Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,835
Reaction score
1,657
Points
255
1. YOur assumption that only "conservatives" have been unhappy about criminals getting off after committing serious crimes, is not what I have seen.

2. As a society we should be able to distinguish between a poacher who is hunting out of season and a woman protecting her house. That we cannot, is a sign of something deeply wrong with us.

3. Kyle should NOT go to jail. I understand your unhappiness with our justice system. But, he was actually defending himself from an attack, and if the Law cannot tell that, because of a technicality, that is a major problem with either the Justice system or the law, if not both.
Oh sure. Liberals get bound up when some rich guy gets away with some bullshit.

But to number two. It’s the law is the defense of the Conservatives love child. The cops. The cops shrug and argue they did not write the laws. Well they do. They write the laws like the LEOBR and anyone who wants to be re-elected had better support it and get it through.

Look at some of the other threads on this very board. See the outrage of the Conservatives over anyone getting away with anything? Mention OJ Simpson and watch the heads explode.

A prosecutor is awful over a few little policy changes. Rapists and Murderers will be running around like Mad Max. Flooding the streets. They know the Bail system is unfair and they like it that way. So how long before they start pushing laws to prohibit release on anything but billion dollar bail?

Kyle deserves prison as much as anyone else who has been sentenced over the letter of the law violations. What makes him special? What makes him better than the Air Guard officer who leant a rifle to a friend? What makes him more worthy than a woman who was sent up for possession of drugs. It wasn’t hers. The Prosecutor admitted that her boyfriend had hidden it at her apartment. But the law said she was in possession and the law says she goes to prison. So she went.

Thousands of cases every year. Millions in my lifetime alone. What makes Kyle more deserving of special consideration than the thousands of others who were innocent in spirit but guilty by the letter? Why should those thousands suffer while Kyle doesn’t?

This is the Justice system you and other tough on crime sorts wanted. Enjoy it. Don’t cry and complain when your friends or heroes are targeted. Don’t scream about how unfair it is. Just take solace that we are tough on crime and sure some innocents go to jail. But they were guilty of something or they wouldn’t be there.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
71,868
Reaction score
15,010
Points
2,220
1. YOur assumption that only "conservatives" have been unhappy about criminals getting off after committing serious crimes, is not what I have seen.

2. As a society we should be able to distinguish between a poacher who is hunting out of season and a woman protecting her house. That we cannot, is a sign of something deeply wrong with us.

3. Kyle should NOT go to jail. I understand your unhappiness with our justice system. But, he was actually defending himself from an attack, and if the Law cannot tell that, because of a technicality, that is a major problem with either the Justice system or the law, if not both.
Oh sure. Liberals get bound up when some rich guy gets away with some bullshit.

But to number two. It’s the law is the defense of the Conservatives love child. The cops. The cops shrug and argue they did not write the laws. Well they do. They write the laws like the LEOBR and anyone who wants to be re-elected had better support it and get it through.

Look at some of the other threads on this very board. See the outrage of the Conservatives over anyone getting away with anything? Mention OJ Simpson and watch the heads explode.

A prosecutor is awful over a few little policy changes. Rapists and Murderers will be running around like Mad Max. Flooding the streets. They know the Bail system is unfair and they like it that way. So how long before they start pushing laws to prohibit release on anything but billion dollar bail?

Kyle deserves prison as much as anyone else who has been sentenced over the letter of the law violations. What makes him special? What makes him better than the Air Guard officer who leant a rifle to a friend? What makes him more worthy than a woman who was sent up for possession of drugs. It wasn’t hers. The Prosecutor admitted that her boyfriend had hidden it at her apartment. But the law said she was in possession and the law says she goes to prison. So she went.

Thousands of cases every year. Millions in my lifetime alone. What makes Kyle more deserving of special consideration than the thousands of others who were innocent in spirit but guilty by the letter? Why should those thousands suffer while Kyle doesn’t?

This is the Justice system you and other tough on crime sorts wanted. Enjoy it. Don’t cry and complain when your friends or heroes are targeted. Don’t scream about how unfair it is. Just take solace that we are tough on crime and sure some innocents go to jail. But they were guilty of something or they wouldn’t be there.

