Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Rigby5]

Carrying a rifle does not constitute a provocation in itself. Rittenhouse, by all accounts, was not running around randomly pointing or shooting his rifle. Part of the evidence will be the video that shows someone shooting in Rittenhouse's direction and the rioters that were descending upon him. The capacity of the rifle (how many bullets the magazine held) may be a point of law but has little to do with the incident because Rittenhouse only fired a few shots in self defense. As I said, he may be guilty of carrying a gun because he was under 18 but that is a misdemeanor in Wisconsin. IF Wisconsin has a magazine limit and he exceeded that, he may also be guilty of that but those are minimal infractions and do not constitute murder.

Rittenhouse carrying a rifle out into the riot does constitute a provocation in itself.
It is not as if he was a property owner and had a logical need to defend property.
The ONLY reason to be there carrying a rifle was in order to deliberately intimidate others.
Carrying a rifle in a violent demonstration is incredibly provocative.
The only thing that could be more provocative would be actually pointing it at people, which apparently he also did.

I saw no evidence of anyone shooting at Rittenhouse, but if so, then the reaction of a normal person would be to leave, not return fire in a crowd.

The capacity matters because it increased the threatening imposition on others.
And clearly he did abuse it, since he shot one person 5 times, when a single shot at close range should have been more than lethal enough.
Since he also shot 2 other people and missed with some shots, he then must have fired more than 10 rounds, which shows he was intending on abusing that high capacity magazine.

And you forget that while the carrying while under age may be normally a misdemeanor, all charges are accelerated when in commission of a felony, like murdering someone.

Shooting one person could claim that person was unusual or the source of the problem, but with him shooting 3 people, it shows he was the source of the problem.

 

[Rigby5]

Trial???


Crucifixion.

There is only 'justice' for Democrats.




Democrats are criminals, and that they have co-opted the agencies that are supposed to restrain criminality.

Instead.....they only target Republicans.....
General Flynn

Roger Stone

Scooter Libby

Papadopolous, Page, .......Trump

Dinesh D'souza.....

Any charges or investigations of Julie Swetnick ???? Blasey Ford????Kevin Clinesmith?????


How about this:
Clapper lied when asked, under oath, by Senator Ron Wyden (Oregon-Democrat) " On March 12, at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wyden asked Clapper: “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper responded: “No, sir.” When Wyden followed up by asking, “It does not?” Clapper said: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could, inadvertently perhaps, collect—but not wittingly.” Clapper did not specify at the time that he was referring to e-mail." James Clapper's Tip for Avoiding Lies: Don't Do Talking Points | emptywheel


How about this?


Sen. Paul: Fauci Lied Under Oath on Gain of Function ...

Sen. Paul: Fauci Lied Under Oath on Gain of Function Research in Wuhan
During his appearance Tuesday on the Real America's Voice program " The Water Cooler," Paul was asked if he thought Fauci "perjured himself" before a recent Senate committee hearing on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Paul's answer was unequivocal: "Absolutely. He lied to the American people."

Biden’s Department of Justice Drops Charges Against Chinese Soldiers Who Lied to Acquire Jobs at American Universities

Biden’s Department of Justice Drops Charges Against Chinese Soldiers Who Lied to Acquire Jobs at American Universities › American Greatness

The Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) announced last week that it was dropping charges against five members of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) who had lied about their…

amgreatness.com

​

I don't hold out much hope for the poor boy who was simply protecting his life.

Some being threatening and provocative can't claim self defense.
Everyone else can however.

 

[Rigby5]

He can.
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.

Wrong.
The police and safety were always less than a block away.
He also should have known that carrying a rifle was incredibly provocative, deliberately intimidating, and irresponsible.
He had no right to self defense when he deliberately avoided the safety of the police until after he has shot 3 innocent people.

 

[Rigby5]

He acted exactly as you would have.

No one should go to a demonstration with the intent of trying to intimidate them with a show of deadly force.
It would have been different if intent on just defending a particular building or something.

But Rittenhouse appears to be insane to me.
He is claiming to have been intent to act as a medic, and that is then insane to be carrying a rifle.
Medics are the last people you would expect to be armed.

 

[surada]

No one should go to a demonstration with the intent of trying to intimidate them with a show of deadly force.
It would have been different if intent on just defending a particular building or something.

