Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Faun]

You forgot this section:
(3)
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. - does not apply
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age - does not apply
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval - does not apply

So, your claim that he was in illegal possession of a firearm is tenuous., at best.

I accept your surrender.

"does not apply"

LOL

Translation: not in compliance with the law.

941.28 - in compliance
29.304 - not in compliance
29.593 - not in compliance

 

[initforme]

If it's a clear case the jury will rule it as such. Best thing for the young man.

 

[Correll]

If it's a clear case the jury will rule it as such. Best thing for the young man.

Unless the jury is tainted, or the court corrupt.


It will be telling if the jury is sequestered.

 

[Bobob]

If you pick up a fallen police officer's gun and use it to protect said police officer, you have broken the law

How does the fact he may have been in illegal possession a firearm negate his claim of self-defense?

The question is why did he walk into the riot scene with a weapon? He should not have been there, and yet he walks in with a weapon. Nah, sounds like he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
If I pick up a fallen police officer's weapon and use it to protect said police officer, I will not be prosecuted. I would be a hero. This guy is no hero. He is just a 17yr old kid who wanted an excuse to use his weapon.

 

[Correll]

The question is why did he walk into the riot scene with a weapon? He should not have been there, and yet he walks in with a weapon. Nah, sounds like he was looking for trouble, and he found it.
If I pick up a fallen police officer's weapon and use it to protect said police officer, I will not be prosecuted. I would be a hero. This guy is no hero.

He was there looking to protect his community from a violent mob. That is heroic.


That you identify with and side with the mob, is you being the bad guy.

 

[Faun]

Unless the jury is tainted, or the court corrupt.


It will be telling if the jury is sequestered.

Good thing you won't be on that jury. Then it would surely be tainted.

 

[Faun]

He was there looking to protect his community from a violent mob. That is heroic.


That you identify with and side with the mob, is you being the bad guy.

He did so illegally by carrying a gun and by claiming to be an EMT and by being out during a curfew.

 

[Correll]

Good thing you won't be on that jury. Then it would surely be tainted.

I do have preconceived ideas about the case, from being exposed to information about the case.


That will be a problem with most jurors, would you not think? Jury selection will be quite a chore.


Having the trial right there, instead of moving it, was the first sign, that Justice is not their intent.

 

[Correll]

He did so illegally by carrying a gun and by claiming to be an EMT and by being out during a curfew.

A curfew that was not being enforced. If the "wacial justice protestors" were allowed out there, why not Rittenhouse?


Your concern about the Law, seems oddly selective.

 

[Faun]

I do have preconceived ideas about the case, from being exposed to information about the case.


That will be a problem with most jurors, would you not think? Jury selection will be quite a chore.


Having the trial right there, instead of moving it, was the first sign, that Justice is not their intent.

Utter nonsense. There is nothing wrong with holding the trial there. That is where the crime occurred. Those are the people who should be on the jury. All we can hope for is that they weed out folks like you who are prejudiced.

 

[Faun]

A curfew that was not being enforced. If the "wacial justice protestors" were allowed out there, why not Rittenhouse?


Your concern about the Law, seems oddly selective.

No one was allowed to be there. Rittenhouse was still breaking the law. It matters not that others were too. That was for the police to handle, not a 17 year old superhero wannabe.

- carrying a weapon illegally
- impersonating an EMT
- violating curfew

That's at least 3 crimes he was committing and a person can't rely on claiming self-defense when breaking even one law.

 

[Correll]

No one was allowed to be there. Rittenhouse was still breaking the law. It matters not that others were too. That was for the police to handle, not a 17 year old superhero wannabe.

- carrying a weapon illegally
- impersonating an EMT
- violating curfew

That's at least 3 crimes he was committing and a person can't rely on claiming self-defense when breaking even one law.

But they were not handling it. They stood there and watched as the mobs roamed the streets.



I asked a question. If it was ok for "wacial justice protestors" to be out and about, why not Rittenhouse?

 

[Faun]

But they were not handling it. They stood there and watched as the mobs roamed the streets.



I asked a question. If it was ok for "wacial justice protestors" to be out and about, why not Rittenhouse?

It wasn't OK for anyone else to be there. How did you not get that from what I posted?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The question is why did he walk into the riot scene with a weapon?

Not in terms of his claim of self-defense.

He should not have been there, and yet he walks in with a weapon.

Irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

Nah, sounds like he was looking for trouble, and he found it.

Unsupportable nonsense.