1. Liberals, get pissed if the wrong poor person gets off too. And plenty of non lib dems, get just as pissed when actual criminals, get passes, or slaps on the wrist.

2. OJ murdered two people and got off because of racism and stupidity among black jurors, and supported by the black community. That is a scandal.

3. Correct. Kyle is just as deserving of consideration as all the other people jailed because of "technicalities". The inability to distinguish between actual crimes, ie poaching, and "technical violations" like shooting an alligator in the off season because it invaded your house, is what I am talking about. That should not be "special consideration" but common sense.


4. Do I need to spend the time digging up examples of terrible crimes and criminals given a pass for absurd "reasons" that drove the "tough on crime" movement? Or will you do me the courtesy of just admitting it is a valid consideration?

5. If, as a society, we cannot distinguish between real crime and be tough on it, and technicalities, that is because we are a sick culture. And that is the issue and it needs addressed.
 

SavannahMann

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2016
Messages
5,835
Reaction score
1,657
Points
255
1. YOur assumption that only "conservatives" have been unhappy about criminals getting off after committing serious crimes, is not what I have seen.

2. As a society we should be able to distinguish between a poacher who is hunting out of season and a woman protecting her house. That we cannot, is a sign of something deeply wrong with us.

3. Kyle should NOT go to jail. I understand your unhappiness with our justice system. But, he was actually defending himself from an attack, and if the Law cannot tell that, because of a technicality, that is a major problem with either the Justice system or the law, if not both.
Oh sure. Liberals get bound up when some rich guy gets away with some bullshit.

But to number two. It’s the law is the defense of the Conservatives love child. The cops. The cops shrug and argue they did not write the laws. Well they do. They write the laws like the LEOBR and anyone who wants to be re-elected had better support it and get it through.

Look at some of the other threads on this very board. See the outrage of the Conservatives over anyone getting away with anything? Mention OJ Simpson and watch the heads explode.

A prosecutor is awful over a few little policy changes. Rapists and Murderers will be running around like Mad Max. Flooding the streets. They know the Bail system is unfair and they like it that way. So how long before they start pushing laws to prohibit release on anything but billion dollar bail?

Kyle deserves prison as much as anyone else who has been sentenced over the letter of the law violations. What makes him special? What makes him better than the Air Guard officer who leant a rifle to a friend? What makes him more worthy than a woman who was sent up for possession of drugs. It wasn’t hers. The Prosecutor admitted that her boyfriend had hidden it at her apartment. But the law said she was in possession and the law says she goes to prison. So she went.

Thousands of cases every year. Millions in my lifetime alone. What makes Kyle more deserving of special consideration than the thousands of others who were innocent in spirit but guilty by the letter? Why should those thousands suffer while Kyle doesn’t?

This is the Justice system you and other tough on crime sorts wanted. Enjoy it. Don’t cry and complain when your friends or heroes are targeted. Don’t scream about how unfair it is. Just take solace that we are tough on crime and sure some innocents go to jail. But they were guilty of something or they wouldn’t be there.

1. Liberals, get pissed if the wrong poor person gets off too. And plenty of non lib dems, get just as pissed when actual criminals, get passes, or slaps on the wrist.

2. OJ murdered two people and got off because of racism and stupidity among black jurors, and supported by the black community. That is a scandal.

3. Correct. Kyle is just as deserving of consideration as all the other people jailed because of "technicalities". The inability to distinguish between actual crimes, ie poaching, and "technical violations" like shooting an alligator in the off season because it invaded your house, is what I am talking about. That should not be "special consideration" but common sense.


4. Do I need to spend the time digging up examples of terrible crimes and criminals given a pass for absurd "reasons" that drove the "tough on crime" movement? Or will you do me the courtesy of just admitting it is a valid consideration?

5. If, as a society, we cannot distinguish between real crime and be tough on it, and technicalities, that is because we are a sick culture. And that is the issue and it needs addressed.
OH good. Your Conservative knee jerk response comes out.

