Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

Ahhhh.... and why was that, do you think?

Because of the serious nature of numerous threats and harassment directed at people involved in this case.

 

[Correll]

LOLOL

I believe you believe that.

I would not want a child to spend his life in prison, for defending himself from a child molester.


You do.

 

[Correll]

Not true. If Kyle was home and a crazed lunatic broke into his house nobody would bat an eye at Kyle getting a gun and killing the intruder. People would agree that Kyle acted to defend himself. No problem.

But Kyle wasn’t at home. He wasn’t even in his state of Residence. He went looking for trouble. And he found it.

This is not the first time a child has been charged as an adult. It is not even the first time a gun was involved and the child was charged as an adult.

You are missing teh point the other poster was making.

The argument is, that Rittenhouse lost the right of claiming self defense "because he was in the commission of a crime".

The "Crime" was being a "child", with a gun. The "crime" was only a crime, BECASUE he was a child.


Those same people then want to charge him as an adult, and face adult time, AFTER denying him his right to claim self defense BECASUE he was a child.



That is the point I was making a counter point to.

 

[SavannahMann]

I would not want a child to spend his life in prison, for defending himself from a child molester.


You do.

Ok. Establish intent of this fellow to molest Rittenhouse.

 

[Correll]

Ok. Establish intent of this fellow to molest Rittenhouse.

I mentioned that he was a child molester to show that he was a man that had a history of harming children. That does seem relevant, do you not think?

 

[SavannahMann]

You are missing teh point the other poster was making.

The argument is, that Rittenhouse lost the right of claiming self defense "because he was in the commission of a crime".

The "Crime" was being a "child", with a gun. The "crime" was only a crime, BECASUE he was a child.


Those same people then want to charge him as an adult, and face adult time, AFTER denying him his right to claim self defense BECASUE he was a child.



That is the point I was making a counter point to.

Ok. Tell me the last time you screamed that the defendant was just defending himself. Tell me about the 17 year old gang banger you defended claiming it was self defense when he shot another gang member from a rival gang.

Want to know why Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult? Because in the 1980’s and 1990’s the law and order types demanded it and said it would be a deterrent for juvenile crime. The fact that it hasn’t actually deterred anything is now irrelevant.

Laws were passed during the get tough on crime era. While it had been possible, it was hard to transfer a juvenile to criminal court as an adult before this. Afterwards any crime more serious than Jaywalking is potentially enough to treat the kids as adults.

The same people screaming shoot the protesters today were screaming Rey the kids as adults then.

The laws written to get those little miscreants off the street are now used regularly.

And Kyle has been caught by the net his own side set out to catch bad kids and punish them as a deterrent to other potential criminals. The side of law and order.

Many times I’ve written this. Before you plan on breaking out the bang stick you need a class so you can understand the rights and liberties you have. You need to talk to legal experts so you find out what the law actually says and what you can and cannot do.

Kyle watched TV. Kyle imagined himself saving the day like Stallone or whoever. Kyle had no clue that the real world was way different than Halo. Kyle also believed what many here do. If you show the mob a bang stick they will flee in terror.

They might. But they might not.

Kyle was and is a fool. He is going to prison because the fool did something foolish. And those who defend him are nearly as big in the fool category as Kyle is.

 

[SavannahMann]

I mentioned that he was a child molester to show that he was a man that had a history of harming children. That does seem relevant, do you not think?

No. Not unless he was engaging in it again at that moment.

 

[Correll]

Ok. Tell me the last time you screamed that the defendant was just defending himself. Tell me about the 17 year old gang banger you defended claiming it was self defense when he shot another gang member from a rival gang.

It's been a while, but yes, depending on the circumstances, I have made such comments.


Laws have to be written carefully. A criminal in the process of a crime and ends up defending himself from another criminal that he is in conflict, that is one thing, and he should be charged.

A criminal that is, saying engaged in a good faith but illegal criminal activity like prostitution and a thug tries to rob her, and she shots him, imo, should not be tried for murder. Being a whore doesn't mean that you have to let someone rob you.

Want to know why Rittenhouse is being charged as an adult? Because in the 1980’s and 1990’s the law and order types demanded it and said it would be a deterrent for juvenile crime. The fact that it hasn’t actually deterred anything is now irrelevant.

Laws were passed during the get tough on crime era. While it had been possible, it was hard to transfer a juvenile to criminal court as an adult before this. Afterwards any crime more serious than Jaywalking is potentially enough to treat the kids as adults.

The same people screaming shoot the protesters today were screaming Rey the kids as adults then.

The laws written to get those little miscreants off the street are now used regularly.

And Kyle has been caught by the net his own side set out to catch bad kids and punish them as a deterrent to other potential criminals. The side of law and order.

Many times I’ve written this. Before you plan on breaking out the bang stick you need a class so you can understand the rights and liberties you have. You need to talk to legal experts so you find out what the law actually says and what you can and cannot do.

Kyle watched TV. Kyle imagined himself saving the day like Stallone or whoever. Kyle had no clue that the real world was way different than Halo. Kyle also believed what many here do. If you show the mob a bang stick they will flee in terror.

They might. But they might not.

Kyle was and is a fool. He is going to prison because the fool did something foolish. And those who defend him are nearly as big in the fool category as Kyle is.

I think he SHOULD be considered an adult in this case. He was old enough to understand what he was doing. He was a 17 year old man, being a man, not a 15 year old punk doing stupid kid stuff, because he didn't understand how serious it was.


