Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[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.

This is the temporal and secular "gospel" for the militia of the United States.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Due Process applies.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. Did you want anything, traitor?

Traitor to what? I am not the one advocating bearing false witness to our own laws. Only illegals do that.

You are a traitor to America, and everything that is good and decent in the Human Race.


You are loyal to Mexico, and everything that is vile and despicable in the Human Race.

 

[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

Says you. I am not sure this is expert advice lol

You can SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES ON VIDEO, THE MOB ATTACKING HIM AND HIM RUNNING AWAY AND THEM CATCHING UP TO HIM FORCING HIM TO DEFEND HIMSELF.


YOU DON'T NEED TO BE AN EXPERT TO SEE THAT.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Says you. I am not sure this is expert advice lol

I can also see him approach people with a gun and could see how this would be perceived as a threat. I also know his presence and his possession of the rifle were both illegal. So i imagine the prosecution will use an "original sin" argument and probably also argue it was clear he went there with intent to confront and shoot someone.

You can SEE WITH YOUR OWN EYES ON VIDEO, THE MOB ATTACKING HIM AND HIM RUNNING AWAY AND THEM CATCHING UP TO HIM FORCING HIM TO DEFEND HIMSELF.


YOU DON'T NEED TO BE AN EXPERT TO SEE THAT.

I can also see him approach people with a gun and could see how this would be perceived as a threat. I also know his presence and his possession of the rifle were both illegal. So i imagine the prosecution will use an "original sin" argument and probably also argue it was clear he went there with intent to confront and shoot someone.

 

[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.

Actually yes. This is the problem. You want it both ways. You want him treated like a man. Fine. Men who commit crimes go to prison. He was committing the crime of illegal possession of a weapon. Much like our drug dealer, the act of the crime makes self defense a flawed argument. Otherwise every rapist and robber would just swear they had no choice. It was self defense.

No, it is the libs in the thread that want to have it both ways. They want to count him as a child, so that just his having the gun becomes a "crime" and thus he loses his right to self defense but then they want to count him as an adult, so they can see him get life in prison, because they are vindictive and cruel.


IF he was counted as EITHER completely it would be more reasonable to me.


IF they counted him as a minor and thus the gun was "illegal", but then cut him slack because after all, he is a just a kid being attacked by a mob of violent adults, and charge him for just the gun crime, that would be less unjust than what they are doing now.


IF they counted him as an adult, and so just dropped the minor bullshit about the gun, and tried to make the case against Self Defense and for MURDER, honestly, that would make more sense, and hopefully the jury would realize it was complete bullshit and vote to acquit.

 

[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.

And he could be acquitted by the George Zimmerman logic.

That self defense is a good thing? I agree.

Of course you agree with inventions of your own mind. It would be exceedingly odd if you didn't.

The idea that self defense is a good thing, is not something I came up with.


Indeed, the whole argument of liberals in this thread, is that Rittenhouse lost the right to self defense because hispossession of the gun was technically "illegal".

That is not my argument. That has been the legal argument for centuries. Bank Robbers don’t get to claim self defense. When you are committing a crime, the reality for centuries has been you lose the right of self defense. It is why the McMichaels are in jail and facing life in prison.

Rittenhouse was not robbing a bank. He was protecting property from a violent mob intent on burning it down.

That you and/or the Law can't distinguish between the simple act of being armed, vs robbing a bank, is a part of how dysfunctional we are, as a society.

 

[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.

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.

Rosenbaum might have been a little short, but he was no little guy. And he was not alone.


View attachment 429035

A little short? He was almost a dwarf. At 5'3" he was 5 inches shorter than Rittenhouse.

He was also mentally ill, an ex-con, a full fledged adult, and at a guess much heavier than the teenager he attacked. And of course, Rosenbaum was part of violent mob, so your pretense that he was not a immediate physical danger to Rittenhouse, is a clear lie.

 

[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.

This is an honest: have any reports by the ME or others shown that the Rosenbaum shooting happened as you describe?

It's known that Rittenhouse shot him in the back and the only time on the video his back is facing Rittenhouse is while he's lying face down, which is visible in the video I posted.

"Known"? In a mob attack, people move, a lot, And there was a lot of shooting going on. Barring clear video and/or clear forensics, I'm not buying your version.

 

[SavannahMann]

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

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

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

He violated the law.

Period.

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


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

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

So?

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

Yeah, it was.

So what?

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

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


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

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


Rittenhouse? SLAMMED.

