Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[M14 Shooter]

Rittenhouse acted irresponsibly and illegally.

False.
In each of the instances where he shot someone, he was being chased.
Whatever he may have done to provoke being chased, as soon as he disengaged - ran away - his right to in self-defense reset.
So says WI law.
Unless you believe the people chasing him had the right to harm him, you cannot help but agree.

 

[Leo123]

Rittenhouse acted irresponsibly and illegally. He needs to be accountable for his conduct. This has nothing at all to do with Democrats or Republicans.

Your opinion is noted but, that is for a jury to decide in a court of law. Frankly I don't see how he is guilty of murder when he was clearly fearing and fleeing for his life but, that's my opinion.

 

[tahuyaman]

While I think Rittenhouse needs to be held accountable, I do believe that he should not have his life ruined. He's young enough where he can mature and learn from this and recover.

He needs to learn to ask himself one question before he does something...."would an idiot do this?" Then if the answer is yes, don't do it.

 

[tahuyaman]

False.
In each of the instances where he shot someone, he was being chased.
Whatever he may have done to provoke being chased, as soon as he disengaged - ran away - his right to in self-defense reset.
So says WI law.
Unless you believe the people chasing him had the right to harm him, you cannot help but agree.

Look. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that Rittenhouse was breaking the law in Wisconsin.


I don't know how anyone who claimes to be a proponant of law and order can condone or excuse Rittenhouse's actions. A conservative certainly can't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He needs to learn to ask himself one question before he does something...."would an idiot do this?" Then if the answer is yes, don't do it.

Would you shoot someone chasing you with the intent to do you harm?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look. It is beyond any shadow of doubt that Rittenhouse was breaking the law in Wisconsin.

Not when he shot the people chasing him.

I don't know how anyone who claimes to be a proponant of law and order can condone or excuse Rittenhouse's actions.

So, you DO believe the people chasing him had the right to harm him.
Why?

 

[tahuyaman]

Your opinion is noted but, that is for a jury to decide in a court of law. Frankly I don't see how he is guilty of murder when he was clearly fearing and fleeing for his life but, that's my opinion.

I can agree that a lesser charge might be appropriate. manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can agree that a lesser charge might be appropriate. manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.

So, you DO believe the people chasing him had the right to harm him.
Why?

 

[tahuyaman]

Not when he shot the people chasing him.

So, you DO believe the people chasing him had the right to harm him.
Why?

Where did I say that? Two wrongs don't make a right. Rittenhouse wasn't the only one who should be held accountable for their conduct that night

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where did I say that?

It's the only other option.
-If Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense, it can only be that the people chasing him with the intent to do harm had the right to do so.
-If the people chasing Rittenhouse with the intent to harm him had no right to do so, then Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.
There's no grey area here.

As you believe Rittenhouse committed a crime, you must then believe the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so.
Why do you believe this?

 

[tahuyaman]

Rittenhouse made a series of dumb decisions. Those dumb decisions should have consequenses. Hopefully he will be given some time to reflect on his actions and develop better decision making skills.

Nowhere did I condone anyone's actions during that riot.

 

[tahuyaman]

...As you believe Rittenhouse committed a crime, you must then believe the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so.
Why do you believe this?

Where are getting that illogical idea?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where are getting that illogical idea?

I explained it to you in the rest of the post you just responded to - there is no grey area here..
So, again:
As you believe Rittenhouse committed a crime, you must then believe the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so.
Why do you believe this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Rittenhouse made a series of dumb decisions. .

Nothing here changes the fact he acted in self-defense.
Unless, of course, you believe the people chasing him with the itent to do harm had the right to do so.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Would you shoot someone chasing you with the intent to do you harm?

Would you defend yourself from a person threatening you with a rifle?

 

[Leo123]

Rittenhouse made a series of dumb decisions. Those dumb decisions should have consequenses. Hopefully he will be given some time to reflect on his actions and develop better decision making skills.

Nowhere did I condone anyone's actions during that riot.

"Dumb decisions" is, yet again, your opinion. Rittenhouse was seen actually helping the businesses erase graffiti, etc. from their buildings. Perhaps the rioters did not like that and perhaps YOU would not have made that decision but, it could hardly be called a 'dumb decision.' You may think carrying a rifle was a 'dumb decision' but it certainly kept him from being shot, beat up and possibly murdered himself.

I have actually been on a jury and I can tell you that one does not know all the facts of a case until all the evidence and discovery is made known and, there is typically a lot of it. I used to do work for a PI who had to organize all his found evidence and I can tell you that it is not uncommon for lawyers to come to court with boxes full of binders with discovery and evidence.

 

[tahuyaman]

Would you defend yourself from a person threatening you with a rifle?

I would not travel to a city in another state and participate in a violent riot. That would be tempting fate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would not travel to a city in another state and participate in a violent riot. That would be tempting fate.

Nothing here changes the fact he acted in self-defense.
Unless, of course, you believe the people chasing him with the itent to do harm had the right to do so.

 

[tahuyaman]

"Dumb decisions" is, yet again, your opinion. Rittenhouse was seen actually helping the businesses erase graffiti, etc. from their buildings. Perhaps the rioters did not like that and perhaps YOU would not have made that decision but, it could hardly be called a 'dumb decision.' You may think carrying a rifle was a 'dumb decision' but it certainly kept him from being shot, beat up and possibly murdered himself.

It is a very dumb decision for a teenager with no training or experience to arm himself and participate in a violent riot. The smart thing to do would be to get out of there and return to the safety of your home which was not being threatened.

I don’t know why you continue to make this weird claim that I somehow support the conduct of the people he shot or killed?

 

[Leo123]

I would not travel to a city in another state and participate in a violent riot. That would be tempting fate.

Rittenhouse, by his own statement, did not go there to participate in the riot. He went there to help the business owners who were VICTIMS of the rioters. He was seen helping them clean up in fact. One off duty law enforcement officer was killed trying to help the business owners as well so, we can assume that being armed while helping was probably a good decision on Rittenhouse's part.