You created the system. You get to watch your hero disappear into it.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
27,708
Reaction score
10,074
Points
910
Location
Niagara Escarpment
Looks like Kyle is going to stand trial for his alleged crimes:


Kyle Rittenhouse — the 17-year-old charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the shooting of Jacob Blake — will stand trial on charges of felony homicide and other crimes, a court commissioner ruled Thursday.
During a preliminary hearing at Kenosha County Circuit Court, which was held via video link, commissioner Loren Keating ruled that there was enough evidence to send Rittenhouse to trial over the Aug. 25 killings of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26.
Rittenhouse also faces charges of possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18 and felony attempted homicide for injuring a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz.
Lawyers for Rittenhouse argued that the teen, who has been praised by right-wing commentators and viewed sympathetically by the Trump administration, had acted in self-defense when he opened fire.
But Keating said those arguments were issues for trial — not a preliminary hearing. The teen’s lawyers also asked Keating to dismiss two charges, including possession of a dangerous weapon, but the commissioner declined, saying that was also an issue for trial.

Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was released on $2 million bond last month, money mostly raised by conservatives through a legal defense fund.

And in related news..the 19yo who posed as a straw buyer for Kyle's gun has been charged:


Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.

According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.


This thug is going to spend the next 20 years wishing he’d stayed home that night.
 

Pappadave1

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2020
Messages
142
Reaction score
148
Points
68
Location
Oklahoma City
And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.
No reason to pardon him... He shouldn't go to jail. He'll get hit for a couple lesser crimes... But...
He "shouldn't go to jail" huh.
Soooooo any gun nut who feels the urge can just walk around blowing people away on your planet?
Are you REALLY this stupid or is it an act?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
121,132
Reaction score
21,276
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.
No reason to pardon him... He shouldn't go to jail. He'll get hit for a couple lesser crimes... But...
He "shouldn't go to jail" huh.
Soooooo any gun nut who feels the urge can just walk around blowing people away on your planet?
Are you REALLY this stupid or is it an act?
I see Noobie brought his "D" game. Misunderestimated his milieu.
 

Pappadave1

VIP Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2020
Messages
142
Reaction score
148
Points
68
Location
Oklahoma City
And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.
No reason to pardon him... He shouldn't go to jail. He'll get hit for a couple lesser crimes... But...
He "shouldn't go to jail" huh.
Soooooo any gun nut who feels the urge can just walk around blowing people away on your planet?
Are you REALLY this stupid or is it an act?
I see Noobie brought his "D" game. Misunderestimated his milieu.
I repeat. Are you REALLY this stupid or is it an act of some sort? I may be a "noobie" here, but I've been posting on the internet likely longer than you've been alive.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
121,132
Reaction score
21,276
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.
No reason to pardon him... He shouldn't go to jail. He'll get hit for a couple lesser crimes... But...
He "shouldn't go to jail" huh.
Soooooo any gun nut who feels the urge can just walk around blowing people away on your planet?
Are you REALLY this stupid or is it an act?
I see Noobie brought his "D" game. Misunderestimated his milieu.
I repeat. Are you REALLY this stupid or is it an act of some sort? I may be a "noobie" here, but I've been posting on the internet likely longer than you've been alive.
That's mathematically impossible but I see your (gl)ass is empty. Care for a refill?