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Actually yes. This is the problem. You want it both ways. You want him treated like a man. Fine. Men who commit crimes go to prison. He was committing the crime of illegal possession of a weapon. Much like our drug dealer, the act of the crime makes self defense a flawed argument. Otherwise every rapist and robber would just swear they had no choice. It was self defense.

No, it is the libs in the thread that want to have it both ways. They want to count him as a child, so that just his having the gun becomes a "crime" and thus he loses his right to self defense but then they want to count him as an adult, so they can see him get life in prison, because they are vindictive and cruel.


IF he was counted as EITHER completely it would be more reasonable to me.


IF they counted him as a minor and thus the gun was "illegal", but then cut him slack because after all, he is a just a kid being attacked by a mob of violent adults, and charge him for just the gun crime, that would be less unjust than what they are doing now.


IF they counted him as an adult, and so just dropped the minor bullshit about the gun, and tried to make the case against Self Defense and for MURDER, honestly, that would make more sense, and hopefully the jury would realize it was complete bullshit and vote to acquit.

I can’t remember how many times I have said this. People need to learn about the laws on the books before they arm up. Not what you think they are. Or should be. But what they actually are.

In another thread Conservatives are preaching doom and Mad Max style lawlessness because the new DA in Los Angeles is going to refrain from among other things charging juveniles as adults.

Now you can rant and rave that it doesn’t seem fair. But we’re you of this opinion before Kyle? Or is it your support for killing protesters that has you grasping at weak intellectual straws. It isn’t fair. So it has been fair for fifty years, but because you like the little sod it is not fair now. If Conservatives had not authorized the Juvenile charged as an adult we would not be having this discussion. If Conservatives had not been outraged at lenient sentences Kyle could well get a short sentence instead of decades mandatory. But Conservatives were outraged. They were outraged by Juveniles getting a couple years for murders. So they decided to charge them as adults. Commit adult crimes and face adult penalties. I remember the arguments. I was alive then. Conservatives were outraged that a sob story to the judge resulted in a slap on the wrist. So Mandatory Minimums were created to stop the damned liberals from letting dangerous criminals free.

Now your poster child is facing the system your political ideology created. Now it isn’t fair. When Liberals made those arguments they were derided as being soft on crime.

I have argued for serious judicial reform for a very long time. According you your fellow Conservatives I hate cops, love criminals, and fantasize about roaming packs of hoods raping, murdering, and pillaging through good communities.

Let me close with what I started with. Learn the laws. I did not write them. I did not argue for them. Learn what they are and know when you are breaking them. Do not trust the police. Answer no questions without a lawyer. Because the cops are not going to do a damned thing to soften the blow of the judges gavel smacking down to seal your fate. And pray that somehow you can tell the jury about Jury Nullification. Another thing Conservatives hate. Because that is Kyles only hope. But since Conservatives have made it a crime to tell Juries about it. That hope is a slender one.

 

[Shelzin]

Easy to deduce. He is charged essentially with premeditated first degree murder.

Ok... That's what I thought. Well met.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Easy to deduce. He is charged essentially with premeditated first degree murder.

Ok... That's what I thought. Well met.

Not bad for a dummy, eh?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

 

[SavannahMann]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

Racial preference? Are you not aware that all principals are white? This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the people of Kenosha not wanting their city burned down.

 

[danielpalos]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

She does have a point nonetheless. The jury pool is being selected from a county that has consistently reelected a white wing wacko as Sheriff.

 

[danielpalos]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

She does have a point nonetheless. The jury pool is being selected from a county that has consistently reelected a white wing wacko as Sheriff.

Homicide still happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

She does have a point nonetheless. The jury pool is being selected from a county that has consistently reelected a white wing wacko as Sheriff.

Homicide still happened.

Correct. May be ruled justifiable.

 

[danielpalos]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

If I used a cigar cutter to snip off your fingers one by one and shoved them up your ass would you tickle your prostate? Would you have a happy ending before you bled to death?

You really do need a full body massage with Happy ending; sugar and spice and everything nice is what women can be. I can always use the practice since I am a guy.

 

[danielpalos]

Rittenhouse will be tried in Kenosha. In front of a Kenosha jury. In a town that considers him a hero. The students in the high school wrote essays about him. It's not San Francisco no matter how you pretend it is.

So you are hoping for jury nullification based upon racial preference?

It's tipsycatlover, the aggressive racist. What do you think?

I think she really just needs a full body massage with Happy ending to be Happier.

She does have a point nonetheless. The jury pool is being selected from a county that has consistently reelected a white wing wacko as Sheriff.

Homicide still happened.

Correct. May be ruled justifiable.

Maybe, after all of the facts are discovered.