Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

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.

"For you to say that he was NOT defending himself..."

LOL

Something I never said. Demonstrating you still don't know what the debate is about.

 

[Faun]

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.

There is one piece of this not being considered, for which I'm not sure how it will play out... but shortly prior to their altercation, Rosenbaum was armed with a chain...

 

[Faun]

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.

My mind was made up when I learned he shot Rosenbaum in the back. You can't shoot someone in the back and then claim self-defense. At that point, defense becomes excessive which the law doesn't allow.

 

[Faun]

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.

Other than Rosenbaum, they had the right to disarm Rittenhouse, who was an active shooter. According to you numbnuts, had someone attempted to disarm Nicolas Cruz, Cruz could have legally shot them and then claim self defense in court.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

The problem is that these are not new rules. These laws have been on the books for decades. They are used all the time. They aren’t obscure laws that are never applied or enforced. So the argument that this is political is crap.

I once lived in a town in Wyoming. This town had a law on the books from the 1800’s. The law said that all Blacks had to be out of town by sundown. When this law was found in the dusty archives. It was a surprise. Nobody remembered it had been on the books. They searched the records and couldn’t find one reference to it actually been enforced.

Those of us who study history can figure what happened. The law was on the books. But the Blacks who came through were cowboys with cash from working the cattle. So the law was ignored. In time it was forgotten.

If the laws prohibiting Kyle from getting a weapon were of the same sort. I’d agree it was unfair. But they were not.

So what are we left with? Kyle trespassing exactly like the protestors he was there to stop. Only he was armed. He was ordered to leave the area just like everyone else. They didn’t leave. Either did he.

The argument that everyone is doing it has never worked. There are lots of laws that could be ruled as invalid because everyone is doing it. Starting with speed limits.

To reduce it to just the self defense. We have to ignore a lot of crime on Kyles part and focus on the exact same crimes on the part of the protestors.

Now here is something that I haven’t said. I believed it was obvious. But perhaps not.

Anyone who killed someone in that area would have been committing murder. If the Protestors had killed Kyle it would have been murder. And it would have been murder for the exact same reasons. It can’t be self defense if you are actively committing crimes.

And again. That has been the applied law for a very long time.

 

[Correll]

"For you to say that he was NOT defending himself..."

LOL

Something I never said. Demonstrating you still don't know what the debate is about.

And now we move to the semantics portion of the stonewalling.


This is one of the prime defenses liberals do, when confronted by a point that is too well argued for them to even pretend they can refute.


Rittenhouse was defending himself against a violent mob, led by a violent ex-con. His claim of self defense is clearly supported by the video evidence which shows the multiple attackers chasing and attacking him.


And him defending himself.

 

[Correll]

The problem is that these are not new rules. These laws have been on the books for decades. They are used all the time. They aren’t obscure laws that are never applied or enforced. So the argument that this is political is crap.

I once lived in a town in Wyoming. This town had a law on the books from the 1800’s. The law said that all Blacks had to be out of town by sundown. When this law was found in the dusty archives. It was a surprise. Nobody remembered it had been on the books. They searched the records and couldn’t find one reference to it actually been enforced.

Those of us who study history can figure what happened. The law was on the books. But the Blacks who came through were cowboys with cash from working the cattle. So the law was ignored. In time it was forgotten.

If the laws prohibiting Kyle from getting a weapon were of the same sort. I’d agree it was unfair. But they were not.

So what are we left with? Kyle trespassing exactly like the protestors he was there to stop. Only he was armed. He was ordered to leave the area just like everyone else. They didn’t leave. Either did he.

The argument that everyone is doing it has never worked. There are lots of laws that could be ruled as invalid because everyone is doing it. Starting with speed limits.

To reduce it to just the self defense. We have to ignore a lot of crime on Kyles part and focus on the exact same crimes on the part of the protestors.

Now here is something that I haven’t said. I believed it was obvious. But perhaps not.

Anyone who killed someone in that area would have been committing murder. If the Protestors had killed Kyle it would have been murder. And it would have been murder for the exact same reasons. It can’t be self defense if you are actively committing crimes.

And again. That has been the applied law for a very long time.

i said the MOTIVATION was political, not that the law was political. Funny you missed that.

He was not trespassing. He was in violation of curfew, but that was not being enforced. Much like your law on blacks. NOt enforced, so ignored.


Rittenhouse was forced by the police to be alone out on teh streets, because they prevented him from rejoining his group.


A lone enemy was too attractive a target for Antifa cowards and they swarmed him. I suspect they targeted him.


If America was still a serious country, the cell phone records of all the attackers would have been investigated to see if they were vectored in to attack him by spotters.


Regardless. Rittenhouse was helping to defend property from violent mobs. He was attacked for that, by the violent mob and he defended himself.


To claim that he does not have a right to self defense because he was only 17 instead of 18, and thus needs to spend the rest of his life in jail,


is morally and ethnically and imo, legally indefensible.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is one piece of this not being considered, for which I'm not sure how it will play out... but shortly prior to their altercation, Rosenbaum was armed with a chain...