>> It was approaching midnight on Oct. 16, 1915, when Methodist preacher William Joseph Simmons and at least 15 other men climbed Stone Mountain in Georgia. They built an altar, set fire to a cross, took an oath of allegiance to the “Invisible Empire” and announced the revival of the Ku Klux Klan.​
Beneath a makeshift altar glowing in the flickering flames of the burning cross, they laid a U.S. flag, a sword and a Holy Bible.​
“The angels that have anxiously watched the reformation from its beginnings,” said Simmons, who declared himself Imperial Wizard, “must have hovered about Stone Mountain and shouted hosannas to the highest heavens.”​
... Restricting membership to white Christians, the Klan wore white robes to symbolize “purity,” burned crosses to signify “the Light of Christ” and picked selective scriptures from the Bible to preach white supremacy. The Invisible Empire’s comeback was aided by Hollywood’s first blockbuster, D.W. Griffith’s “The Birth of a Nation,” which glamorized the Klan.​
By the early 1920s, the Klan boasted 5 million members across the country and had infiltrated thousands of churches with its hateful doctrines.​
Many ministers in Protestant denominations would openly declare their membership in the Klan. And creepy photos would capture Klan members in white hoods standing in churches and sitting in choir pews.​
... Simmons believed Christianity supported white supremacy, Kelly J. Baker, author of the book, “The Gospel According to the Klan,” said in an interview. “He and other Klan leaders would look to Christianity to find support for racism. Even liberal Protestant churches supported white supremacy. That seemed the natural order of things. Just as people used biblical texts to support slavery.”​
In 1921, Simmons testified to Congress that he was a minister in not one church but two.​
“As a brief introduction, please, I am a churchman and proud of it. I hold the distinction, which I suppose few men hold, and that is I am a member of two churches — the Congregational Church and a full-fledged associate member of the Missionary Baptist Church, given me as an honor,” Simmons told the House Rules Committee, which was investigating the Klan and “the terrible things being done to innocent people” in the South.​
In Klan propaganda and its 1916 rule book, Simmons said that only “good Christian white people” who believe in racial purity and Protestant morality would save the country from destruction.​
... The Klan symbol, displaying a white cross with a red tear drop, “symbolizes the atonement and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as well as others who have shed their blood for the white race,” says the report, noting that “some KKK leaders are actually ordained ministers and some have even organized churches which enjoy tax-exempt status.” --- Link for the Kids on the Special Bus


There's some history for your sorry ass. Now it's your turn to counter with some intellectual gem like "YOU'RE A BIG STOOPID'

And oh by the way "Colonel Joe" Simmons had no known political party affiliation and in that same Congressional hearing described his Klan as, quote, "the most powerful, secret, non-political organization in existence" (Wade, The Klan of the Fiery Cross, p.151)


What a Dumbass. I told you not to fuck with me. Now get up.
 
Last edited:

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,254
Reaction score
13,359
Points
2,210
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.
Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. That remains to be seen.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,254
Reaction score
13,359
Points
2,210
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...
That's odd? You think I said, "most cum-curgling anus-suckers believe exactly that..." but it first appeared in your post.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,254
Reaction score
13,359
Points
2,210
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. :cuckoo:

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.

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.
He might have deserved to be shot. But shooting Rosenbaum in the back as he's face down on the ground is murder.
 

Godboy

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
19,952
Reaction score
5,709
Points
280
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. :cuckoo:

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.

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.
He might have deserved to be shot. But shooting Rosenbaum in the back as he's face down on the ground is murder.
Link?
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,254
Reaction score
13,359
Points
2,210
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. :cuckoo:

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.

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.
Well you say that. But as a legal principle in this nation people committing crimes are prohibited from claiming self defense. Rittenhouse was committing a crime. If the Judge bars the Self Defense claim than Kyle better look at a plea deal.

So, you don't deny that he had valid fear for his life...


you whole point is that RIttenhouse did not have the LEGAL right to defend himself, because the gun was supposedly illegal.


DO YOU ADMIT THAT RITTENHOUSE WAS ACTUALLY DEFENDING HIS SELF, FROM A VIOLENT MOB, INTENT ON CAUSING GREAT BODILY HARM TO HIM?


And that it is only, LEGALLY speaking, ,that that is not "true" and he can be charged with Murder?
What mob? He was initially chased by one guy with a plastic bag. The mob followed after that in a failed attempt to disarm a killer.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,254
Reaction score
13,359
Points
2,210
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. :cuckoo:

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.

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.
He might have deserved to be shot. But shooting Rosenbaum in the back as he's face down on the ground is murder.
Link?

Rosenbaum's autopsy showed "a gunshot wound to the right groin which fractured his pelvis, a gunshot to the back which perforated his right lung and liver, a gunshot wound to the left hand, a superficial gunshot wound to his lateral left thigh, and a graze gunshot wound to the right side of his forehead."
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
4,940
Reaction score
4,441
Points
1,938
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...
That's odd? You think I said, "most cum-curgling anus-suckers believe exactly that..." but it first appeared in your post.
No, but I think you believe it...
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
72,254
Reaction score
13,359
Points
2,210
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...
That's odd? You think I said, "most cum-curgling anus-suckers believe exactly that..." but it first appeared in your post.
No, but I think you believe it...
Let's review, shall we...?

