Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Shelzin]

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

I question your honesty and retention of your ability of independent thought if you think he didn't go there with his rifle hoping to shoot a faceless blm soros terrorist. So question away. Loud and proud. I will give you all the rope you need.

I restate what I just said. I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

Edit: It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this kid didn't even know who Soros is. I never followed politics that hard at that age.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

I question your honesty and retention of your ability of independent thought if you think he didn't go there with his rifle hoping to shoot a faceless blm soros terrorist. So question away. Loud and proud. I will give you all the rope you need.

I restate what I just said. I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

Great, Shelzin want a cracker?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

I question your honesty and retention of your ability of independent thought if you think he didn't go there with his rifle hoping to shoot a faceless blm soros terrorist. So question away. Loud and proud. I will give you all the rope you need.

I restate what I just said. I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

And it doesn't matter if he wanted to kill. He wanted to blow holes in people, which is an attempt to kill. I would buy that this poor, stupid child had not thought far enough into it to realize that blowing large holes in human beings would probably result in their deaths. Unfortunately for him, Wisconsin law charges the attempt at a crime as the successful commission of the crime. And yes, the idea that he absolutely was hoping to blow a large hole in a person will be strenuously argued by the prosecution.

 

[Shelzin]

Great, Shelzin want a cracker?

I want to make sure you understand that the tactic of making me seem as if I'm part of a group won't work. There is no spoon... Or rope. Nothing you say will change what I say, unless you come at me with some sort of logic. You have not.

And it doesn't matter if he wanted to kill. He wanted to blow holes in people, which is an attempt to kill.

I seriously question your intelligence if you think this young kid wanted to blow holes in people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Great, Shelzin want a cracker?

I want to make sure you understand that the tactic of making me seem as if I'm part of a group won't work. There is no spoon... Or rope. Nothing you say will change what I say, unless you come at me with some sort of logic. You have not.

And it doesn't matter if he wanted to kill. He wanted to blow holes in people, which is an attempt to kill.

I seriously question your intelligence if you think this young kid wanted to blow holes in people.

Of course he did. That is why he took the rifle. That is why he illegally snuck there with an illegal weapon and illegally roamed the streets alone after curfew. He had no delusions he could single-handedly stop people from, say, damaging property. He approached them alone and hoped they would target him, so that he could experience the real feeling of blowing a large hole in a person. This will be the prosecution's argument. You can sit there and preen yourself and march around like a little peacock, but i certainly hope the kid's lawyers have a better strategy than whatever it is you are doing.

 

[Shelzin]

Of course he did. That is why he took the rifle. That is why he illegally snuck there with an illegal weapon and illegally roamed the streets alone after curfew.

It's also why he ran away from them.

This will be the prosecution's argument. You can sit there and preen yourself and march around like a little peacock, but i certainly hope the kid's lawyers have a better strategy than whatever it is you are doing.

You bring a gun somewhere and open show it for two reasons mainly...

1) You want to kill people.

2) You don't want to kill people.

You bring a gun because you don't want to fight. Only a insane/crazy person would attack someone with a gun and not expect to be shot.

Given the only people this kid shot are people who attacked him.. That's a shitty argument for the prosecution.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course he did. That is why he took the rifle. That is why he illegally snuck there with an illegal weapon and illegally roamed the streets alone after curfew.

It's also why he ran away from them.

This will be the prosecution's argument. You can sit there and preen yourself and march around like a little peacock, but i certainly hope the kid's lawyers have a better strategy than whatever it is you are doing.

You bring a gun somewhere and open show it for two reasons mainly...

1) You want to kill people.

2) You don't want to kill people.

You bring a gun because you don't want to fight. Only a insane/crazy person would attack someone with a gun and not expect to be shot.

Given the only people this kid shot are people who attacked him.. That's a shitty argument for the prosecution.

He ran because a person can grab his rifle at close range. He had a long gun, not a handgun.

He brought a gun because he wanted to fight. Well, not so much fight (he is a terrified sissy and a child, after all). He wanted to provoke someone else into starting a fight so that he could justify to himself blowing a large hole in a person.

Again, for the kid's sake, i hope his lawyers come armed with better arguments than you have

 

[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.

Frankly, i am torn over all of this.

On one hand, he MUST be convicted of a crime and the message MUST be sent that this vigilante violence will not be tolerated.

On the other hand, it makes me very sad to see this child's life ruined by this event. An event that was in no small part caused by the f**kface Trumpanzee parents and friends surrounding this poor child. While these lobotomized dumfuks sat around and cackled and talked violence, not one of them peeled their lobotomized asses off of their couches to lift a finger to follow through on their retarded rhetoric. Instead they sent a child with an illegal weapon and their blessings. They are about a half notch above Palestinians who send children on suicide missions, on the morality scale. If this country were not in the grips of dealing with an insane cult, we would be universally horrified that these inbred dumfuks sent a child to act out their perverse fantasies. Poor kid.

 

[Shelzin]

Again, for the kid's sake, i hope his lawyers come armed with better arguments than you have

*shrugs*

The feeling is mutual. That's pretty much exactly what I'm thinking about you. So... Well met.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Why did the Kenosha police buddy up to white wing militias from out of town? How did these militias coordinate with the police?

I don't think they did.

A militia can operate legally only if the Governor says they can operate legally. What the local police department says doesn't really matter...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's pretty much exactly what I'm thinking about you.

*and the prosecutors. Remember, will be their arguments. They think they can get a conviction. I bet they would be relieved to have you as the defense lawyer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't think they did.

