Kyle Rittenhouse is an American Political Hero far wise and mature beyond his years.

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

More than once...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

so theyre splitting the trials??

 

[Correll]

1. . My point was his actions seem inline with their stated intent. That stands, regardless of their alleged disavowal.

It doesn't matter. He lied when he said he was part of that group.

So far as I can tell, no one in that group was a minor in possession of an illegal firearm...

2. Depends on what the goal was. IMO, his goal was to defend himself. Those that attacked him, were stopped. Sounds like a success for me.

You're clearly an "ends justifies the means" kinda' guy.

Well, that's not how our justice system works. I suspect you'll learn this when they read the verdict in his case...

3. A society that arrests people for self defense, is a very sick society.

Twice in my life have I drawn a gun in self defense. Once I fired it.

There was no question that it was a legally owned firearm, and that I was legally authorized to carry it concealed. There was no question, based largely on numerous witness statements, that it was a righteous shoot. You know what happened?

My firearm was confiscated and I was taken into custody.

Because I broke no laws, my firearm was returned to me and I was released. However, Kyle Rittenhouse broke several laws, many of which stemmed from his conspiring to illegal obtain a firearm...

1. It does matter. The point was his intent. YOu keep implying that his intent was to kill people. THe group that he was there to with or with the intent of being with, intentions were to protect people and property. His actions that we have seen, seem consistent with that stated intent.


2. Kind of weird there the way you jumped from a discussion on his abilities to a legal definition. You kind of moved the goal posts on me. My previous point stands. I think his results show that he handled himself quite well. The goal was not a high body count, but protecting himself from harm.

3. I am glad that you were not railroaded by a political class that sided with the criminals. My point stands. A society that arrests people for self defense, is a very sick society.

1. It doesn't matter. If you go to a ball game and claim you're a New York Yankee, that doesn't make you a New York Yankee. In this kid's case, he had no affiliation with anyone except the guy who illegally obtained the gun for him...

2. If his goal was to protect himself from harm, seems as though the best way to do that would've been to stay in Antioch. But he crossed state lines and conspired with another to obtain an illegal firearm. That's a felony...

3. You know what's funny? If he was 18 years old, he'd probably be in pretty good shape. But the fact that he conspired to obtain an illegal firearm, and then killed two people with it, exacerbates the charges against him. Conspiracy adds greatly to the severity of any crime and associated charges...

1. You are the one pretending that his intentions were to go there and kill people. That his intentions was to support a group that was there to protect people indicates that his intent was NOT as you say. His actions support that.

Well, considering that's exactly what happened, it doesn't seem like such a stretch.

But I don't see how a cohesive argument could be made that he was there to support some militia, considering that militia had never heard of him.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on Domick Black. He's not only the one who obtained the gun for Rittenhouse, he's the one who asked Rittenhouse to come to Kenosha and help him protect property. This fantasy militia only became a thing when Rittenhouse understood he was in deep shit...

All you have to support your position, is your ability to list events and leave out the violent mob attack.

Had Rittenhouse been obeying the law, he never would've been there. He should not have been there, and his mere presence was breaking the law...

2. His goal was obviously not JUST to protect himself. But that was one of his goals, and he did it well.

I don't believe he had any coherent idea as to what exactly his role there would be...

3. It does more than "exacerbate" the charges. It is nearly the sole basis of them. THe prosecutor's actions would be a lot more coherent if they were charging him as a minor.

In cases of murder, a person is not charged as a minor in Wisconsin...

1. Considering the large number of people he saw, and did not shoot, and did not actually shot anyone, until he was attacked, yes, yes it is huge stretch.

2. Again, you are more concerned about the violation of gun laws and curfews, than a violent mob attack


3. I believe he did.

4. If the only reason he is being charged, is because he lost the self defense right because he was a child, that is sounding more and more likely a real thin reason to ignore the violent mob attack, which any normal person would see as justify self defense.

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

That is what I was trying to say, only better. Thanks. Indeed, that is perfect. That is today's America and that is a very sick society, that does that and thinks it is ok.

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

 

[Canon Shooter]

]1. Considering the large number of people he saw, and did not shoot, and did not actually shot anyone, until he was attacked, yes, yes it is huge stretch.

If he didn't intend to shoot people, why did he conspire with Dominick Black to get a gun? You probably thought Timothy McVeigh was just working his lawn when he bought all that fertilizer, too...

2. Again, you are more concerned about the violation of gun laws and curfews, than a violent mob attack

Honestly, I'm not.

But I'm also not willing to dismiss the role that Black played, and that Rittenhouse played in illegally obtaining a weapon...

