Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[AZrailwhale]

And this conversation is becoming fruitless with people grabbing at non-existent threads and made up "facts". I've lined out the relevant parts. I am Unconcerned about the politics of it all....I just know the laws and the conflicts arising from this case...and ultimately what is going to happen.

Personally I think guns are too prolific and cheap....over marketed to the wrong people for the wrong reasons and then overly vilified by others. The why's are too numerous to count for all of this and too many emotions used for quality decision making.

So I'm out....argue amongst yourselves. I don't want to argue. So I don't.

Cheap? I can't think of a gun offhand that retails for less than five hundred bucks, most are really a grand. Rifles ae a grand or so, AR15 types fifteen hundred and up. I don't know about you but five hundred bucks is a lot of money to me.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Odd. You refuse to deal with the reality that Rittenhouse was committing a crime before he shot anyone. He was armed illegally. He was in an area he wasn’t supposed to be. Trespassing on private property.

You focus on the criminal record of the victim. Ok. Let’s say Kyle was drinking underage. He had an accident while driving intoxicated and killed the same man. Would that be all right in your version of justice?

I am asking because I’m trying to figure out if the manner of death matters as much as the history of the victim in your opinion.

 

[Faun]

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.

"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."

That's beyond stupid since clearly, witnesses see things that are not caught on camera.

 

[AZrailwhale]

"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."

That's beyond stupid since clearly, witnesses see things that are not caught on camera.

In this case the "eyewitnesses" were participants in a crime who are accusing someone of attacking fellow participants. Not exactly impartial witnesses. They have every reason to lie.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In this case the "eyewitnesses" were participants in a crime who are accusing someone of attacking fellow participants. Not exactly impartial witnesses. They have every reason to lie.

No they arent. I dont know what country you are from, but in our country none of those peole were charged or convicted of participating in a crime and so that has absolutely no bearing on anything.

 

[Faun]

In this case the "eyewitnesses" were participants in a crime who are accusing someone of attacking fellow participants. Not exactly impartial witnesses. They have every reason to lie.

So eyewitnesses can't be trusted?

 

[freyasman]

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

Would they do the same if he was a witness for Rittenhouse, or would they dox him so the mob can go to his house?







(Don't bother, we know the answer to that already)

 

[freyasman]

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.

No he wasn't, you are making that up entirely out of thin air, lol.

(AKA: lying your ass off)

 

[freyasman]

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.

 

[freyasman]

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

Eye witnesses are generally unreliable.

 

[Faun]

Would they do the same if he was a witness for Rittenhouse, or would they dox him so the mob can go to his house?







(Don't bother, we know the answer to that already)

So you're admitting the right is more dangerous than the left as far as vigilante justice? Ok, I'll agree with that.

 

[freyasman]

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.

He was not trespassing unless the owner of the property asked him to leave, and he refused.
Did that happen?
No.

So, not trespassing, then; fail.

Authority doesn't come from government, government itself only comes from our authority as The People.

Another fail.

All young men want to be heroes, that's not a thing to disparage.

Third fail.


There is no evidence of him mishandling that firearm in any way, and in an environment where multiple people were videoing everything of even mild interest, I find it highly doubtful that if he had drawn down on anyone prior to being assaulted, no one got it on video.
He fired only at people attacking him, and only as necessary to stop the multiple assaults on his person, (as evidenced by the fact that the 3rd guy who came at him with the Glock, is still thieving oxygen on planet earth.)

I've seen cops and soldiers a decade older than him without that level of weapons discipline. If that was him "playing", then some other folks need to up their game, IMO.






Bottom line is, the kid had as much or more right to be there as the rioters and protestors did, and he had every right to defend himself...... there is no good reason to prosecute this young man.
Anyone who advocates for doing so, is in the wrong, period.

 

[Faun]

No he wasn't, you are making that up entirely out of thin air, lol.

(AKA: lying your ass off)

"No he wasn't," what?

 

[Faun]

Oh? Exactly what do you think I'm lying about?

 

[freyasman]

In this case the "eyewitnesses" were participants in a crime who are accusing someone of attacking fellow participants. Not exactly impartial witnesses. They have every reason to lie.

Street wisdom says that when you get jumped by a pack of shitbags, mark as many of them as possible so the cops will know they were participants; otherwise, they will immediately claim to have been just bystanders, and be witnesses against you when 5-0 finally shows up........ and they will all claim you were the aggressor.

 

[freyasman]

So you're admitting the right is more dangerous than the left as far as vigilante justice? Ok, I'll agree with that.

That is the opposite of what I said.

 

[freyasman]

"No he wasn't," what?

Re-read what you posted, and look at the part you were lying about; that is what I was referring to.

 

[freyasman]

Oh? Exactly what do you think I'm lying about?

Look at your post.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He was not trespassing unless the owner of the property asked him to leave, and he refused.
Did that happen?
No

Dude. You are making stuff up. That doesn't define trespassing. Like, anywhere, ever. Stop making stuff up.

 

[Faun]

That is the opposite of what I said.

No it's not. You alluded to the media concealing lefties' names but that the wouldn't do the same for those on the right. The reason for concealing someone's identity is to protect them from vigilantes. So if it were true the media conceals the names of people on the left, it's to protect them from nut cases on the right. And if they don't need to conceal the names of those on the right, that would be because there's not much concern of vigilantes on the left.