Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

The law says right to self defense-----Kyle had every right to shoot the child molestor and other two criminals attacking him.

Probably, but he didn't have to right to use excessive force, which I believe he did. Also, there's a law which rejects claims of self-defense during the commission of a crime, of which Rittenhouse appears guilty for illegally carrying that rifle.

 

[Mac-7]

So you're caught lying yet again.

If you say so its ok with me

do you think they were just innocent bystanders?

with their records of criminal and anti social behavior I dont think so

 

[JohnDB]

Seriously?

We live in an age when the names of professional sports teams are being changed because someone's diaper got all twisted about them. We live in an age when a music group, Lady Antebellum, changed their name because the word "antebellum" supposedly has connotations with the American south. All that despite the fact that "antebellum" simply means "before war". There's nothing at all specific to the Civil War.

I was shooting an event in South Carolina a couple of weeks ago and, my hand to God, someone actually complained that my camera lens was white when the camera body was black. I shit you not.

Now we have a kid who was 17 and shot and killed two people who were associated with groups which are very much in support of anything which might be perceived as being "pro black". In their eyes, anything which does not promote and celebrate the black man is something which must be eradicated. These are the people who will could end up on Rittenhouse's jury...

I'm sure that the lawyers are wrangling for jury selection advisors now to see who is available to help with that process. Trial is set for November sometime....
(Haven't heard whether it's a good or bad thing yet)

I was shocked that they got a guilty conviction for the police officers involved with the case that started this whole mess to begin with. No, the police officers weren't choir boys but that is of no real consequence anyway. ALL of the video and forensic evidence together, to me, show a chain of events that caused George to die. The whole thing has been made a political football but the results are that police officers everywhere have been leaving their jobs. (Lousy wages for a lousy job and now it's risks are beyond what the average policemen can navigate)

So...I do see this case coming out...but I'm not sure what the consequences will be.

 

[Faun]

If you say so its ok with me

do you think they were just innocent bystanders?

with their records of criminal and anti social behavior I dont think so

Rosenbaum was not. I've seen nothing about Huber and Grosskreutz doing anything wrong. As far as criminal records, there's a good chance Rittenhouse is going to have one soon.

 

[Faun]

I'm sure that the lawyers are wrangling for jury selection advisors now to see who is available to help with that process. Trial is set for November sometime....
(Haven't heard whether it's a good or bad thing yet)

I was shocked that they got a guilty conviction for the police officers involved with the case that started this whole mess to begin with. No, the police officers weren't choir boys but that is of no real consequence anyway. ALL of the video and forensic evidence together, to me, show a chain of events that caused George to die. The whole thing has been made a political football but the results are that police officers everywhere have been leaving their jobs. (Lousy wages for a lousy job and now it's risks are beyond what the average policemen can navigate)

So...I do see this case coming out...but I'm not sure what the consequences will be.

Kenosha was spurred over the Blake shooting.

 

[JohnDB]

Why would that not hold up in court?

Various reasons because of the age.
The spirit of the law versus the letter mostly as discussed in several articles concerning the case.
Kyle is old enough for military service and hunting. (Well regulated militia)
But the Wisconsin law was written to keep firearms out of the hands of juvenile gang members. So that they could prosecute juveniles that were intent upon committing adult crimes.

So...there's the problem. No one questions why Kyle was there. That piece of evidence is undisputed. (Motive is clear) Kyle was acting in a defensive and not offensive fashion. (Being part of a militia that was trying to save businesses from riots)

The incident surrounding Kyle seems to be initiated when Kyle extinguished a dumpster fire the the now deceased started...a fight ensued for the firearm he carried and the results kept escalating conflict.
The rioters were carrying weapons ranging from a makeshift mace to clubs and firearms.

And this is what is really everyone's question. The charges won't hold up for a large variety of reasons (too specific in a grey area of law that was never intended on being used this way) ...but the secondary questions will remain.

When the police, in essence, give up fighting civil unrest is it legal for a private militia or individuals to act on behalf of the public or person of need?

We have a lot of "Good Samaritan" laws that would suggest that they should...and in fact there's several laws requiring off duty professionals to do just that.

 

[JohnDB]

Kenosha was spurred over the Blake shooting.

I thought it was over the Floyd case...
Or maybe it was the two combined.

At any rate it's not really relevant to the questions I'm trying to answer.

 

[Mac-7]

Rosenbaum was not. I've seen nothing about Huber and Grosskreutz doing anything wrong. As far as criminal records, there's a good chance Rittenhouse is going to have one soon.

I have already given my opinion on rittenhouse

he deserves punishment for having the firearm

other than that I think he walks

 

[JohnDB]

I have already given my opinion on rittenhouse

he deserves punishment for having the forearm

other than that I think he walks

Oh he definitely is being punished...he is trapped by his unintentional fame.

But the firearm question is going to be a long drawn out affair starting in November.

 

[Correll]

The prosecutors believe they can. The only intent they have to show is thst Rittenhouse sought out and confronted protestors. Then they show the protestors were within reason to perceive a threat from the armed vigilante with an illegal weapon confronting them. And that's about it.

He was a threat to them as he ran away? Mmmm, Good thing they have the press tainting the jury pool. Cause otherwise that will be a hard sell.

It will be telling to see if they sequester the jury.

 

[Correll]

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.

Rittenhouse was not there to stop anyone from "parading" he was there to prevent them from burning down a building.

