Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Canon Shooter]

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.

And I'm sure that answer would satisfy you.

I'm far less convinced that a jury will be as accepting of that answer...

 

[Correll]

And I'm sure that answer would satisfy you.

I'm far less convinced that a jury will be as accepting of that answer...

Any reasonable and impartial jury would.


On one hand you have a well crafted technical legal argument.


On the other you have the reality of violent mobs rampaging though the streets burning and destroying while the police stand down and a young man chased and attacked by the mob, defending himself.


That you think a jury of Americans would rule by letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law and what is actually Right and Just,


is a sign of how our society is decaying.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Any reasonable and impartial jury would.


On one hand you have a well crafted technical legal argument.


On the other you have the reality of violent mobs rampaging though the streets burning and destroying while the police stand down and a young man chased and attacked by the mob, defending himself.


That you think a jury of Americans would rule by letter of the law instead of the spirit of the law and what is actually Right and Just,


is a sign of how our society is decaying.

No, it's really not.

We cannot afford to be governed and policed by emotion...

 

[Correll]

No, it's really not.

We cannot afford to be governed and policed by emotion...

Ruling based on teh reality of the situation and the merit of his self defense claim


INSTEAD Of legal technicalities,


is NOT "emotion".


It is Justice.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Ruling based on teh reality of the situation and the merit of his self defense claim


INSTEAD Of legal technicalities,


is NOT "emotion".


It is Justice.

It's absolutely emotion.

Again, I don't wanna' see the kid go to jail.

But I think he's going to...

 

[Faun]

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?

Dumbfuck, no one is putting Rittenhouse away for life for breaking curfew. Try not breaking your pearl necklace by clutching it so hard.

 

[Correll]

It's absolutely emotion.

Again, I don't wanna' see the kid go to jail.

But I think he's going to...

Is desire for Justice an Emotion? Or an Intellectual Principle?


Either way, it is certainly the Right Thing to Do, here. You saying "emotion" doesn't change that.

 

[Correll]

Dumbfuck, no one is putting Rittenhouse away for life for breaking curfew. Try not breaking your pearl necklace by clutching it so hard.

These minor legal issues, are you justification for not looking at his self defense claim BASED ON IT'S MERITS.



Thus, if he goes to jail, because the Court refuses to look at the merits of his claim, and rule based on... shit, then yes, he is spending life in prison because of "breaking curfew" and other very minor issues.


Seriously. Your entire position is based on NOT LOOKING AT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.



Why is that?


Because you know that the merits of the case, completely support Rittenhouse as being completely innocent of any serious wrongdoing.


BUT, for political reasons, you want to put him away regardless of that. You want him to be in prison for the rest of his life for political reasons.

 

[Bobob]

Not in terms of his claim of self-defense.

Irrelevant to his claim of self-defense.

Unsupportable nonsense.

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

Unsupportable nonsense.

This kid is going to be found guilty of something. He was asking for trouble when he walked into a riot
situation with a loaded weapon. His claim is just that--a claim and nothing more. "Unsupportable nonsense" is simply my opinion, which is the opposite of your "unsupportable nonsense."
Illegally, my ass. He would be found "not guilty" in your cop scenario. Why are you defending an underage kid when he killed 2 people and had a weapon that was illegal for him to pack?
I was not his prerogative to kill 2 people whose philosophy he disagreed with. That is why we have police.

 

[Correll]

This kid is going to be found guilty of something. He was asking for trouble when he walked into a riot
situation with a loaded weapon. His claim is just that--a claim and nothing more. "Unsupportable nonsense" is simply my opinion, which is the opposite of your "unsupportable nonsense."
Illegally, my ass. He would be found "not guilty" in your cop scenario. Why are you defending an underage kid when he killed 2 people and had a weapon that was illegal for him to pack?
I was not his prerogative to kill 2 people whose philosophy he disagreed with. That is why we have police.

It was his right to kill two people that were part of a violent mob attacking him.


It is telling that you left out that part, about the violent mob attacking him. I mean, that's relevant right?


So, why did you not mention that, but did mention their politics?

MMM?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Is desire for Justice an Emotion? Or an Intellectual Principle?


Either way, it is certainly the Right Thing to Do, here. You saying "emotion" doesn't change that.

What's "right" is subjective, though.

Again, I'd rather not see the kid go to prison but, unlike anyone who full-out supports Rittenhouse, I can certainly see how he gets convicted.

The reality is that he killed two people, and the facts of the case are in dispute. When facts are in dispute, you have a trial. Folks like you don't want a trial.

I say let him be judged...

 

[Canon Shooter]

These minor legal issues, are you justification for not looking at his self defense claim BASED ON IT'S MERITS.



Thus, if he goes to jail, because the Court refuses to look at the merits of his claim, and rule based on... shit, then yes, he is spending life in prison because of "breaking curfew" and other very minor issues.


Seriously. Your entire position is based on NOT LOOKING AT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.