Yup, you said it ...

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

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
4,940
Reaction score
4,441
Points
1,938
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...
That's odd? You think I said, "most cum-curgling anus-suckers believe exactly that..." but it first appeared in your post.
No, but I think you believe it...
Let's review, shall we...?

Yup, you said it ...

Most cum-curgling anus-suckers believe exactly that...
And, as I said, people like you believe it...
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
7,528
Reaction score
1,525
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
1. YOur assumption that only "conservatives" have been unhappy about criminals getting off after committing serious crimes, is not what I have seen.

2. As a society we should be able to distinguish between a poacher who is hunting out of season and a woman protecting her house. That we cannot, is a sign of something deeply wrong with us.

3. Kyle should NOT go to jail. I understand your unhappiness with our justice system. But, he was actually defending himself from an attack, and if the Law cannot tell that, because of a technicality, that is a major problem with either the Justice system or the law, if not both.
Oh sure. Liberals get bound up when some rich guy gets away with some bullshit.

But to number two. It’s the law is the defense of the Conservatives love child. The cops. The cops shrug and argue they did not write the laws. Well they do. They write the laws like the LEOBR and anyone who wants to be re-elected had better support it and get it through.

Look at some of the other threads on this very board. See the outrage of the Conservatives over anyone getting away with anything? Mention OJ Simpson and watch the heads explode.

A prosecutor is awful over a few little policy changes. Rapists and Murderers will be running around like Mad Max. Flooding the streets. They know the Bail system is unfair and they like it that way. So how long before they start pushing laws to prohibit release on anything but billion dollar bail?

Kyle deserves prison as much as anyone else who has been sentenced over the letter of the law violations. What makes him special? What makes him better than the Air Guard officer who leant a rifle to a friend? What makes him more worthy than a woman who was sent up for possession of drugs. It wasn’t hers. The Prosecutor admitted that her boyfriend had hidden it at her apartment. But the law said she was in possession and the law says she goes to prison. So she went.

Thousands of cases every year. Millions in my lifetime alone. What makes Kyle more deserving of special consideration than the thousands of others who were innocent in spirit but guilty by the letter? Why should those thousands suffer while Kyle doesn’t?

This is the Justice system you and other tough on crime sorts wanted. Enjoy it. Don’t cry and complain when your friends or heroes are targeted. Don’t scream about how unfair it is. Just take solace that we are tough on crime and sure some innocents go to jail. But they were guilty of something or they wouldn’t be there.

1. Liberals, get pissed if the wrong poor person gets off too. And plenty of non lib dems, get just as pissed when actual criminals, get passes, or slaps on the wrist.

2. OJ murdered two people and got off because of racism and stupidity among black jurors, and supported by the black community. That is a scandal.

3. Correct. Kyle is just as deserving of consideration as all the other people jailed because of "technicalities". The inability to distinguish between actual crimes, ie poaching, and "technical violations" like shooting an alligator in the off season because it invaded your house, is what I am talking about. That should not be "special consideration" but common sense.


4. Do I need to spend the time digging up examples of terrible crimes and criminals given a pass for absurd "reasons" that drove the "tough on crime" movement? Or will you do me the courtesy of just admitting it is a valid consideration?

5. If, as a society, we cannot distinguish between real crime and be tough on it, and technicalities, that is because we are a sick culture. And that is the issue and it needs addressed.
If OJ murdered 2 people, there was no evidence for it.
The time frame between the murders and OJ being at the airport is too short for any of the reinactments to account for.
There was absolutely no witness who says they saw a thing.
There was only the circumstantial evidence of the tiny blood spot under the dash of his Bronco, and the gloves in the back yard, which anyone could have planted.
Those should never be enough for a conviction.

