Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Fort Fun Indiana]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

I would be shocked if they got a conviction for first degree murder. Possessing a firearm doesn't necessarily that someone plans on killing someone...

They only have to.convince the jury of his intent to shoot someone, really. Wisconsin law is funny
... An attempted crime is charged as commission of the crime . Could still be a hard sell. I feel he did intend or hope to shoot somebody, but.concincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of this is a whole other ball of wax.

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

 

[Correll]

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

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

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.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

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

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.


That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.


That is the way cowards and predators work.


In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.

YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.

Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."

You lose yet again because you're a loser.

The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.

That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.


Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.


You are a loser and an asshole.

Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.

The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.

That is something you made up.


That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.


Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?

The bottom line here is that the facts go against both Rittenhouse and your argument. You continually try to twist the facts at hand or apply them in such a way so they'll fit what you want the narrative to be and make sense, and that's just not how it works. Your insistence that something being "educational" equates to a "course of instruction" is downright laughable, yet you continue to promote that idea. You insist he was a member of a group, but he wasn't.

The fact that they're charging him as an adult is very, very bad for him...

I am not equating it to a "course of instruction", but to "educational".

And you've admitted that he was a member of a group, with your talk of "an armed mob" or "an illegal mob".

Nothing in that statute relates to "education." If it did, a 4 year old could carry an AR-15 and you would be claiming such a 4 year old isn't in violation of 948.60 because his use of the gun is "educational."

If the 4 year old was attacked by a child molester and defended himself, would you rather the child molester won the fight and got to harm the child or would you arrest the kid for murder, since you know, reasons.

Of course not. But of such a 4 year old mishandled the gun, fired errant shots into the air, shot such an assailant in the back while laying face down, I also wouldn't classify such use of a dangerous weapon as "educational." And it certainly wouldn't be protected by a law which makes an exception for those "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision."

REally? A four year old being attacked by a child molester and you would really go after him for firing a shot in the air?

Seriously?

Wow.

I mean, I knew that was the answer, I just expected you to lie, so that you would not look like a monster.


Thank you for your honesty.

No, I wouldn't and I already said I wouldn't. What I did say is that it would still not be "educational" in terms of an exemption from 948.60.

THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking.


So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either.


Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder.


Though, I guess you could charge him as a minor. So, he would only be looking as like twenty years.

 

[Faun]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

Please post the video of Rittenhouse standing over Rosebaum's body shooting him in the back. A witness statement would be helpful.

 

[danielpalos]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

Homicide happened. Why was it self-defence for your guy to retreat or give the appearance of retreating and not the other guy?

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

 

[Faun]

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

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

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.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

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

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.


That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.


That is the way cowards and predators work.


In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.

YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.

Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."

You lose yet again because you're a loser.

The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.

That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.


Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.


You are a loser and an asshole.

Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.

The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.

That is something you made up.


That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.


Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?

The bottom line here is that the facts go against both Rittenhouse and your argument. You continually try to twist the facts at hand or apply them in such a way so they'll fit what you want the narrative to be and make sense, and that's just not how it works. Your insistence that something being "educational" equates to a "course of instruction" is downright laughable, yet you continue to promote that idea. You insist he was a member of a group, but he wasn't.

The fact that they're charging him as an adult is very, very bad for him...

I am not equating it to a "course of instruction", but to "educational".

And you've admitted that he was a member of a group, with your talk of "an armed mob" or "an illegal mob".

Nothing in that statute relates to "education." If it did, a 4 year old could carry an AR-15 and you would be claiming such a 4 year old isn't in violation of 948.60 because his use of the gun is "educational."

If the 4 year old was attacked by a child molester and defended himself, would you rather the child molester won the fight and got to harm the child or would you arrest the kid for murder, since you know, reasons.

Of course not. But of such a 4 year old mishandled the gun, fired errant shots into the air, shot such an assailant in the back while laying face down, I also wouldn't classify such use of a dangerous weapon as "educational." And it certainly wouldn't be protected by a law which makes an exception for those "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision."

REally? A four year old being attacked by a child molester and you would really go after him for firing a shot in the air?

Seriously?

Wow.

I mean, I knew that was the answer, I just expected you to lie, so that you would not look like a monster.


Thank you for your honesty.

No, I wouldn't and I already said I wouldn't. What I did say is that it would still not be "educational" in terms of an exemption from 948.60.

THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking.


So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either.


Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder.


Though, I guess you could charge him as a minor. So, he would only be looking as like twenty years.

"THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking."

That too is false. The whole case does not rest on that. Him shooting someone in the back and shooting others trying to stop him from shooting anyone else is what this case rests on. The illegal possession charge is simply another violation, and a minor one at that.

"So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either."

No, for the same reason the illegal possession charge against Rittenhouse is separate from the murder charges.

"Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder."

Thus, you are a raging imbecile.

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

Homicide happened. Why was it self-defence for your guy to retreat or give the appearance of retreating and not the other guy?

You do know that the child molester in this case, was a white guy, right? You don't have to defend him.

 

[Faun]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

Please post the video of Rittenhouse standing over Rosebaum's body shooting him in the back. A witness statement would be helpful.