Why is that?


Because you know that the merits of the case, completely support Rittenhouse as being completely innocent of any serious wrongdoing.


BUT, for political reasons, you want to put him away regardless of that. You want him to be in prison for the rest of his life for political reasons.

The "merits of the case" will be weighed at trial, as it should be, seeing as there's so much in dispute here.

Joseph Rosenbaum was shot in the back. It's damn near impossible to claim self defense if you shoot someone in the back, simply because a person isn't a threat to you if their back is facing you. You insist that people "look at the merits of the case". Well, that's one "merit" the prosecution is going to have an absolute fuckin' field day with...

 

[Correll]

What's "right" is subjective, though.

Again, I'd rather not see the kid go to prison but, unlike anyone who full-out supports Rittenhouse, I can certainly see how he gets convicted.

The reality is that he killed two people, and the facts of the case are in dispute. When facts are in dispute, you have a trial. Folks like you don't want a trial.

I say let him be judged...

Funny, if the facts are really in dispute, why is most of the people on the other side, so determined to avoid looking at the actual MERITS of the case?


They want to use legal technicalities in order to dismiss Rittenhouse's actual REASON for shooting those men.


That does not sound like a real disagreement over the "facts of the case" but a desire to see a certain outcome, for political reasons.

 

[Correll]

The "merits of the case" will be weighed at trial, as it should be, seeing as there's so much in dispute here.

Joseph Rosenbaum was shot in the back. It's damn near impossible to claim self defense if you shoot someone in the back, simply because a person isn't a threat to you if their back is facing you. You insist that people "look at the merits of the case". Well, that's one "merit" the prosecution is going to have an absolute fuckin' field day with...

Will they? Or will the claim of self defense not be allowed?


People can turn suddenly, especially when they are being shot. That POSSIBLY, one of the rounds hit his back, does not mean he was not defending himself.


Anyone with actual training, or god forbid, any real experience could tell you that.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Will they? Or will the claim of self defense not be allowed?


People can turn suddenly, especially when they are being shot. That POSSIBLY, one of the rounds hit his back, does not mean he was not defending himself.


Anyone with actual training, or god forbid, any real experience could tell you that.

Um, I've got training to the nth degree.

There's a concept known as "escalation of force". You should familiarize yourself with it.

If I shoot you in the back, how would I be able to make a legitimate claim of self defense?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Funny, if the facts are really in dispute, why is most of the people on the other side, so determined to avoid looking at the actual MERITS of the case?


They want to use legal technicalities in order to dismiss Rittenhouse's actual REASON for shooting those men.


That does not sound like a real disagreement over the "facts of the case" but a desire to see a certain outcome, for political reasons.

Wanting to see this case, which has a lot of unanswered questions surrounding it, go to trial is a dismissal of nothing, nor is it avoiding "looking at the actual merits of the case"? If anything, it demands an in-depth examination of the merits of the case.

If the facts of the case are such that the evidence overwhelmingly exonerates Rittenhouse, you should welcome a trial.

The fact that you don't suggests that, deep down, you believe his actions may have very well been unlawful...

 

[Faun]

These minor legal issues, are you justification for not looking at his self defense claim BASED ON IT'S MERITS.



Thus, if he goes to jail, because the Court refuses to look at the merits of his claim, and rule based on... shit, then yes, he is spending life in prison because of "breaking curfew" and other very minor issues.


Seriously. Your entire position is based on NOT LOOKING AT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.



Why is that?


Because you know that the merits of the case, completely support Rittenhouse as being completely innocent of any serious wrongdoing.


BUT, for political reasons, you want to put him away regardless of that. You want him to be in prison for the rest of his life for political reasons.

Drama Queen, he is facing life in prison for murder. Not for breaking curfew. Not for impersonating an EMT. Not for illegally carrying a dangerous weapon.

 

[Faun]

It was his right to kill two people that were part of a violent mob attacking him.


It is telling that you left out that part, about the violent mob attacking him. I mean, that's relevant right?


So, why did you not mention that, but did mention their politics?

MMM?


View attachment 527460

There was no "violent mob" attacking him when he shot Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum, hadn't attacked him, he alone ran after Rittenhouse.

 

[Correll]

Um, I've got training to the nth degree.

There's a concept known as "escalation of force". You should familiarize yourself with it.

If I shoot you in the back, how would I be able to make a legitimate claim of self defense?

If you have training, then why are you pretending that that was the only wound?

 

[Correll]

Wanting to see this case, which has a lot of unanswered questions surrounding it, go to trial is a dismissal of nothing, nor is it avoiding "looking at the actual merits of the case"? If anything, it demands an in-depth examination of the merits of the case.

If the facts of the case are such that the evidence overwhelmingly exonerates Rittenhouse, you should welcome a trial.

The fact that you don't suggests that, deep down, you believe his actions may have very well been unlawful...

Do you want the claim of self defense to be looked at based on it's merits?