. Lee...

I assume that your "first" wrong is the minor technical gun violation, if so, then what is the second "wrong"?

Well, you were whining about Rittenhouse's civil rights (which weren't violated), meaning that the first "wrong" was those rioters who broke curfew and the second was Rittenhouse breaking curfew.

You want Rittenhouse to be absolved for that, for no other reason than someone else was.

That's not how the law works...

 

[Canon Shooter]

He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.

What was the name of the group he was a member of?

Don't care. And I don't see how it is relevant.

You said he was a member of a group.

What's the name of that group?

Why are you being such a chickenshit little coward?

The fact of the matter is that you don't answer the question because you know you can't.

Rittenhouse wasn't affiliated or a member of any group that was there...

This is the first I've heard this claim. Can you back that up?

You said he was a member of a group.

You've been a pathetic failure at backing that up.

Ergo, I don't have to back up anything, even though Rittenhouse wasn't a member of any armed group that night.

He was a little boy... just like you. Only he had an illegal firearm...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

Max parenting fail. Poor kid. Had no idea what he was really doing.

 

[SavannahMann]

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?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

The Law, as a concept. The rioters, were rioting and violating curfew and burning shit and the cops saw it and let it happen.


Rittenhouse? SLAMMED.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

I think that in an area and/or a time when cops are ordered to stand down and let rioters riot and burn and loot,


to then arrest someone and charge them, as though they were operating in Mayberry on a peaceful Sunday morning, instead of a freaking WARZONE, while still not caring about all the other crimes committed en mass that night?


Is a violation of the Right to be Equal before the Law.


And is so obviously unfair, that no sane person could truly support it.

That's fine, but doesn't really fall under the phrase "equal application of the law" as I understand it. That phrase is about different people having particular laws applied to them the same way, not completely different laws.

Additionally, other people were arrested during that week following the Blake shooting. It's possible, maybe probable, some of those arrests occurred the night of the Rittenhouse shooting. For example: Kenosha Police Reveal Most Riot Arrests Were From Outside The City

As far as charging someone, are you saying that because there were protests/riots, people were free to murder like some kind of Purge night? I disagree with the charges based on the videos of the incidents, but you seem to be arguing that if a person is in a dangerous place, they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with murder.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

Oh bullshit. Absolute Bullshit. That is like saying a speeding ticket is unconstitutional because every speeder does not get one. The weakest of all excuses is shouting in a childish way they did it too.

You watch several hundred people break the law, and choose to slam just ONE, I want to know why.

He is the one who shot and killed people. On camera.