Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[freyasman]

He is not too bright of a kid. That doesn't help.

Because he was there?



So were all of his attackers.



Bad judgment doesn't automatically nullify your right to defend yourself.

 

[Correll]

Are you too dense to pay attention?

Seems so. Let's try this again .... prove Rosenbaum tried to take the gun from Rittenhouse....

^^^ that was the question. Who knows what question you answered?

THe prosecutor has to prove that he did NOT.


That is the point. If there is a reasonable chance that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense, the jury has to aquit.


That is why so many of you lefties have been arguing that "because of he was in the act of a crime, that self defense is not an option".


Because if the jury looks at hte claim of self defense based on it's merits, there is no legitimate way to convict Rittenhouse.

 

[Faun]

THe prosecutor has to prove that he did NOT.


That is the point. If there is a reasonable chance that Rittenhouse was acting in self defense, the jury has to aquit.


That is why so many of you lefties have been arguing that "because of he was in the act of a crime, that self defense is not an option".


Because if the jury looks at hte claim of self defense based on it's merits, there is no legitimate way to convict Rittenhouse.

You're very ignorant. I didn't you if Rittenhouse has to prove it. I challenged YOU to prove it.

Obviously you can't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well that's not true at all.

What isn't? Use your big boy words, or nobody will know what you are trying to say.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Neither was he.

And you have zero evidence that he was.

Then you arent paying attention. The idea that he illegally obtained a firearm and went somewhere he wasn't supposed to be to ostensibly protect property is evidence he was looking for trouble. Whether or not it is convincing evidence is up to the jury. But to say there is no evidence is just stupid.

 

[Correll]

You're very ignorant. I didn't you if Rittenhouse has to prove it. I challenged YOU to prove it.

Obviously you can't.

No one has to prove that. The prosecutor has to prove that it DIDNT' happen.

 

[freyasman]

What isn't? Use your big boy words, or nobody will know what you are trying to say.

You can't chase down and attack someone who is just running away and claim to be responding to a threat.
Not with any credibility anyway.

 

[freyasman]

Then you arent paying attention. The idea that he illegally obtained a firearm and went somewhere he wasn't supposed to be to ostensibly protect property is evidence he was looking for trouble. Whether or not it is convincing evidence is up to the jury. But to say there is no evidence is just stupid.

I don't know if you noticed but there were a lot of armed people there who probably shouldn't have been, including some of the people who attacked the kid.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can't chase down and attack someone who is just running away and claim to be responding to a threat.
Not with any credibility anyway.

Sure you can, when the threat is a rifle with a range of a few hundred meters.

 

[freyasman]

Sure you can, when the threat is a rifle with a range of a few hundred meters.

No, you can't.


If you chase an intruder out of your house and attack him in the streets, you are going to be charged.

 

[Faun]

No one has to prove that. The prosecutor has to prove that it DIDNT' happen.

Easy... there's no evidence it happened.

 

[Correll]

Easy... there's no evidence it happened.

That proves nothing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you chase an intruder out of your house and attack him in the streets, you are going to be charged.

Poor analogy. If someone threatens you in the street with a rifle and you go at him, even if he is backing away, you wont get charged. And he doesn't get to shoot you and call it self defense.

 

[Rye Catcher]

Hmm. The democrats bail out race rioters. Fact. People that burned down cities and race riots. Trump haters did this. The democrats constantly push this anti cop anti white narrative. Is this what the democrats think democracy has come to? Pandering to the lowest common denominator? Apparently.

So it's easy to infer you are opposed to the 8th article in the Bill of Rights? Not surprised if this is true, because you are part of the set yelling "lock her up" without any charges or indictments.

 

[Faun]

That proves nothing.

Of course it does. Rittenhouse's defense is based on his fear of death because Rosenbaum tried to take his gun from him. If he can't prove that, his claim of self-defense goes *poof*

 

[Correll]

Poor analogy. If someone threatens you in the street with a rifle and you go at him, even if he is backing away, you wont get charged. And he doesn't get to shoot you and call it self defense.

(not agreeing the the claim of threatening)

Rittenhouse wasn't "backing away", he was RUNNING AWAY.

 

[freyasman]

Easy... there's no evidence it happened.

Are you saying there is no evidence that Rosenbaum tried to grab the rifle away from him?

 

[SavannahMann]

Horsepoop.
To believe Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense, you have to believe the people he shot had a right to chase him with the intent to harm him.
Full stop.

There were no good guys in that neighborhood that night. You assume someone had to be good. Everyone was committing crimes. There were no good guys.

 

[Correll]

Of course it does. Rittenhouse's defense is based on his fear of death because Rosenbaum tried to take his gun from him. If he can't prove that, his claim of self-defense goes *poof*

He doesn't have to prove it. The Prosecutor is the one with the burden of proof.


Are you completely ignorant of the way our system is supposed to work?

 

[SavannahMann]

Neither was he.

And you have zero evidence that he was.

What was he doing there with an illegal weapon?