But Rittenhouse appears to be insane to me.
He is claiming to have been intent to act as a medic, and that is then insane to be carrying a rifle.
Medics are the last people you would expect to be armed.

What a stupid kid.

 

[Rigby5]

He can.
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.

Of course the demonstrators had the right to harm Rittenhouse.
Anyone deliberately intent on intimidating a valuable demonstration over rights, by the irresponsible display of a high capacity weapon, has to be arrested ad stopped.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, you already made those points. And I addressed them.
When all you have to a counter point, is to reasserting your previous, already refuted points,
That is you losing the debate. Now you are just stonewalling with spam.
Here are the points, again, that you cannot refute.
There was nothing immature about his actions. And his training seemed quite good.
No, societies die when their young men WON'T fight to protect them, and just sit back as the barbarians rampage and burn.
Yes, it would be nice if our actual police were doing their jobs. Unfortunately, our political class won't let them.
And the voters seem to be ok with that.
Actually, Rittenhouse is just about the only part of our society that was working, and now that we are punishing him for it,
Yep. we really are doomed. I mean that completely seriously. Barring rapid and drastic course corrections.

Wrong.
It was the demonstrators who were in the right.
Police have historically always been abusive.
It was wrong, immoral, and illegal for Rittenhouse to attempt to interfere with the political expression of the demonstrators.

Back in the early founder days, torchlight parades where politicians were hung in effigy were common.
Anyone trying to interfere with these demonstrations would be arrested, as they are essential to a democracy, even when you disagree with them.

 

[Rigby5]

The police and military have been letting the rioters riot. Or haven't you noticed?

They have been ordered to do so, by people like you, elected by people like you.

The barbarians dead in the streets, is better than their target dead in the street, and the kid is a hero. That he is on trial is a shame for America.

Wrong.
The "barbarians" had a valid political grievance in that police are guilty of racial misconduct to the point of murder.
Nor is there any indication the "barbarians" were intent on murder because they did not bring and use deadly weapons.
Rittenhouse was the only one who not only brought and used deadly weapons, but deliberately brought the largest one there.

 

[Rigby5]

Obama contributed to black rage based on lies, which later resulted in violence

So don't you believe there is constant bias against Blacks?
Why else are police killing so many Blacks who legally should not have been killed, and the police still not prosecuted?

 

[Leo123]

Rittenhouse carrying a rifle out into the riot does constitute a provocation in itself.
It is not as if he was a property owner and had a logical need to defend property.
The ONLY reason to be there carrying a rifle was in order to deliberately intimidate others.
Carrying a rifle in a violent demonstration is incredibly provocative.
The only thing that could be more provocative would be actually pointing it at people, which apparently he also did.

I saw no evidence of anyone shooting at Rittenhouse, but if so, then the reaction of a normal person would be to leave, not return fire in a crowd.

The capacity matters because it increased the threatening imposition on others.
And clearly he did abuse it, since he shot one person 5 times, when a single shot at close range should have been more than lethal enough.
Since he also shot 2 other people and missed with some shots, he then must have fired more than 10 rounds, which shows he was intending on abusing that high capacity magazine.

And you forget that while the carrying while under age may be normally a misdemeanor, all charges are accelerated when in commission of a felony, like murdering someone.

Shooting one person could claim that person was unusual or the source of the problem, but with him shooting 3 people, it shows he was the source of the problem.

You are horribly misinformed. Rittenhouse had that rifle for his protection, he was not randomly shooting anyone. One of the videos shows the flash of a gun muzzle in Rittehnouse's direction. One of the guys chasing him had a handgun. Capacity makes no difference until it is used and, Rittenhouse only fired a few shots in self defense. The story that he shot someone 5 times is ALLEGED and not proven. Also Rosenbaum was carrying a heavy chain 2 to 3 feet long and pursued Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester.

Here is what really happened;

"The complaint describes how Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, 17, throwing a plastic bag at him, and then making a move for his gun. The teenager then opened fire, killing Rosenbaum. He then ran down the street and fell and shot two other protesters, one who was attacking him with a skateboard and another who was moving toward him with a handgun. Prosecutors have charged him homicide; Rittenhouse’s lawyers say he acted in self defense."