BUT, if we are considering him an adult, then the very minor weapons charge, that is solely based on him BEING A CHILD, should be dropped and his self defense claim should be considered, not dismissed.


YOur assumptions about his intent, or his motivate, need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, in COURT, in front of a jury that was not tainted by massive press coverage.

 

[Correll]

No. Not unless he was engaging in it again at that moment.

Really? The man has a history of committing violence on children, and you dont' think that is relevant to consider?

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Faun]

I would not want a child to spend his life in prison, for defending himself from a child molester.


You do.

Irrelevant. The pedophile was trying to disarm a vigilante who was not handling his firearm very well. Being a pedophile had nothing to do with that as a) Rittenhouse didn't know he was a pedophile; and b) the pedophile didn't know Rittenhouse was 17.

 

[Correll]

Irrelevant. The pedophile was trying to disarm a vigilante who was not handling his firearm very well. Being a pedophile had nothing to do with that as a) Rittenhouse didn't know he was a pedophile; and b) the pedophile didn't know Rittenhouse was 17.

Rittenhouse was handling his gun fine. Rittenhouse looked at the child molester and made the call that he was a dangerous and violent man. And ran from him.


The fact that Rittenhouse was proven right, should be considered in judging him and his actions.

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse was handling his gun fine. Rittenhouse looked at the child molester and made the call that he was a dangerous and violent man. And ran from him.


The fact that Rittenhouse was proven right, should be considered in judging him and his actions.

False, he was not handling his gun fine. An eye witness will be taking the stand to say he was not handling it well. A second witness says he saw Rittenhouse pointing his gun at protesters. You should try to stop lying to prop up your flailing position.

 

[Correll]

False, he was not handling his gun fine. An eye witness will be taking the stand to say he was not handling it well. You should try to stop lying to prop up your flailing position.

In the videos we've seen he was doing a fantastic job. Your "eye witness" I assume is an antifa rioter? HIs credibility should be about zero.

 

[Faun]

In the videos we've seen he was doing a fantastic job. Your "eye witness" I assume is an antifa rioter? HIs credibility should be about zero.

You know the videos don't capture 100% of his presence, right?

 

[Correll]

You know the videos don't capture 100% of his presence, right?

But they do capture some of it, enough to give an idea of his general handling of his weapon.

If your eye witness is claiming something that conflicts with that, his credibility becomes very relevant.

Is he a member of the mob that attacked Rittenhouse?

 

[Faun]

But they do capture some of it, enough to give an idea of his general handling of his weapon.

If your eye witness is claiming something that conflicts with that, his credibility becomes very relevant.

Is he a member of the mob that attacked Rittenhouse?

So you're saying that witness can't be trusted in the trial?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I have been going off what I saw in the video

I know. The prosecutors will focus first on what happened prior to it in order to explain what happened in it.

You can call it "imaginary", but that seems pretty silly when what the prosecutors are going to assert is basically exactly what Rittenhouse said he was going to do. Its the defense that is goi g to be left crafting tales of a poor young man who just happened to be "near" the protestors and was assaulted. And about the dead man wanting to steal kyle's rifle, etc etc.

 

[SavannahMann]

Really? The man has a history of committing violence on children, and you dont' think that is relevant to consider?

I respectfully disagree.

I am using Georgia Law as a guide. At least as it was until they changed it this year.

Specifically the statutes for Citizens Arrest as was in force when the McMichaels did their idiocy.

The law made sense. Whatever the guy had done before that time was irrelevant. The actions of that moment were paramount. The guy could have been Charles Manson and you had no right to do anything if you did not witness a crime.

Kyle had no clue who the guy was. Kyle had no way of knowing what the guy had done. It was what was happening at the time.

Kyle was trespassing too. He had no authority from the owner to be there. He had no authority from any Government agency. He was a wannabe hero.

He was a boy playing at being a man with real weapons.

 

[SavannahMann]

Rittenhouse was handling his gun fine. Rittenhouse looked at the child molester and made the call that he was a dangerous and violent man. And ran from him.


The fact that Rittenhouse was proven right, should be considered in judging him and his actions.

In the second Naked Gun movie. The character of Frank Drebbin was being honored for his 1,000th drug dealer killed. He stands up and thanks the crowd for his applause. He then said. “Truthfully I backed over the last two with my car, thankfully they turned out to be drug dealers.”

So he wasn’t a reckless driver who was a hazard to everyone on the road. He was a dedicated public servant who was doing a service to the community in getting rid of drug dealers.

That is the standard for ends justify the means that you use. I gun a man down for no reason. I’ve never seen him before. But he turns out to be a guy who beats little old ladies and take their purses. I am a hero. I knew none of that. But hey what matters is the guys record. Right?

If you want to know where that ends ask Philandro Castillo. Oh wait. You can’t. He was shot to death but it is OK despite being a valid weapons license holder. He was a traffic menace with a lot of traffic tickets.

 

[Correll]

So you're saying that witness can't be trusted in the trial?

I'm saying that is an eye witness account conflicts with video evidence that the credibility of the eye witness is something that has to be looked at carefully.


Remember, the prosecutor has to prove his case, beyond a reasonable doubt.


Building a plausible, but unsupported narrative, might work for you people in the realm of say, the fucking press, but in a court, you need more.

Unless the court is biased and the jury tainted.


I hope this concludes the portion of the discussion where you pretend to be too stupid to understand simple concepts.