Spoiler: graphic

 

[Correll]

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

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

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.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

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

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.


That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.


That is the way cowards and predators work.


In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.

YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.

Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."

You lose yet again because you're a loser.

The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.

That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.


Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.


You are a loser and an asshole.

Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.

The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.

That is something you made up.


That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.


Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?

The bottom line here is that the facts go against both Rittenhouse and your argument. You continually try to twist the facts at hand or apply them in such a way so they'll fit what you want the narrative to be and make sense, and that's just not how it works. Your insistence that something being "educational" equates to a "course of instruction" is downright laughable, yet you continue to promote that idea. You insist he was a member of a group, but he wasn't.

The fact that they're charging him as an adult is very, very bad for him...

I am not equating it to a "course of instruction", but to "educational".

And you've admitted that he was a member of a group, with your talk of "an armed mob" or "an illegal mob".

Nothing in that statute relates to "education." If it did, a 4 year old could carry an AR-15 and you would be claiming such a 4 year old isn't in violation of 948.60 because his use of the gun is "educational."

If the 4 year old was attacked by a child molester and defended himself, would you rather the child molester won the fight and got to harm the child or would you arrest the kid for murder, since you know, reasons.

Of course not. But of such a 4 year old mishandled the gun, fired errant shots into the air, shot such an assailant in the back while laying face down, I also wouldn't classify such use of a dangerous weapon as "educational." And it certainly wouldn't be protected by a law which makes an exception for those "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision."

REally? A four year old being attacked by a child molester and you would really go after him for firing a shot in the air?

Seriously?

Wow.

I mean, I knew that was the answer, I just expected you to lie, so that you would not look like a monster.


Thank you for your honesty.

No, I wouldn't and I already said I wouldn't. What I did say is that it would still not be "educational" in terms of an exemption from 948.60.

THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking.


So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either.


Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder.


Though, I guess you could charge him as a minor. So, he would only be looking as like twenty years.

"THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking."

That too is false. The whole case does not rest on that. Him shooting someone in the back and shooting others trying to stop him from shooting anyone else is what this case rests on. The illegal possession charge is simply another violation, and a minor one at that.

"So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either."

No, for the same reason the illegal possession charge against Rittenhouse is separate from the murder charges.

"Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder."

Thus, you are a raging imbecile.

If the prosecutor is not claiming that RIttenhouse did not lose the right to self defense, due to the gun being illegal, then they have no grounds to even charge him.


This is purely an attempt at a kangaroo court

 

[Faun]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Question his honesty. He simply wants a show trial followed by a witch burning.

 

[Correll]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

 

[Faun]

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

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

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.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

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

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.


That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.


That is the way cowards and predators work.


In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.

YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.

Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."

You lose yet again because you're a loser.

The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.

That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.


Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.


You are a loser and an asshole.

Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.

The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.

That is something you made up.


That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.


Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?

The bottom line here is that the facts go against both Rittenhouse and your argument. You continually try to twist the facts at hand or apply them in such a way so they'll fit what you want the narrative to be and make sense, and that's just not how it works. Your insistence that something being "educational" equates to a "course of instruction" is downright laughable, yet you continue to promote that idea. You insist he was a member of a group, but he wasn't.

The fact that they're charging him as an adult is very, very bad for him...

I am not equating it to a "course of instruction", but to "educational".

And you've admitted that he was a member of a group, with your talk of "an armed mob" or "an illegal mob".

Nothing in that statute relates to "education." If it did, a 4 year old could carry an AR-15 and you would be claiming such a 4 year old isn't in violation of 948.60 because his use of the gun is "educational."

If the 4 year old was attacked by a child molester and defended himself, would you rather the child molester won the fight and got to harm the child or would you arrest the kid for murder, since you know, reasons.

Of course not. But of such a 4 year old mishandled the gun, fired errant shots into the air, shot such an assailant in the back while laying face down, I also wouldn't classify such use of a dangerous weapon as "educational." And it certainly wouldn't be protected by a law which makes an exception for those "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision."

REally? A four year old being attacked by a child molester and you would really go after him for firing a shot in the air?

Seriously?

Wow.

I mean, I knew that was the answer, I just expected you to lie, so that you would not look like a monster.


Thank you for your honesty.

No, I wouldn't and I already said I wouldn't. What I did say is that it would still not be "educational" in terms of an exemption from 948.60.

THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking.


So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either.


Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder.


Though, I guess you could charge him as a minor. So, he would only be looking as like twenty years.

"THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking."

That too is false. The whole case does not rest on that. Him shooting someone in the back and shooting others trying to stop him from shooting anyone else is what this case rests on. The illegal possession charge is simply another violation, and a minor one at that.

"So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either."

No, for the same reason the illegal possession charge against Rittenhouse is separate from the murder charges.

"Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder."

Thus, you are a raging imbecile.

If the prosecutor is not claiming that RIttenhouse did not lose the right to self defense, due to the gun being illegal, then they have no grounds to even charge him.