3. I believe he did.

What you believe means dick...

4. If the only reason he is being charged, is because he lost the self defense right because he was a child, that is sounding more and more likely a real thin reason to ignore the violent mob attack, which any normal person would see as justify self defense.

The sentence in bold is simply idiotic. But, if you want to believe that's why he's being charged well, you've made it clear that there's no talking sense into you, so have at it...

 

[Correll]

]1. Considering the large number of people he saw, and did not shoot, and did not actually shot anyone, until he was attacked, yes, yes it is huge stretch.

If he didn't intend to shoot people, why did he conspire with Dominick Black to get a gun? You probably thought Timothy McVeigh was just working his lawn when he bought all that fertilizer, too...

2. Again, you are more concerned about the violation of gun laws and curfews, than a violent mob attack

Honestly, I'm not.

But I'm also not willing to dismiss the role that Black played, and that Rittenhouse played in illegally obtaining a weapon...

3. I believe he did.

What you believe means dick...

4. If the only reason he is being charged, is because he lost the self defense right because he was a child, that is sounding more and more likely a real thin reason to ignore the violent mob attack, which any normal person would see as justify self defense.

The sentence in bold is simply idiotic. But, if you want to believe that's why he's being charged well, you've made it clear that there's no talking sense into you, so have at it...

1. Based on the stated intent of the group and his actions we have seen on video? I would presume his intention was to use the gun to deter violent mob attacks on the car dealership, and/or other property and/or people.

2. Which is only illegal because he was technically a minor. Well both me and you agree that he should be considered an adult based on his actions.

3. Then don't ask my opinion.

4. The only justification for not considering his actions self defense, is because the gun was "tainted" and thus he loses he right to teh self defense claim. Thus, he is, as a wise man once said, being charged as an adult for being a minor in possession of a gun.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

Depends on whether or not he gets a fair trial.

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

Depends on whether or not he gets a fair trial.

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. Based on the stated intent of the group and his actions we have seen on video? I would presume his intention was to use the gun to deter violent mob attacks on the car dealership, and/or other property and/or people.

He had no business being there. He was not asked by the owner of the cvar dealership to protect anything...

2. Which is only illegal because he was technically a minor. Well both me and you agree that he should be considered an adult based on his actions.

And one of those actions was conspiring with another to illegally obtain a firearm. For whatever reason, you seem damned and determined to marginalize this when, in fact, it's actually pretty fucking serious. Black could go to prison for 25 for it, and he didn't even shoot anyone...

3. Then don't ask my opinion.

I don't believe I did.

I do, though, like seeing what kind of convoluted bullshit you belch up from post to post. Watching your mental flailing is pretty fuckin' entertaining...

4. The only justification for not considering his actions self defense, is because the gun was "tainted" and thus he loses he right to teh self defense claim. Thus, he is, as a wise man once said, being charged as an adult for being a minor in possession of a gun.

You can try to spin it any way you want, and you'll always fail.

The state of Wisconsin has no intention of trying him as an adult for being a minor in possession of a gun. The state of Wisconsin intends to try him for two counts of murder...

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

Depends on whether or not he gets a fair trial.

Why do we even need to go to trial? I mean, Hell, if two chuckleheads like you and Progressive Hunter can figure this out so well, surely the State's Attorney in Wisconsin can, as well, and will realize Rittenhouse should be a free man.

And thank you for tipping your hand. Now we know that, when he's found guilty, you'll whine to high heaven that it wasn't a fair trial.

Big fuckin' surprise, that, huh?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

There was no need for Rittenhouse to begin with...

 

[progressive hunter]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

There was no need for Rittenhouse to begin with...

who are you to speak for him or them???

 

[Correll]

1. Based on the stated intent of the group and his actions we have seen on video? I would presume his intention was to use the gun to deter violent mob attacks on the car dealership, and/or other property and/or people.

He had no business being there. He was not asked by the owner of the cvar dealership to protect anything...

2. Which is only illegal because he was technically a minor. Well both me and you agree that he should be considered an adult based on his actions.

And one of those actions was conspiring with another to illegally obtain a firearm. For whatever reason, you seem damned and determined to marginalize this when, in fact, it's actually pretty fucking serious. Black could go to prison for 25 for it, and he didn't even shoot anyone...

3. Then don't ask my opinion.

I don't believe I did.

I do, though, like seeing what kind of convoluted bullshit you belch up from post to post. Watching your mental flailing is pretty fuckin' entertaining...

