Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[freyasman]

Actually, I got nearly everything I wanted out of the military. I got my college paid for, I got rank, recognition and a marketable skill I am still using to this very day.

I guess I did miss out on the PTSD and the mental problems you seem to have. So there's that.

You missed out on a lot more than that.

 

[freyasman]

Queuing up the preemptive excuses

Just looking at the facts.

 

[SavannahMann]

Yes. Let's.
Mississippi, 1920.
Black man rapes white girl. Gets caught by her brother and friends.
They chase him with the intent to lynch him. While running away, he shoots them.
-You- believe he had no right to do so.

No he didn’t. It was murder. You can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

 

[freyasman]

"due to the way he fell, one bullet went into the guy's back"

LOLOL

No, moron -- due to Rittenhouse continuing to pull the trigger after Rosenbaum had already fallen, one bullet went into his back. Very likely, the fatal shot.

Yeah...... not really though.

If he is justified in shooting, then he is justified in continuing to shoot until the threat is over. If a bullet hits somewhere you personally disapprove of, that's just too fucking bad.

 

[freyasman]

A case of this magnitude would very likely be retried.

Maybe.

Depends on how badly the prosecutor embarrasses himself trying to prosecute a loser case like this.

He might get tired of being butt-fucked in open court in front of the whole world.

 

[Faun]

Yeah...... not really though.

If he is justified in shooting, then he is justified in continuing to shoot until the threat is over. If a bullet hits somewhere you personally disapprove of, that's just too fucking bad.

LOL

Thanks for making my point. The threat was over when Rosenbaum was face down on the ground -- when Rittenhouse fired one more shot than needed.

 

[freyasman]

LOL

Thanks for making my point. The threat was over when Rosenbaum was face down on the ground -- when Rittenhouse fired one more shot than needed.

Yeah, I could explain how stuff like this happens, and cite a bunch of sources and all, but you would just disregard it all anyway.


I wonder how many innocent people have been convicted because idiots like you were on jury duty?
You are never going to let the fact that you are completely wrong, interfere with your sense of absolute certainty.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just looking at the facts.

Pre programmed response. Of course you have to say that. You would sound pretty silly if you said, "Just relying on my silly political fetishes and right wing dementia"

 

[Faun]

Yeah, I could explain how stuff like this happens, and cite a bunch of sources and all, but you would just disregard it all anyway.


I wonder how many innocent people have been convicted because idiots like you were on jury duty?
You are never going to let the fact that you are completely wrong, interfere with your sense of absolute certainty.

LOLOL

You've done nothing to show I'm wrong. Just saying, you're wrong, doesn't mean shit to me.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No he didn’t. It was murder. You can’t claim self defense while committing a crime.

I see you -choose- to be ignorant of the law.
Not much more to be said.

 

[SavannahMann]

I see you -choose- to be ignorant of the law.
Not much more to be said.

Ok. Help me. Teach me. Show me a case where a rapist got to claim self defense for killing someone.

 

[Correll]

Dumbfuck, your "guess" is what Rosenbaum would have done had he caught Rittenhouse, not that he was chasing him. Your fear is exposed in your spin.

To prove murder, you have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For you to say that he was NOT defending himself, YOU have to have evidence that his intent was NOT to cause harm.


IF to the jury it is plausible that Rosenbaum MIGHT have been hostile, then self defense is a valid legal defense.


That is why so many of you lefties want to disallow the self defense defense. Because you know it is valid.


To conclude that his intent was non hostile, that is you wanting to guess or assume his intent, without evidence, so that you can put a man you don't like, in jail.

And the reason he would be in jail, is not because he committed a crime, but because you libs disagree with him politically.

 

[SavannahMann]

To prove murder, you have to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For you to say that he was NOT defending himself, YOU have to have evidence that his intent was NOT to cause harm.

actually. No. We charge the guy robbing a store with Murder even if the clerk dies of a heart attack. It has long been established that Murder can be committed even if it was not intentional. A death in the commission of a crime qualifies.

IF to the jury it is plausible that Rosenbaum MIGHT have been hostile, then self defense is a valid legal defense.

Again. Not really. Kyle was aware he was violating the law when he went there that day. He was well aware he was prohibited by law from possessing or purchasing a weapon. So from the get go Kyle was determined to commit crimes. As mentioned above. Self defense is generally not allowed when a death occurs during the commission of a crime.

That is why so many of you lefties want to disallow the self defense defense. Because you know it is valid.


To conclude that his intent was non hostile, that is you wanting to guess or assume his intent, without evidence, so that you can put a man you don't like, in jail.

And the reason he would be in jail, is not because he committed a crime, but because you libs disagree with him politically.

Well we know he committed crimes. Possession of a firearm by a minor is a crime. Purchasing same firearm is a crime. Waving it around in a threatening manner is a crime. Trespassing is a crime. Kyle was in the midst of a vigilante crime spree before the first shot was fired.

What you want to have the Jury do is ignore all of Kyles crimes and focus on the possible crimes others may have been intending to commit.

You want the entire prosecution based solely on the shooting. Ignoring all the crimes that led up to it.

Now it is not unheard of for a criminals claim of self defense to be viewed as valid. In Texas a man growing marijuana fired at Deputies conducting an early morning raid. He claimed that the police did not identify themselves and believed he was the victim of a home invasion.

He killed a deputy. He was not indicted by the grand jury for the death. He was charged with and convicted of the other crimes.

