Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Canon Shooter]

The purpose of the Law is to find Justice.

No, it's not. The purpose of the law is to maintain the well being of society...

The question is, was Rittenhouse defending himself from a violent attack, or was he the violent attacker?

Personally, I don't believe he was. The undeniable fact that he shout a man in the back supports this...

Using a law as an excuse to NOT LOOK AT THE MERITS OF THE CASE, is not right.

What law are you afraid of being used to not look at the "merits" of the case?

If a certain law requires that, then we have a conflict between the Law and Justice.

I don't believe any law requires that...

I'm not sure what the LEGAL fix for that is, but finding it should be the goal, not running down the code like a soulless robot and putting a man away for life, without looking at the actual merits of his case.

You keep blabbering about the "merits of the case". Those merits will most definitely be looked at. And ther is no "legal fix" required...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Really? Why all the whining about the rifle then?

Um... wow...

If they put him away WITHOUT looking at the merits of the self defense claim, will you support that?

What is your idea of "looking at the merits of the case"?

You keep saying that as if it won't happen unless you continuously whine about it.

But it will happen...

 

[Correll]

LOLOL

Moron, you don't get to cherry pick testimony you like from a witness you yourself impeached.



Either he's a credible witness or he's not.

You say he's not. So don't use anything based on his testimony unless your goal here is to be two-faced.

Testimony counter to the interests of the witness are more credible than those that support his side.


Admitting fault for your own side, is inherently more convincing than defending your own side.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Would it bother you if they do "keep him from making that claim"?

Yes, because he has every right to claim self-defense.

Which is why neither the court nor the prosecution can, or will, keep him from claiming self defense...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Testimony counter to the interests of the witness are more credible than those that support his side.


Admitting fault for your own side, is inherently more convincing than defending your own side.

Says the guy who's admitted absolutely no fault for anything on the part of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Ergo, you're not convincing anyone of anything...

 

[Correll]

No, it's not. The purpose of the law is to maintain the well being of society...

Well then, two fewer violent rioters in this society. Why are we wasting time hassling the poor man they attacked?

Personally, I don't believe he was. The undeniable fact that he shout a man in the back supports this...


What law are you afraid of being used to not look at the "merits" of the case?




I don't believe any law requires that...



You keep blabbering about the "merits of the case". Those merits will most definitely be looked at. And ther is no "legal fix" required...

I hope you are correct.

 

[Correll]

Um... wow...


What is your idea of "looking at the merits of the case"?

You keep saying that as if it won't happen unless you continuously whine about it.

But it will happen...

Discussing how he was attacked and whether or not the shooting was in self defense, or not.

 

[Correll]

Yes, because he has every right to claim self-defense.

Which is why neither the court nor the prosecution can, or will, keep him from claiming self defense...

I hope you are correct.

 

[Correll]

Says the guy who's admitted absolutely no fault for anything on the part of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Ergo, you're not convincing anyone of anything...

IMO, he handled himself very well. I think his behavior was exemplary.

People throw the term "Hero" around way to freely, but in this case, I would say it applies.


Of course, I thus, do not admit any "fault" on the part of Kyle Rittenhouse.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Well then, two fewer violent rioters in this society. Why are we wasting time hassling the poor man they attacked?

He broke the law. It isn't "hassling" someone.

The fact that you characterize it as such actually speaks to exactly why he should be prosecuted...

I hope you are correct.

I absolutely am correct.

The problem, though, is that if he's not fully exonerated, people like you will claim that "the merits of the case" weren't looked at.

And you'll be wrong...

 

[Canon Shooter]

I hope you are correct.

How do you think he could possibly be precluded from claiming it was self defense?

 

[Correll]

He broke the law. It isn't "hassling" someone.

The fact that you characterize it as such actually speaks to exactly why he should be prosecuted...



I absolutely am correct.

The problem, though, is that if he's not fully exonerated, people like you will claim that "the merits of the case" weren't looked at.

And you'll be wrong...

Is society better served with fewer violent rioters, or fewer want a be cops?

 

[Correll]

How do you think he could possibly be precluded from claiming it was self defense?

A corrupt and biased court, directing the Defense to not make the claim, and/or instructing the jury to not consider such a claim.

 

[Canon Shooter]

IMO, he handled himself very well. I think his behavior was exemplary.

People throw the term "Hero" around way to freely, but in this case, I would say it applies.


Of course, I thus, do not admit any "fault" on the part of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Well, I believe you are going to be sorely disappointed in the results of his trial.

He's not a hero; not even close.

Let me ask you something: The law says it's illegal for me to burn down your house. If I did that, though, could I rely on you to call me a hero and ignore the fact that I broke the law? Of course not. Why? Because I committed a crime, and for that I should stand and be judged...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Is society better served with fewer violent rioters, or fewer want a be cops?

I would agree that society is far better with fewer violent rioters.

I also would fully agree that we would be far better with fewer wanna' be cops, which isn't an inaccurate description of Kyle Rittenhouse...

 

[Canon Shooter]

A corrupt and biased court, directing the Defense to not make the claim, and/or instructing the jury to not consider such a claim.

Wow.

You don't really know much about this, do you?

A court can't direct the defense how to present their case. That's the express lane to a mistrial. As such, the court cannot instruct the jury to dismiss that claim...

 

[Faun]

Really? Why all the whining about the rifle then?


If they put him away WITHOUT looking at the merits of the self defense claim, will you support that?

That's part of the case.

 

[Faun]

Testimony counter to the interests of the witness are more credible than those that support his side.


Admitting fault for your own side, is inherently more convincing than defending your own side.

Sadly, you're still incapable of understanding he's not on anyone's side in this case. He's on the side of reporting what he witnessed. Some of it is favorable for Rittenhouse while some of it is unfavorable.

But let's see you prove he was on the lefts' side.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

This kid is going to be found guilty of something.

Possibly, the illegal possession of a firearm. Possibly.

His claim is just that--a claim and nothing more.

Rittenhouses's claim of self-defense is FAR more powerful than you understand.
Under WI law, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did NOT have a reasonable fear for his life, and/or his act of shooting the people he shot was NOT an act of self-defense, under WI law.
You have -no- hope of making a sound argumeht for either.

"Unsupportable nonsense" is simply my opinion, which is the opposite of your "unsupportable nonsense."

Differnce is, my opinion is supported by fact -- yours, by your suppositions and ignorance.

Why are you defending an underage kid when he killed 2 people and had a weapon that was illegal for him to pack?

Because he acted in self-defense.
Any rational, reasoned person would support someone who does so.
Why don't you?

I was not his prerogative to kill 2 people whose philosophy he disagreed with.

It was, however perfectly within his rights to shoot people chasing him with the intent to cause harm

 

[Canon Shooter]

Possibly, the illegal possession of a firearm. Possibly.

[/QUOTE]

So, you believe he's basically going to skate on this?

Rittenhouses's claim of self-defense is FAR more powerful than you understand.
Under WI law, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did NOT have a reasonable fear for his life, and/or his act of shooting the people he shot was NOT an act of self-defense, under WI law.

The prosecution can go another route with it. They can approach it from the perspective that it was entirely unreasonable for him to illegally arm himself and inject himself into that fray. That's not going to be a very difficult thing for them to do. Once the jury recognizes that his very presence there was unreasonable, it won't be difficult to lead them down any other road they wish to go.

Listening to you, one could believe that there's not even a solid reason to take this to trial. Is that what you believe?