If I pick up a fallen police officer's weapon and use it to protect said police officer, I will not be prosecuted. I would be a hero.

You would have illegally possessed a weapon.
Apparently;y,. illegal possession of a weapon negates any claim of self-defense exercse with that weapon.

This guy is no hero. He is just a 17yr old kid who wanted an excuse to use his weapon.

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

[Correll]

It wasn't OK for anyone else to be there. How did you not get that from what I posted?

But they were there. And nothing was done about it then or since, so why is it ok to put Rittenhouse away for life, for something that NO ONE ELSE, is getting JACK for?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Why is anyone opposed to a trial? This way the facts come out. This is the best result for the young man.

I have no idea why anyone wouldn't want to see a trial.

I don't believe that the simple act of chasing Rittenhouse, in and of itself, warranted the use of deadly force. That's just my personal opinion. It certainly warranted him defending himself, though. The level at which he chose to do that, being the use of deadly force, is going to be a central factor.

Now, what's really gonna' fuck up the heads of those arguing with me is that I don't believe Rittenhouse should go to jail. I do believe, however, that he will.

I believe that, if Rittenhouse doesn't take the stand, he'll be convicted of everything under the sun. If he does take the stand, he's a young kid who'll be run ragged by the prosecution until he says something to incriminate himself, which will make their job even easier.

The biggest hurdle will be explaining why he was in a state, other than his home state, with an illegally obtained and illegally possessed firearm. His intentions are going to be front and center: "Why, Mr. Rittenhouse, did you illegally obtain and illegally possess that weapon?" There's almost no way to answer that question without opening up himself for a bloodletting...

 

[Correll]

I have no idea why anyone wouldn't want to see a trial.

I don't believe that the simple act of chasing Rittenhouse, in and of itself, warranted the use of deadly force. That's just my personal opinion. It certainly warranted him defending himself, though. The level at which he chose to do that, being the use of deadly force, is going to be a central factor.

Now, what's really gonna' fuck up the heads of those arguing with me is that I don't believe Rittenhouse should go to jail. I do believe, however, that he will.

I believe that, if Rittenhouse doesn't take the stand, he'll be convicted of everything under the sun. If he does take the stand, he's a young kid who'll be run ragged by the prosecution until he says something to incriminate himself, which will make their job even easier.

The biggest hurdle will be explaining why he was in a state, other than his home state, with an illegally obtained and illegally possessed firearm. His intentions are going to be front and center: "Why, Mr. Rittenhouse, did you illegally obtain and illegally possess that weapon?" There's almost no way to answer that question without opening up himself for a bloodletting...

Violent mobs were rampaging through the area, unchecked by the police.

The need for young men to step forward to help maintain order and civilization is obvious.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Translation:
You know you can not meet the challenge put to you .

No, it simply means I know you're a fucking idiot...

So you agree:
The fact he he may have illegally possessed a firearm in no way negates his claim of self-defense.
Good.

I've never said anything different. You seem to be equating my opinion with what the prosecution is going to do, and that makes you look like a fucking retard...

Translation:
You know you can not meet the challenge put to you .

I can, and I have, responded to every weak challenge you've put my way.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for you to show us how me using a downed officers gun to defend him is theft.

You chickenshit little fuck. That's why people are laughing at you...

And, as you agree there is no necessary relationship between the illegal possession of a firearm and a propensity to violence, you must also agree they will fail in their attempt to do so.

No,l that would be stupid.

That argument is going to be made to a jury. The jury will decide, because that's their job. I'm not qualified to mind-read a jury, you stupid fuck...

You forgot this section:
(3)
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. - does not apply
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age - does not apply
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval - does not apply

Those are not applicable...

So, your claim that he was in illegal possession of a firearm is tenuous., at best.

No, he absolutely was illegally in possession of the AR-15, and nothing you've presented effectively counters that argument.

You are cloaked in failure...

I accept your surrender.

Again, it's nowhere near a surrender. It's an acknowldgement on my part that you're just too fucking mentally retarded to discuss the topic...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Violent mobs were rampaging through the area, unchecked by the police.

The need for young men to step forward to help maintain order and civilization is obvious.

And I've not stated otherwise.

But when Rittenhouse did it, he chose to do it in a manner which ran afoul of the law...

 

[Correll]

And I've not stated otherwise.

But when Rittenhouse did it, he chose to do it in a manner which ran afoul of the law...

You did state that he would be asked "why he was there", as though there was no good answer to that.


I gave you the good answer.