But Kyle is guilty because he was deliberately trying to intimidate people with a rifle, in the middle of a intensely emotional demonstration. That is in itself inherently inflammatory and dangerous. His claim of protecting property is invalid because then he should have stood stationary, on guard over that property, with others. Instead he was moving through the demonstration, deliberately making individual contact with demonstrators for some reason. Which makes his claimed motives very skeptical.
 

Tipsycatlover

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2016
Messages
45,665
Reaction score
18,147
Points
2,290
1. YOur assumption that only "conservatives" have been unhappy about criminals getting off after committing serious crimes, is not what I have seen.

2. As a society we should be able to distinguish between a poacher who is hunting out of season and a woman protecting her house. That we cannot, is a sign of something deeply wrong with us.

3. Kyle should NOT go to jail. I understand your unhappiness with our justice system. But, he was actually defending himself from an attack, and if the Law cannot tell that, because of a technicality, that is a major problem with either the Justice system or the law, if not both.
Oh sure. Liberals get bound up when some rich guy gets away with some bullshit.

But to number two. It’s the law is the defense of the Conservatives love child. The cops. The cops shrug and argue they did not write the laws. Well they do. They write the laws like the LEOBR and anyone who wants to be re-elected had better support it and get it through.

Look at some of the other threads on this very board. See the outrage of the Conservatives over anyone getting away with anything? Mention OJ Simpson and watch the heads explode.

A prosecutor is awful over a few little policy changes. Rapists and Murderers will be running around like Mad Max. Flooding the streets. They know the Bail system is unfair and they like it that way. So how long before they start pushing laws to prohibit release on anything but billion dollar bail?

Kyle deserves prison as much as anyone else who has been sentenced over the letter of the law violations. What makes him special? What makes him better than the Air Guard officer who leant a rifle to a friend? What makes him more worthy than a woman who was sent up for possession of drugs. It wasn’t hers. The Prosecutor admitted that her boyfriend had hidden it at her apartment. But the law said she was in possession and the law says she goes to prison. So she went.

Thousands of cases every year. Millions in my lifetime alone. What makes Kyle more deserving of special consideration than the thousands of others who were innocent in spirit but guilty by the letter? Why should those thousands suffer while Kyle doesn’t?

This is the Justice system you and other tough on crime sorts wanted. Enjoy it. Don’t cry and complain when your friends or heroes are targeted. Don’t scream about how unfair it is. Just take solace that we are tough on crime and sure some innocents go to jail. But they were guilty of something or they wouldn’t be there.

1. Liberals, get pissed if the wrong poor person gets off too. And plenty of non lib dems, get just as pissed when actual criminals, get passes, or slaps on the wrist.

2. OJ murdered two people and got off because of racism and stupidity among black jurors, and supported by the black community. That is a scandal.

3. Correct. Kyle is just as deserving of consideration as all the other people jailed because of "technicalities". The inability to distinguish between actual crimes, ie poaching, and "technical violations" like shooting an alligator in the off season because it invaded your house, is what I am talking about. That should not be "special consideration" but common sense.


4. Do I need to spend the time digging up examples of terrible crimes and criminals given a pass for absurd "reasons" that drove the "tough on crime" movement? Or will you do me the courtesy of just admitting it is a valid consideration?

5. If, as a society, we cannot distinguish between real crime and be tough on it, and technicalities, that is because we are a sick culture. And that is the issue and it needs addressed.
If OJ murdered 2 people, there was no evidence for it.
The time frame between the murders and OJ being at the airport is too short for any of the reinactments to account for.
There was absolutely no witness who says they saw a thing.
There was only the circumstantial evidence of the tiny blood spot under the dash of his Bronco, and the gloves in the back yard, which anyone could have planted.
Those should never be enough for a conviction.

But Kyle is guilty because he was deliberately trying to intimidate people with a rifle, in the middle of a intensely emotional demonstration. That is in itself inherently inflammatory and dangerous. His claim of protecting property is invalid because then he should have stood stationary, on guard over that property, with others. Instead he was moving through the demonstration, deliberately making individual contact with demonstrators for some reason. Which makes his claimed motives very skeptical.
That's not what happened. Good thing what really happened is on film and has eyewitnesses.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top