Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[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.

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

Have you offered yourself to the whip? Next time a girl finds you boring get on your knees and say "Mistress, may I lick your toes. Please."

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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.

But you're wrong so there is that.

 

[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.

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

That's how I put myself through law school. Men will pay a small fortune to get beat bloody and pissed on. Our friend Daniel is showing a longing for the lash. How about you? Are you excited thinking about blood running down the crack of your ass? It looks like you would like the paddle or the cat. Oh I know. It's verbal and public humiliation. As a brutha thst would suit you. Most black men like open castigation. On your knees peasant.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

By shooting someone in the back?

 

[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.

Have you offered yourself to the whip? Next time a girl finds you boring get on your knees and say "Mistress, may I lick your toes. Please."

And, here I thought simply asking women if they want to help me practice full body massage with Happy ending and g-spot focus work was not Only exciting, but also therapeutic.

 

[Polishprince]

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?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

Not without due process.

 

[Canon Shooter]

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?

By shooting someone in the back?

Mr. Rosenbaum was a child molester. Getting shot in the back was too good for him, IMHO.

But it wasn't self defense, and that's going to be profoundly problematic for Rittenhouse's attorney's...

 

[Canon Shooter]

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?

You'll die an old man before you offer a convincing argument as to how shooting someone in the back is self-defense...

 

[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...

Nothing beats the voice of experience.

Which is why you said it.

You're such a dumbass...

 

[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?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

 

[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?

You'll die an old man before you offer a convincing argument as to how shooting someone in the back is self-defense...

Well good thing i am not doing that. I am arguing why shooting him in the first place is self defense. The man being shot flailing about while being shot and catching one (only one of several) in the back is incidental. So reread my quoted comments again. The first shot wasn't in the back. The first 3 weren't.

 

[danielpalos]

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?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

I agree to disagree. That could be also be viewed as simple murder.

 

[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?

By shooting someone in the back?

Sure, if they are still moving. Still moving = still a threat, right? Just exploring the arguments.

I agree to disagree. That could be also be viewed as simple murder.

Do you disagree strongly enough to put a child in prison for the rest of his life? Because that's what the jury will be faced with.

 

[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.

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.

1. The gun laws are purposefully made insanely complex and intricate as a tactics to make it difficult if not impossible to "learn" them, so as to discourage gun ownership and culture so as to some day, crush it, without ever going though the required constitutional process.

2. I have no problem with Rittenhouse, at 17, being treated as an adult. He demonstrated that he is an adult with the adult way he handled himself. My point is the obvious dishonestly of having it both ways, ie counting him as an adult when it can be used to slam him and counting him as a minor when it can be used against him.


3. My support is for the rights of law abiding citizens to defend themselves vs violent barbarians.

4. People who violently attack people in packs, are not "protestors", they are at least "rioters", if not revolutionaries and traitors.

5. Any fair trial, will see Rittenhouse found not guilty because it was obviously self defense. In a sane world, the judge would have some harsh words for the assholes who even filed the charges.

6. BUT, I suspect that the libs in question, are more about either terrorizing the kid into confessing, or rigging the trial to get a sham verdict.

 

[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.

Those videos are what will be shown to the jury.

I certainly fucking hope so. And without that standard frame by frame bullshit, that gives people hours to second guess a man making decisions in split seconds, while in danger of his life.

 

[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.

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.

None of his actions, forced the mob to attack him. Giving him responsibility for their actions would be a complete injustice.


The gun law is a very minor thing to deny a man his right to self defense. I would bet money that was not the stated intent of that law, when it was pasted.

 

[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.

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

Yes. This guy, and the mob that was attacking with him, were certainly a valid reason for Rittenhouse to fear for his life.


only a complete troll asshole would claim otherwise.

 

[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.

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.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

 

[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.

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.

Possibly. You attack a man and try to take his gun from him, so AT BEST, you and the mob you are a part of, can beat him to within an inch of his life,

a man in that situation might pull the trigger quickly.

Don't like that? Don't attack armed men.

Rosenbaum deserved to be shot.

But if the "armed men" are armed criminals....