Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[tahuyaman]

Your acquaintance with reality is as non-existent as your ones with logic, reading comprehension and civil rights.

That's kind of funny coming from you right after proving that you're wrong.

 

[boedicca]

That's kind of funny coming from you right after proving that you're wrong.

It must be a great comfort to you to have such an active fantasy life as compensation for your lack of an actual one.

 

[tahuyaman]

It must be a great comfort to you to have such an active fantasy life as compensation for your lack of an actual one.

Your level of trolling is sophomoric at best. Give me your best shot.

 

[MadChemist]

Really? Must be difficult to run with a big gun. Why were they "chasing" him?

We train the army to do it all the time.

You can answer that question for yourself. It does not matter.

I don't make it a habit of chasing anyone with a weapon in his/her hands

 

[surada]

We train the army to do it all the time.

You can answer that question for yourself. It does not matter.

I don't make it a habit of chasing anyone with a weapon in his/her hands

He didn't train with the Military or have any supervision or discipline.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

The prosecution is going to contend that he at least approached the protestors armed with a rifle, and the protestors felt threatened. This may be all the "threat" or fight picking they need. They may also argue he confronted them.

 

[MadChemist]

He didn't train with the Military or have any supervision or discipline.

Didn't say he did.

I said we train them to run with a gun.

It can be done. and he was doing it.

 

[MadChemist]

He didn't train with the Military or have any supervision or discipline.

And your desire to chase someone with a gun ?

Does not seem very bright to me.

Two dead might raise.....just maybe.....a question in your mind.

 

[dblack]

Still think it should be the sunsabitches who goaded him into it facing trial.

 

[K9Buck]

The prosecution is going to contend that he at least approached the protestors armed with a rifle, and the protestors felt threatened. This may be all the "threat" or fight picking they need. They may also argue he confronted them.

Rittenhouse ran away. How was he "confronting" the arsonists if he was running from them?

 

[MadChemist]

Still think it should be the sunsabitches who goaded him into it facing trial.

Goaded him into what ?

 

[Faun]

So have numerous lib partisan prosecutors from baltimore to florida to missouri and elsewhere who fell flat on their faces

The odds are not in his favor...

Only 2% of federal criminal defendants went to trial in 2018, and most who did were found guilty

Trials are rare in the federal criminal justice system: Just 2% of criminal defendants went to trial in fiscal 2018. Acquittals are even rarer.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Canon Shooter]

He didn't illegally arm himself, swampy.

Is it your position that it was legal for him to be in possession of the firearm he had?

 

[boedicca]

Is it your position that it was legal for him to be in possession of the firearm he had?

Yes.

Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

It was illegal in Wisconsin for him to posess that rifle. That is a criminal act No, it wasn't. Kyle was over 16 at the time and the rifle was fullsized (nor shortened or sawn off). It was perfectly legal for him to carry it.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Leo123]

Why must you always insult people? Can't you disagree with someone and remain civil?

I disagreed with you, provided proof and still you come back with the same unsupported statements. Moreover, you have already convicted Rittenhouse in your own mind. You didn't come here to make any kind of logical disagreement or conversation, you are like a Bot that gives out the same programmed answers despite links and evidence. You don't consider facts and are arguing your narrative only. If you don't want to be called names do something other than troll after you are confronted with facts, videos and testimony. And please, don't say you didn't see any of that.

 

[Leo123]

Yes.

Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

It was illegal in Wisconsin for him to posess that rifle. That is a criminal act No, it wasn't. Kyle was over 16 at the time and the rifle was fullsized (nor shortened or sawn off). It was perfectly legal for him to carry it.

www.usmessageboard.com

Apparently when they discovered they had no real evidence against Rittenhouse they tried to seize on the 'too young to have a gun' narrative.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Yes.

Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

It was illegal in Wisconsin for him to posess that rifle. That is a criminal act No, it wasn't. Kyle was over 16 at the time and the rifle was fullsized (nor shortened or sawn off). It was perfectly legal for him to carry it.

www.usmessageboard.com

Okay, well, you're just wrong.

Neither in Illinois where he resided, or in Wisconsin where the incident took place is it legal for a 17 year old to be in possession of a firearm unless a very specific set of circumstances is met, and they were not met in Rittenhouse's case.

Can you explain why you believe as you do? Is it based on actual facts or more on emotion?

 

[Leo123]

Okay, well, you're just wrong.

Neither in Illinois where he resided, or in Wisconsin where the incident took place is it legal for a 17 year old to be in possession of a firearm unless a very specific set of circumstances is met, and they were not met in Rittenhouse's case.

Can you explain why you believe as you do? Is it based on actual facts or more on emotion?

Link?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Link?

This is from the web page of the Wisconsin State Legislature:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

So, section 2a is pretty black and white. As Rittenhouse was only 17 years old, it was illegal for him to possess that weapon in Wisconsin. I don't even see how you would think you'd be able to argue otherwise...

Sections 2b and 2c pertain to Dominick David Black, the 19 year old who supplied Rittenhouse the weapon. He's fucked...

 

[Leo123]

This is from the web page of the Wisconsin State Legislature:

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

So, section 2a is pretty black and white. As Rittenhouse was only 17 years old, it was illegal for him to possess that weapon in Wisconsin. I don't even see how you would think you'd be able to argue otherwise...

Sections 2b and 2c pertain to Dominick David Black, the 19 year old who supplied Rittenhouse the weapon. He's fucked...

So, Rittenhouse is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.