4. The only justification for not considering his actions self defense, is because the gun was "tainted" and thus he loses he right to teh self defense claim. Thus, he is, as a wise man once said, being charged as an adult for being a minor in possession of a gun.

You can try to spin it any way you want, and you'll always fail.

The state of Wisconsin has no intention of trying him as an adult for being a minor in possession of a gun. The state of Wisconsin intends to try him for two counts of murder...

1. So, you accepting my conclusion about his intent for the gun then? That it was to deter attacks on property and people?


2. The state of Wisconsin is more concerned about stopping people from getting the means to protect themselves then they are with stopping violent mobs from rampaging though their streets. That is them being a very sick society.

3. It is not spin. It is pointing out the injustice of the State's case. They are charging him as an adult for murder based on him being a minor. Any reasonable person would be uneasy about that.

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

Depends on whether or not he gets a fair trial.

Why do we even need to go to trial? I mean, Hell, if two chuckleheads like you and Progressive Hunter can figure this out so well, surely the State's Attorney in Wisconsin can, as well, and will realize Rittenhouse should be a free man.

And thank you for tipping your hand. Now we know that, when he's found guilty, you'll whine to high heaven that it wasn't a fair trial.

Big fuckin' surprise, that, huh?

Because the dems are on the side of the violent mobs.


They used them to support the narrative that Trump's presidency was a "time of darkness" instead of the completely normal event of the other side getting a turn.


And I have been very clear, in the past at least, that I am deeply concerned about Rittenhouse getting a fair trial. I was not hiding that. If you had asked me, I would have gladly told you that.

 

[Correll]

Rittenhouse went there with a group that had the stated intentions of helping people. His actions from what we have seen on video, support that as their actual intentions.

Really?

What group was that?

See, because I recall that members of the group he claimed to be with said they didn't know him...

When he was attacked he defended himself with restraint and skill, while in grave danger.

He stupidly put himself into a situation where he simply had no business being...

Considering that heroic is completely reasonable.

His actions weren't heroic at all. They were stupid...

Maybe he just wasn't a pussy. You probably can't understand.

Whether he was or wasn't a pussy is immaterial in this discussion.

The irrefutable fact is that he crossed state lines in order to illegally obtain a firearm, and he then used that firearm to kill two people.

Those are facts. That's exactly what happened...

The way you insist on leaving out the part where he was attacked by a violent mob?


If you were confident of your position, you would not do that.

I'm quite confident of my position.

The fact that a "violent mob" was chasing him will not absolve him of illegally obtaining a firearm and then using that illegal firearm to kill two people while violating a city-wide curfew...

killing those two people amounts to self defense,, the rest is a misdemeanor,,,

Conspiring to illegally obtain a firearm is a felony...

While attacking a minor with intent to commit grave bodily harm, is nothing, not worth even mentioning.

Oh, but there's no "minor" here. If he's extradited to Wisconsin, which looks to be the case, he's going to be tried as an adult...

Very good compartmentalization you have going on there.

You argue that at 17, he is really an adult, ready to face the full responsibility of his crimes, which are only crimes because he is a child....

No, they're crimes because of the fact that he conspired with another to obtain an illegal weapon.

And I'm not making the argument that, at 17, he's an adult. The state of Wisconsin is saying that. That's why he's fighting extradition to Wisconsin. If he goes to trial there, he is truly fucked...

IF htey are charging him with illegally having the weapon and thus losing the right to self defense, which is my understanding, then they are saying he is both a minor and an adult.


You certainly seem to be supporting their reasoning. Have I misunderstood you?

that is a conundrum,, they are trying him as an adult for a minor in possession of a gun,,

No, they're not. How ignorant and stupid of you to say such a thing.

They're trying him as an adult for murder, not for being a minor in possession of a gun...

But it is only "murder" because teh gun was "tainted' by him being a "child".


Progressive hunter has done an excellent job of clarifying the crux of the matter.

Well, shit, since you two have done such a wonderful job at explaining and justifying everything, I'm bettin' Rittenhouse walks by the end of the week, yeah?

youre leaving out that we dont know everything and are going off what the fake media is telling us,,

but if I was on the jury based on what I know he walks on everything,,,

what gets me is theres more outrage at him than the people in charge that allowed this all to happen,, if they did their job we wouldnt be discussing this,,

That is true. The police should have cleared the streets of the violent mobs and there would have been no need for Rittenhouse, and if he had showed up, the cops could have told him to go home too, or arrest him for violating curfew.

There was no need for Rittenhouse to begin with...

When corrupt politicians order the cops to allow violent mobs to rampage though the streets, looting and killing, there is certainly a need for the people to arm themselves and protect themselves.