It is established fact that they did. They interacted with them, thanked them, helped them know where to go by plotting toward the protestors, gave them water, etc. Then -- interestingly enough -- the next day, ZERO militia members showed up in Kenosha. Uncoordinated coincidence? Doubtful.

But the facts would be the tell. An investigation is in order.

 

[Faun]

1. I don't care what building he was protecting.

It's not that you don't care, it's that you don't know...

2. There was not an adult in charge of the group? It was an unorganized rabble? First I heard that claim. Seems unlikely from what little I saw.

Okay, now you're going full-retard now.

Even if it was an organized action in the street, it fails to adhere to Wisconsin state law...

3. I saw a clip of a man discussing the intentions of the group. Their name doesn't matter to me.

Of course it doesn't, because you don't know. You don't know anything. You're a, well, you're a retard...

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

 

[Shelzin]

*and the prosecutors. Remember, will be their arguments. They think they can get a conviction. I bet they would be relieved to have you as the defense lawyer.

*nods*

How do you know what their arguments are going to be?

 

[Bush92]

Hmm. The democrats bail out race rioters. Fact. People that burned down cities and race riots. Trump haters did this. The democrats constantly push this anti cop anti white narrative. Is this what the democrats think democracy has come to? Pandering to the lowest common denominator? Apparently.

When Democrats in power in local government refuse to stand-up and protect citizens as per the social contract then Patriots must act.

 

[Bush92]

1. I don't care what building he was protecting.

It's not that you don't care, it's that you don't know...

2. There was not an adult in charge of the group? It was an unorganized rabble? First I heard that claim. Seems unlikely from what little I saw.

Okay, now you're going full-retard now.

Even if it was an organized action in the street, it fails to adhere to Wisconsin state law...

3. I saw a clip of a man discussing the intentions of the group. Their name doesn't matter to me.

Of course it doesn't, because you don't know. You don't know anything. You're a, well, you're a retard...

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

He is a Patriot in the tradition of the Minutemen.

 

[Faun]

1. I don't care what building he was protecting.

It's not that you don't care, it's that you don't know...

2. There was not an adult in charge of the group? It was an unorganized rabble? First I heard that claim. Seems unlikely from what little I saw.

Okay, now you're going full-retard now.

Even if it was an organized action in the street, it fails to adhere to Wisconsin state law...

3. I saw a clip of a man discussing the intentions of the group. Their name doesn't matter to me.

Of course it doesn't, because you don't know. You don't know anything. You're a, well, you're a retard...

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

He is a Patriot in the tradition of the Minutemen.

 

[Correll]

1. I think "very educational" does cut it.

Well, you need to wrap that pointed little head around the fact that what you "think" doesn't matter an iota...

2. My position is not based on the name of the group, just that there was someone older than 18 organizing it.

No groups, militia or otherwise, were approved by the Governor. That means they're little more than armed street mobs.

And whether or not someone over 18 was "organizing" it doesn't matter...

3. I don't care and don't know and I "admitted" it in the post you just responded to, so you talk of "cowardice" is you trying to bolster your weakening case with bluster.

You say you don't care, but the fact of that matter is that it appears as though it's going to become a rather integral part of the defense his lawyers intend to proffer.

Given your position on this matter, if you don't care, you should...

4. I think that if he gets a fair trial, he gets off on self defense. Because it is clearly is self defense.

Well, when I look at things you've thought about in the past, you don't seem too adept at the whole "thinking" thing...

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

 

[Correll]

Given the amount of people there with guns... That wouldn't be logical. Why didn't they get attacked

Because they didn't confront people in the same manner, or if they did, nothing resulted. Easy qeustion, easy answer. You can call it illogical, but you remarks seem contrived and empty, as he is charged. If you are looking for someone to buy into the charges having no merit or argument and deriving merely from emotion, you will have to find someone dumber and more gullible to discuss this than me.

Do the charges against Rittenhouse include threatening with a weapon?

I am not your assistant. State your point.

You made the statement earlier that "Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat." Then you went on to say that others didn't get attacked because they didn't confront people in the same manner as Rittenhouse. I'm curious if that is part of the charges against him, or if it was argued by the prosecution, basically what is leading you to the conclusion that the charges are based on Rittenhouse confronting others with a weapon. It sounds as though you are saying it was his actions prior to the shootings which, at least in part, led to the charges.

Libs like to imply shit. That why when you call them on it, they can pretend you are putting words in their mouths and make the argument about semantics, thus burying the fact that you totally called them on their shit and they got NOTHING to say to back their shit up.

I neither agree that all liberals do that, nor do I think it’s something in any way limited by political affiliation

They say that optimism is a from of bravery. I don't know if I agree with "they". I constantly look for exceptions to this rule. So far, no clear winners.

 

[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.

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

In self defense. On camera.


You would rather that the mob had beat him to death?

OK. A man is selling Marijuana in a parking lot. Another man confronts him. The dope seller shoots him and declares self defense. Is that a valid claim of self defense?

A reasonable question. Especially in a clear cut case of a man committing a crime.


Rittenhouse was not selling drugs. He was trying to get back to his group and was prevented from doing that by the police.

The sole "illegality" that he MIGHT be accused of, was his possession of the gun.

Which would only be illegal, if it was, because he was a minor.


Of course, they are charging him as an adult.

So, they want him lose the right to self defense and then be charged as an adult, when he can only be accused of homicide because he was a minor at the time....


Does that really feel right to you?


This is why I am against gun control laws, generally. People present the worst case scenarios, ie, someone selling drugs in a parking lot, and then some poor guy gets life in freaking prison for defending himself from a mob.