It was generally believed that he had gotten away with Murder.

Many of the Deputies argued the DA did not properly explain the Murder statute to the Grand Jury.

There are a few cases where someone got away with claiming self defense. But those examples are extremely rare. And nearly all the examples were not put before an actual Jury.

Kyle had little choice but to claim Self Defense as his legal strategy. And there is an extremely low chance it will work. Especially since Jury Instructions preclude Jury Nullification.

 

[freyasman]

Pre programmed response. Of course you have to say that. You would sound pretty silly if you said, "Just relying on my silly political fetishes and right wing dementia"

Yawn.....

 

[freyasman]

LOLOL

You've done nothing to show I'm wrong. Just saying, you're wrong, doesn't mean shit to me.

I'm pretty sure there is nothing I or anyone else could say to you about this that would; your mind was made up as soon as you learned he stood up to the rioters.

 

[Mac-7]

The "crime" being a "child" with a gun. For which you want to charge him as an adult....and put in jail for adult time.

Well said

Rittenhouse was too young to legally own or carry a firearm

but he had s constitutional right to defend himself from leftwing thugs

 

[SavannahMann]

Well said

Rittenhouse was too young to legally own or carry a firearm

but he had s constitutional right to defend himself from leftwing thugs

If Rittenhouse was at his home when Leftwing thugs broke in I’d be one of his most vocal supporters. Even if he was a minor who used a gun to defend his home. If he was at a business owned by an Uncle, I’d be a reluctant supporter. He had legitimate business in both of those scenarios. A little less so in the second, but still legitimate.

But he wasn’t at any of those locations.

Self Defense presupposes that you are doing nothing wrong yourself. You are not involved in anything illegal or instigating the situation. Self Defense is not the catch all I was a feared for my life you seem to imagine it is.

Otherwise the Prisons would be nearly empty. Every criminal would argue Self Defense, the clerk he was robbing was going to cause him severe harm possibly death. The girl he was raping tried to bite his penis off. He had to kill her to protect himself.

Hell one of the idiots in this thread argued that a man should have been able to claim self defense because the girl he was raping had brothers who discovered him and were set to lynch him.

That isn’t self defense. That is murder.

 

[Turtlesoup]

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.

Excessive force? What excessive force---he had every right to shoot the violent criminals attacking him. EVERY RIGHT. Ummm....carrying that rifle wasn't a crime btw. Buying it underage--which is misdeamor I believe is.....but it isn't a COMMISSION OF A FELONY (not commission of a crime). Kyle did nothing wrong--the prosecutor and judge are clearly violating his civil rights for political purposes.

 

[Correll]

actually. No. We charge the guy robbing a store with Murder even if the clerk dies of a heart attack. It has long been established that Murder can be committed even if it was not intentional. A death in the commission of a crime qualifies.


Again. Not really. Kyle was aware he was violating the law when he went there that day. He was well aware he was prohibited by law from possessing or purchasing a weapon. So from the get go Kyle was determined to commit crimes. As mentioned above. Self defense is generally not allowed when a death occurs during the commission of a crime.

Well we know he committed crimes. Possession of a firearm by a minor is a crime. Purchasing same firearm is a crime. Waving it around in a threatening manner is a crime. Trespassing is a crime. Kyle was in the midst of a vigilante crime spree before the first shot was fired.

What you want to have the Jury do is ignore all of Kyles crimes and focus on the possible crimes others may have been intending to commit.

You want the entire prosecution based solely on the shooting. Ignoring all the crimes that led up to it.

Now it is not unheard of for a criminals claim of self defense to be viewed as valid. In Texas a man growing marijuana fired at Deputies conducting an early morning raid. He claimed that the police did not identify themselves and believed he was the victim of a home invasion.

He killed a deputy. He was not indicted by the grand jury for the death. He was charged with and convicted of the other crimes.

It was generally believed that he had gotten away with Murder.

Many of the Deputies argued the DA did not properly explain the Murder statute to the Grand Jury.

There are a few cases where someone got away with claiming self defense. But those examples are extremely rare. And nearly all the examples were not put before an actual Jury.

Kyle had little choice but to claim Self Defense as his legal strategy. And there is an extremely low chance it will work. Especially since Jury Instructions preclude Jury Nullification.

Your entire justification for putting Rittenhouse in prison for life as an adult criminal, rests on that as a child he was not allowed to have the gun he used to defend himself.


You entire strategy is to refuse to look at the self defense claim ON IT'S MERITS, and to just dismiss it, because Rittenhouse was a minor with a gun, thus put him away for life.


This is not Justice. ANd your motivation is political. This is Injustice and Tyranny.


It is likely that self defense is "rare" because normally such a case would not even be charged.

BUt, the local politicians are dems and thus on teh side of the brown shirt rioters that attacked Rittenhouse.

 

[Mac-7]

Rittenhouse was at his home when Leftwing thugs broke in I’d be one of his most vocal supporters. Even if he was a minor who used a gun to defend his home. If he was at a business owned by an Uncle, I’d be a reluctant supporter. He had legitimate business in both of those scenarios. A little less so in the second, but still legitimate.

All of those are legitimate situations

but not the only ones

if he were a gangbanger defending his street corner from a rival gang I would agree with you that he deserves punishment

if he was doing a drive-by shooting and innocent people died I would agree with you

my policy is that we need a mandatory 5 year prison sentence for the mere illegal procession of a gun

but so far libs have not agreed to that