Ok. How does that change the fact that Kyle was in possession of an illegal weapon?

 

[SavannahMann]

i said the MOTIVATION was political, not that the law was political. Funny you missed that.

He was not trespassing. He was in violation of curfew, but that was not being enforced. Much like your law on blacks. NOt enforced, so ignored.


Rittenhouse was forced by the police to be alone out on teh streets, because they prevented him from rejoining his group.


A lone enemy was too attractive a target for Antifa cowards and they swarmed him. I suspect they targeted him.


If America was still a serious country, the cell phone records of all the attackers would have been investigated to see if they were vectored in to attack him by spotters.


Regardless. Rittenhouse was helping to defend property from violent mobs. He was attacked for that, by the violent mob and he defended himself.


To claim that he does not have a right to self defense because he was only 17 instead of 18, and thus needs to spend the rest of his life in jail,


is morally and ethnically and imo, legally indefensible.

He was not forced. He was ordered to leave the area. He refused.

Kyle would not be facing prison right now if he had obeyed the law just one time.

Think about it. He could have not purchased the weapon illegally. He could have not taken it with him. He could have not gone to an area he wasn’t supposed to be in. He could have not trespassed on private property without the owners permission. He could have left the area when instructed.

If he had obeyed the law just once in that chain. Just one time. He would be talking to recruiters or in basic training now. Not even every time. Just once.

But like all tragedies there is a chain of events. And all you have to do to stop the tragedy from occurring is not break the rules one time. Break the chain.

Kyle made every decision cognizant that he was breaking the law. If he didn’t believe there would be consequences then blame his parents for not exposing that to him. He made every choice based upon his delusions of glorious heroics.

And if things went badly he had to answer for his choices. Things went badly. And now he’s screwed. He forged every link in the chain of disaster. All he had to do to avoid all of this is just do what he was told to by the law just one time. Just one time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What excessive force---he had every right to shoot the violent criminals attacking him. EVERY RIGHT.

Hmm, yet he is charged with murder. Maybe you dont know what you are talkong about?

 

[freyasman]

My mind was made up when I learned he shot Rosenbaum in the back. You can't shoot someone in the back and then claim self-defense. At that point, defense becomes excessive which the law doesn't allow.

No, not necessarily.

Like literally every single other self defense case, it depends upon the totality of the circumstances.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

You choose to not understand that he right to self-defense resets when the original assailant disengages; in the scenario I presented, you believe the people chasing the rapist have a right to lynch hm.
Why do you believe there is a right to lynch black people?

 

[freyasman]

Other than Rosenbaum, they had the right to disarm Rittenhouse, who was an active shooter. According to you numbnuts, had someone attempted to disarm Nicolas Cruz, Cruz could have legally shot them and then claim self defense in court.

False.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Rittenhouse was running away from people who intended to harm him.
Whatever he did before the point he ran away does not matter as he disengaged from whatever instigation he may have caused.
Under WI law -- law you refuse to understand -- the right to self-defense resets once the person disengages.

939.48
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a)A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

The only way you can believe Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense is if you believe the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so.

 

[Faun]

And now we move to the semantics portion of the stonewalling.


This is one of the prime defenses liberals do, when confronted by a point that is too well argued for them to even pretend they can refute.


Rittenhouse was defending himself against a violent mob, led by a violent ex-con. His claim of self defense is clearly supported by the video evidence which shows the multiple attackers chasing and attacking him.


And him defending himself.

It's not semantics, it's you being an imbecile who tried, and failed, to ascribe a position to me I didn't make; and then attack that phantom position.

Try harder next time.

And there was no mob attacking Rittenhouse at first. At first, all there was, was Rosenbaum chasing him.

If you were actually searching for truth and reality, you wouldn't have to lie like that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok. How does that change the fact that Kyle was in possession of an illegal weapon?

The weapon he had was not illegal.
The illegal possession of a weapon does not change the fact he fired in self-defense -- you can pick up a fallen police officer's weapon - under the law, this is theft - and fire it in self-defense.

 

[Faun]

You’re reaching. But yes you’re famous on my wall of morons and now I know it gets under your skin. Thanks for the confirmation, fat fuck.

LOLOLOL

Hey, ShortBus, I can't see your wall anymore. What happened?

 

[JoeB131]

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

We already lock up 2 million people in this country, more than Communist China. Locking people up hasn't made us any safer.

 

[Mac-7]

We already lock up 2 million people in this country, more than Communist China. Locking people up hasn't made us any safer.

You want to take away my right to own a gun but not the criminals on the street who are using guns to commit murder?

thats totally insane

 

[JoeB131]

You want to take away my right to own a gun but not the criminals on the street who are using guns to commit murder?

thats totally insane

I want to take away everyone's guns.

Countries that ban or limit gun ownership don't have these problems.