Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

Those videos are what will be shown to the jury.

 

[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?

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.

Never show yourself to someone that enjoys inflicting pain on others. You have my imagination running wild. I'm thinking rubber bands on your testicles. Sugar and spice. Like wasabi and peppers in a paste. Spread around????? Put you in manacles and leg irons. You might like it.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Those videos are what will be shown to the jury.

Along with Jury Instructions telling them to ignore reasonable doubt.

CRITIC’S CORNER: The truth (about jury instruction 140) is out there

Michael D. Cicchini is a criminal defense lawyer in Kenosha. He is also the author or coauthor of two books and 15 law review articles on constitutional law, criminal law and procedure, and other topics. Visit www.CicchiniLaw.com for more information. In my column from March, I wrote about...

wislawjournal.com

The truth is he was in possession of a firearm in violation of law. He did subsequently engage in actions which led directly to the deaths of two people. Odds are he will be found guilty.

 

[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.

Never show yourself to someone that enjoys inflicting pain on others. You have my imagination running wild. I'm thinking rubber bands on your testicles. Sugar and spice. Like wasabi and peppers in a paste. Spread around????? Put you in manacles and leg irons. You might like it.

Maybe if I should, lose the bet. Otherwise, most girlfriends dump me for being too boring.

 

[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.

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.

I think I read he 5 pounds heavier. <sarcasm>Definitely reason to fear for his life.</sarcasm>

 

[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.

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.

Liar, there was not a lot of shooting during Rittenhouse's first kill. There were 5 shots initially. One by a protester firing a round into the air. The next 4 came from Rittenhouse's gun. By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

 

[Montrovant]

I don't recall seeing this posted in the thread, if it already was, I apologize.

I thought I'd post Wisconsin law regarding self-defense, just to clear things up (or, as is too often the case with legalese, muddy things more):

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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.

Never show yourself to someone that enjoys inflicting pain on others. You have my imagination running wild. I'm thinking rubber bands on your testicles. Sugar and spice. Like wasabi and peppers in a paste. Spread around????? Put you in manacles and leg irons. You might like it.

You get Tipsy (no pun intended) and it sounds like you are an old freak.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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."

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.

Clearly, the concept of a "course of instruction" is lost on you. Accordingly, you're incapable of discussing anything rationally and intelligently and, instead, choose to approach this from an emotional perspective.

Emotional arguments never win...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I don't recall seeing this posted in the thread, if it already was, I apologize.

I thought I'd post Wisconsin law regarding self-defense, just to clear things up (or, as is too often the case with legalese, muddy things more):

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Correll will be along shortly to explain how, maybe, Rittenhouse lived on the streets of Kenosha and, as such, the streets qualify as a "dwelling"...

 

[Canon Shooter]

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.

It would be interesting to see if the prosecution moves for a change of venue, which I think they could do. Since they're state charges, the case can be tried anywhere in the state. There's nothing which says it has to be tried in the same city where the crime occurred. And don't forget, in 2008 the Obama/Biden ticket carried 59 of Wisconsin's 72 counties, so it's not like Wisconsin is some conservative stronghold...

 

[Faun]

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."

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.

Clearly, the concept of a "course of instruction" is lost on you. Accordingly, you're incapable of discussing anything rationally and intelligently and, instead, choose to approach this from an emotional perspective.

Emotional arguments never win...

Spits a piece of shit racist.

And shitstain, I'm actually on the same page as you regarding Rittenhouse’s actions in no way qualifies as a 'course of instruction,' so who knows what the fuck you're smoking?

 

[Canon Shooter]

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."

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.

Clearly, the concept of a "course of instruction" is lost on you. Accordingly, you're incapable of discussing anything rationally and intelligently and, instead, choose to approach this from an emotional perspective.

Emotional arguments never win...

Spits a piece of shit racist.

And shitstain, I'm actually on the same page as you regarding Rittenhouse’s actions in no way qualifies as a 'course of instruction,' so who knows what the fuck you're smoking?

Your scenario of a 4 year old carrying an AR-15 was stupid, and exhibits a total lack of ability to carry on a meaningful, intelligent conversation...

 

[Faun]

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."

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.

Clearly, the concept of a "course of instruction" is lost on you. Accordingly, you're incapable of discussing anything rationally and intelligently and, instead, choose to approach this from an emotional perspective.

Emotional arguments never win...

Spits a piece of shit racist.

And shitstain, I'm actually on the same page as you regarding Rittenhouse’s actions in no way qualifies as a 'course of instruction,' so who knows what the fuck you're smoking?

Your scenario of a 4 year old carrying an AR-15 was stupid, and exhibits a total lack of ability to carry on a meaningful, intelligent conversation...

Again, spits a raging racist. Do you even realize being insulted by a piece of shit racist is a badge of honor?

 

[Canon Shooter]

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."

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.

Clearly, the concept of a "course of instruction" is lost on you. Accordingly, you're incapable of discussing anything rationally and intelligently and, instead, choose to approach this from an emotional perspective.

Emotional arguments never win...

Spits a piece of shit racist.

And shitstain, I'm actually on the same page as you regarding Rittenhouse’s actions in no way qualifies as a 'course of instruction,' so who knows what the fuck you're smoking?

Your scenario of a 4 year old carrying an AR-15 was stupid, and exhibits a total lack of ability to carry on a meaningful, intelligent conversation...

Again, spits a raging racist. Do you even realize being insulted by a piece of shit racist is a badge of honor?

Most cum-curgling anus-suckers believe exactly that...

 

[Canon Shooter]

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

 

[Faun]

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."

Seriously, you're a fucking idiot.

Clearly, the concept of a "course of instruction" is lost on you. Accordingly, you're incapable of discussing anything rationally and intelligently and, instead, choose to approach this from an emotional perspective.

Emotional arguments never win...

Spits a piece of shit racist.

And shitstain, I'm actually on the same page as you regarding Rittenhouse’s actions in no way qualifies as a 'course of instruction,' so who knows what the fuck you're smoking?

Your scenario of a 4 year old carrying an AR-15 was stupid, and exhibits a total lack of ability to carry on a meaningful, intelligent conversation...

Again, spits a raging racist. Do you even realize being insulted by a piece of shit racist is a badge of honor?

Most cum-curgling anus-suckers believe exactly that...

Nothing beats the voice of experience.

 

[Faun]

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

Which is why I say Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self defense. You're slow. Maybe in time you'll catch on.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Fi

By the time he was done pulling the trigger on his AR-15, Rosenbaum, who ended up face down on the ground, had been shot in the back.

Shooting someone in the back isn't generally thought of as a tactic used by someone who's defending himself...

But your signature says "Come take 'em" (your guns, of course, no?). And the dead man seems to have been trying take the child's gun, per the filing statement. Should the child not kill him, if he feels the only alternative is to lose the weapon and hope he does not get killed? If so, then he is perfectly justified in emptying the entire 30-round magazine, right?

 

[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.

It would be interesting to see if the prosecution moves for a change of venue, which I think they could do. Since they're state charges, the case can be tried anywhere in the state. There's nothing which says it has to be tried in the same city where the crime occurred. And don't forget, in 2008 the Obama/Biden ticket carried 59 of Wisconsin's 72 counties, so it's not like Wisconsin is some conservative stronghold...

Can the prosecution move for a change of venue? Most states don't allow the prosecution to do that. This has nothing to do with shitststain obama and Biden. You aren't suggesting that democrats enjoy their towns being set on fire and looted, are you?