Joseph Rosenbaum Armed With Chain Just Prior To Shooting

New video now sheds light on what Kyle Rittnhouse may have faced as he tried to run from Joseph Rosenbaum just prior to fatally shooting him.

www.wisconsinrightnow.com

Tell you what, the next time someone is chasing you with a 2 to 3 foot long heavy chain, or a guy runs at you threatening to bob you over the head with a skateboard, another guy threatens you with a handgun and you are armed, why then, just throw down your gun and let your shooting and beating commence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"He had the rifle protection" is a stupid nonstarter that will be laughed off in court. He illegally possessed the rifle and crossed State lines to confront the protestors using the threat of deadly force that was the illegal rifle in his hand.

 

[Leo123]

So don't you believe there is constant bias against Blacks?
Why else are police killing so many Blacks who legally should not have been killed, and the police still not prosecuted?

The only constant bias against blacks is from the Far-Left most of whom can't utter a sentence about folks without referring to their skin color.

 

[Rigby5]

You are horribly misinformed. Rittenhouse had that rifle for his protection, he was not randomly shooting anyone. One of the videos shows the flash of a gun muzzle in Rittehnouse's direction. One of the guys chasing him had a handgun. Capacity makes no difference until it is used and, Rittenhouse only fired a few shots in self defense. The story that he shot someone 5 times is ALLEGED and not proven. Also Rosenbaum was carrying a heavy chain 2 to 3 feet long and pursued Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum was a convicted child molester.

Here is what really happened;

"The complaint describes how Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, 17, throwing a plastic bag at him, and then making a move for his gun. The teenager then opened fire, killing Rosenbaum. He then ran down the street and fell and shot two other protesters, one who was attacking him with a skateboard and another who was moving toward him with a handgun. Prosecutors have charged him homicide; Rittenhouse’s lawyers say he acted in self defense."

Joseph Rosenbaum Armed With Chain Just Prior To Shooting

New video now sheds light on what Kyle Rittnhouse may have faced as he tried to run from Joseph Rosenbaum just prior to fatally shooting him.

www.wisconsinrightnow.com

Tell you what, the next time someone is chasing you with a 2 to 3 foot long heavy chain, or a guy runs at you threatening to bob you over the head with a skateboard, another guy threatens you with a handgun and you are armed, why then, just throw down your gun and let your shooting and beating commence.

Easily proven wrong.
Rittenhouse was the only one with rifle, so not only does that prove a rifle was not needed for protection, but the only harm to anyone was caused by that rifle.
And anyone should easily anticipate that carrying a rifle would be provocative and deliberately intimidating.
Which is why Rittenhouse deliberately brought the rifle, not for protection.
For protection one would being a concealed pistol, which would be easier to bring to bear and not provoke someone to try to take away.

There were 5 wounds to one person alone, so then we have proof Rittenhouse did not just "fire a few shots in self defense".
After the first incident, he kept at it, continually provoking in an escalating pattern of deliberate violence.

Rosenbaums past is irrelevant.
There is no indication Rittenhouse ever tried to simply go to the safety of the police, that he gave any warning or fired any warning shots, and in fact at that close range, could easily have chosen a limb shot if his intent was not deadly.

 

[AZrailwhale]

He picked a fight he had no business picking.

Unless there were actions that weren't on any of the videos, Rittenhouse didn't pick any fights that day.

 

[Rigby5]

Unless there were actions that weren't on any of the videos, Rittenhouse didn't pick any fights that day.

Carrying a deliberately intimidating weapon to a demonstration is deliberately picking fights.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Zimmerman was playing police officer. Dumb people are often excited by outrageous, violent rhetoric.. like "America is doomed" or "They are all communists".

Hey, spin it any way you want. Zimmerman didn't break any laws...

 

[AZrailwhale]

It was not illegal for Rittenhouse to drive to IL -- he worked in Kenosha.
The fact he was a minor from another state in no way negates the fact he acted in self-defense.

He basically drove from one suburb to another. In the process he crosses a state line. There are a lot of places like that. There are places in California where you can take one step and cross a state line and I believe there is a building where half is in California and the other half is in Nevada.

 

[Mac-7]

You are simpler than AI from a 90s video game.

You are the one who is reducing complicated issues and honest people to simple yetms that feed your bias

 

[tahuyaman]

Unless there were actions that weren't on any of the videos, Rittenhouse didn't pick any fights that day.

That’s why he joined in the riot. Looking for a fight.

 

[boedicca]

Kyle is a political prisoner.

Just sayin'.