That bit where you decided to lie about what he was doing?

That was your brain realizing that you are on the wrong side of this issue, even by your own belief system.

But you are loyal to your fellow tribe members, ie Lefties.

 

[Correll]

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.

Except the one barbarian did "bring" a gun, he tried to use it and only failed because he was shot in the arm. He has publicly stated that he regrets not shooting Rittenhouse.


Again, your brain decided that the only way to defend your position, was to lie.


Even your own brain, can tell that you are in the wrong on this issue, even by your own belief system.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Rittenhouse ran away.

Ran away from...where and whom? From the protestors, at the protest, both of which he sought out by obtaining an illegal weapon and crossing State lines to confront protestors.

 

[Faun]

Various reasons because of the age.
The spirit of the law versus the letter mostly as discussed in several articles concerning the case.
Kyle is old enough for military service and hunting. (Well regulated militia)
But the Wisconsin law was written to keep firearms out of the hands of juvenile gang members. So that they could prosecute juveniles that were intent upon committing adult crimes.

So...there's the problem. No one questions why Kyle was there. That piece of evidence is undisputed. (Motive is clear) Kyle was acting in a defensive and not offensive fashion. (Being part of a militia that was trying to save businesses from riots)

The incident surrounding Kyle seems to be initiated when Kyle extinguished a dumpster fire the the now deceased started...a fight ensued for the firearm he carried and the results kept escalating conflict.
The rioters were carrying weapons ranging from a makeshift mace to clubs and firearms.

And this is what is really everyone's question. The charges won't hold up for a large variety of reasons (too specific in a grey area of law that was never intended on being used this way) ...but the secondary questions will remain.

When the police, in essence, give up fighting civil unrest is it legal for a private militia or individuals to act on behalf of the public or person of need?

We have a lot of "Good Samaritan" laws that would suggest that they should...and in fact there's several laws requiring off duty professionals to do just that.

It matters not that he was old enough to serve in the armed forces or in a militia, that law address that and Rittenhouse is still in violation of it.

There are also reports that some of the militia there were pointing guns and lasers at protestors. That may be what set Rosenbaum off on Rittenhouse as he Rosenbaum was seen earlier teeing off over that at a gas station.

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse was not there to stop anyone from "parading" he was there to prevent them from burning down a building.

Sounds like you're making shit up again. Quote Rittenhouse saying that was why he was there because I saw him on video saying he was there in case anyone needed medical help as he falsely portrayed himself as an EMT.

 

[JohnDB]

It matters not that he was old enough to serve in the armed forces or in a militia, that law address that and Rittenhouse is still in violation of it.

There are also reports that some of the militia there were pointing guns and lasers at protestors. That may be what set Rosenbaum off on Rittenhouse as he Rosenbaum was seen earlier teeing off over that at a gas station.

Again...just because someone passed a law doesn't mean that you can be prosecuted over it.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the many "Good Samaritan" laws on the books AND the extremely strong interest Kyle had in law enforcement.

These things are going to be played to the hilt in this case. If Kyle wins out of the gate then the issues are not settled law.

But I do see any conviction being instantly overturned and precedence being set.

You can legislate that all martians must be shot with a ray gun and anyone not complying will face misdemeanor charges...but first you need a ray gun and a Martian. Otherwise it's not prosecutable.

 

[Correll]

Sounds like you're making shit up again. Quote Rittenhouse saying that was why he was there because I saw him on video saying he was there in case anyone needed medical help as he falsely portrayed himself as an EMT.

Sounds like you know that you lose that one, and are trying to cover for that, by being an asshole.


My point stands. Your previous point was simply wrong. He was not there to stop the rioters "protestors" from parading, but to stop the rioters "protestors" from peacefully burning down a building.


The fact that he was ALSO there to help people as a EMT, does not contradict that, as anyone not a fucking retard, could tell.

 

[Faun]

Again...just because someone passed a law doesn't mean that you can be prosecuted over it.

And I would be remiss if I didn't mention the many "Good Samaritan" laws on the books AND the extremely strong interest Kyle had in law enforcement.

These things are going to be played to the hilt in this case. If Kyle wins out of the gate then the issues are not settled law.

But I do see any conviction being instantly overturned and precedence being set.

You can legislate that all martians must be shot with a ray gun and anyone not complying will face misdemeanor charges...but first you need a ray gun and a Martian. Otherwise it's not prosecutable.

We're dealing with a 17 year old, not a Martian ... and an AR-15, not a ray gun.

And because the gun was used in a death, that charge will be carelessly ignored. Especially since a person loses their legal right to invoke self-defense when the death occurs while the defendant was in the commission of a crime, which Rittenhouse was.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Rosenbaum was not. I've seen nothing about Huber and Grosskreutz doing anything wrong. As far as criminal records, there's a good chance Rittenhouse is going to have one soon.

One of them actually hit him with a skateboard and the other was pointing a handgun at him (a handgun that although Rittenhouse didn't know it, was illegal for the guy to posses since he was a convicted felon. Both shootings were clearly self-defense.

 

[AZrailwhale]

He was a threat to them as he ran away? Mmmm, Good thing they have the press tainting the jury pool. Cause otherwise that will be a hard sell.

It will be telling to see if they sequester the jury.

How did the rioters/demonstrators know that the rifle was an "illegal weapon"? Did they card Rittenhouse to find out his age?