This is purely an attempt at a kangaroo court

Of course they still have grounds to charge him. Again, he shot in the back who was lying face down. That has nothing to do with whether or not Rittenhouse was illegally carrying that gun.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

He doesn't do logic. He chugs prune juice, drops trou, bends over, and spins in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions. He then proclaims victory when people get tired of responding to the same shit for the thirtieth time.

 

[Faun]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.

Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.

You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.

I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.

Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.


IE YOU.

My response to you game, is.

FUCK YOU.

Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...

The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.

Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.


It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.

SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.

So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.

He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.

These cultists no longer even pretend to toy with reality.

I CAN FUCKING SEE THAT IT IS SELF DEFENSE IN THE VIDEO, YOU LUNATIC.

THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, YOU FUCKING LUNATIC.

Dumbfuck, getting hysterical doesn't help your cause. Lying doesn't help your cause. Assuming facts not in evidence doesn't help your cause.

And most of all, shooting someone in the back doesn't help Rittenhouse's claims of self-defense.

Shooting someone who attacks you, is self defense. Even if the bullet strikes the person in the back.


We can see in the video, that Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. That shot placement was not perfect is irrelevant..

False. Self defense is using an appropriate amount of force to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Shooting someone laying face down on the ground, in the back, and killing them is excessive force and not legally allowed in a claim of self-defense.

1. Link to where you got that definition.

2. Rittenhouse was facing a violent, armed mob. The amount of force he used was fine.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Fine. Other than shooting the members of the violent and armed mob, what would have stopped them from attacking Rittenhouse?

As far as shooting Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse had already stopped the threat when Rosenbaum was lying face down on the ground after being shot 3 times. There was no need to shoot him a 4th time in the back other than to kill him.

I doubt it went that way, and even if it did, there is the "Raised knife clause" of self defense.

Your problem with that is that Rosenbaum was not armed.

The "Raised Knife Clause" does not require a literal "Raised knife" just immediate physical danger.


Which having a thug like Rosenbaum, backed up by a violent mob, attacking, certainly covers.

It has to be a significant danger (hence, "raised knife"), which possesses the ability to cause death or great bodily harm. Being chased by a little guy armed with nothing but a stick of deodorant does not qualify.

 

[Jarlaxle]

*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?

He has a really good Ouija board.

Or really good drugs. One of those.

 

[Correll]

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

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

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.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

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

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.


That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.


That is the way cowards and predators work.


In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.

YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.

Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."

You lose yet again because you're a loser.

The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.

That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.


Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.


You are a loser and an asshole.

Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.

The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.

That is something you made up.


That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.


Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?

The bottom line here is that the facts go against both Rittenhouse and your argument. You continually try to twist the facts at hand or apply them in such a way so they'll fit what you want the narrative to be and make sense, and that's just not how it works. Your insistence that something being "educational" equates to a "course of instruction" is downright laughable, yet you continue to promote that idea. You insist he was a member of a group, but he wasn't.

The fact that they're charging him as an adult is very, very bad for him...

I am not equating it to a "course of instruction", but to "educational".

And you've admitted that he was a member of a group, with your talk of "an armed mob" or "an illegal mob".

Nothing in that statute relates to "education." If it did, a 4 year old could carry an AR-15 and you would be claiming such a 4 year old isn't in violation of 948.60 because his use of the gun is "educational."

If the 4 year old was attacked by a child molester and defended himself, would you rather the child molester won the fight and got to harm the child or would you arrest the kid for murder, since you know, reasons.

Of course not. But of such a 4 year old mishandled the gun, fired errant shots into the air, shot such an assailant in the back while laying face down, I also wouldn't classify such use of a dangerous weapon as "educational." And it certainly wouldn't be protected by a law which makes an exception for those "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision."

REally? A four year old being attacked by a child molester and you would really go after him for firing a shot in the air?

Seriously?

Wow.

I mean, I knew that was the answer, I just expected you to lie, so that you would not look like a monster.


Thank you for your honesty.

No, I wouldn't and I already said I wouldn't. What I did say is that it would still not be "educational" in terms of an exemption from 948.60.

THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking.


So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either.


Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder.


Though, I guess you could charge him as a minor. So, he would only be looking as like twenty years.

"THe whole case against Rittenhouse rests on his possession of the gun being illegal, and thus him not being able to claim self defense, legally speaking."

That too is false. The whole case does not rest on that. Him shooting someone in the back and shooting others trying to stop him from shooting anyone else is what this case rests on. The illegal possession charge is simply another violation, and a minor one at that.

"So, if you are going to call the four year old's possession of the gun, illegal, that he used to protect himself, then he doesn't get to claim self defense either."

No, for the same reason the illegal possession charge against Rittenhouse is separate from the murder charges.

"Thus, by the oh so sacred LETTER OF THE LAW, you have to charge him with murder."

Thus, you are a raging imbecile.

If the prosecutor is not claiming that RIttenhouse did not lose the right to self defense, due to the gun being illegal, then they have no grounds to even charge him.


This is purely an attempt at a kangaroo court

Of course they still have grounds to charge him. Again, he shot in the back who was lying face down. That has nothing to do with whether or not Rittenhouse was illegally carrying that gun.

I doubt that is what happened.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

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.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

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

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

It interferes with his dreams of show trials and witch burnings.