Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Bobob]

Possibly, the illegal possession of a firearm. Possibly.

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.

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

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

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

Your opinion is not supported by much of anything realistic. This young, inexperienced kid needs to be taught a valuable lesson so that he does not make the same mistake twice because the next time he may be on the wrong end of a bullet. He was wrong, and you are being driven by your opposition to the violent protesters, which is understandable. I am also opposed to their violent behavior.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your opinion is not supported by much of anything realistic.

Just WI law and the video evidence found everywhere in the internet.

his young, inexperienced kid needs to be taught a valuable lesson...

And thus, you arent at -all- interested in the law or the proper application thereof.

He was wrong.

The only way you can believe this is if you believe the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so

and you are being driven by...

...WI law and the video evidence found everywhere on the internet.

 

[Faun]

Just WI law and the video evidence found everywhere in the internet.

And thus, you arent at -all- interested in the law or the proper application thereof.

The only way you can believe this is if you believe the people chasing him with the intent to harm him had the right to do so

...WI law and the video evidence found everywhere on the internet.

You mean your misunderstanding of Wisconsin law. Case in point, you read the law wrong and therefore, wrongly think it was legal for Rittenhouse to be in possession of that gun.

 

[Correll]

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...

Dude. Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse. So were the others. Why are you ignoring that?


SELF DEFENSE IS NOT ILLEGAL.

 

[Correll]

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...

You don't want people to want to be cops? I think wanting to have a better job, especially one where you get to help people, is not a bad thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Dude. Rosenbaum was attacking Rittenhouse. So were the others. Why are you ignoring that?

It doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Correll]

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...

This bit where you seem to think that dems are still playing by the rules. Sooner or later, you are in for a rude awakening. I hope it is not too painful for you, when it comes.


If the court tries some form of what I am fearing, will you be doubling down on your...current position,


or will you join me in my anger at the injustice of it all?

 

[Correll]

That's part of the case.

So, not looking at the merits of the defense , is part of the case?

Fascinating.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It doesn't fit the narrative.

Excuse you. Rittenhouse is charged with murder. And several other charges. Yet you ridiculously say it is just obvious he did nothing wrong. Looks like reality doesn't fit YOUR narrative.

 

[Correll]

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.....

I will believe that, of a reporter, AFTER they demonstrate it somehow.


Neither libtards nor reporters, deserve the benefit of a doubt any more.


You both have ANTI-CREDIBILITY.

 

[Faun]

So, not looking at the merits of the defense , is part of the case?

Fascinating.

Dumbfuck, those merits in terms of his claims of self-defense will be addressed in court. It's part of the case. Maybe you should learn how our Judiciary operates before opining on matters of which you're ignorant.

 

[Faun]

I will believe that, of a reporter, AFTER they demonstrate it somehow.


Neither libtards nor reporters, deserve the benefit of a doubt any more.


You both have ANTI-CREDIBILITY.

LOL

You demonstrate it's YOU who has no cred. Dumbfuck, he works for a far rightwing company.

You tried ... and utterly failed ... to impeach his eyewitness account for no reason other than what he observed is inconvenient to the outcome you're wishing for.

 

[Correll]

Dumbfuck, those merits in terms of his claims of self-defense will be addressed in court. It's part of the case. Maybe you should learn how our Judiciary operates before opining on matters of which you're ignorant.

This thread is full of libtards arguing that the SELF DEFENSE claim won't be allowed, because Rittenhouse was supposedly violating some gun law.


If libtards HERE are willing to play that game, why would libtards THERE not be willing to do the same?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This thread is full of libtards arguing that the SELF DEFENSE claim won't be allowed, because Rittenhouse was supposedly violating some gun law.

Insane, isn't it?

 

[Correll]

LOL

You demonstrate it's YOU who has no cred. Dumbfuck, he works for a far rightwing company.

You tried ... and utterly failed ... to impeach his eyewitness account for no reason other than what he observed is inconvenient to the outcome you're wishing for.

Lawyers, reporters, ex-wives, and mothers, they have no credibility. Your attempt to spin this as something wrong with me, is just you being a troll.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This bit where you seem to think that dems are still playing by the rules. Sooner or later, you are in for a rude awakening. I hope it is not too painful for you, when it comes.


If the court tries some form of what I am fearing, will you be doubling down on your...current position,


or will you join me in my anger at the injustice of it all?

There won't be a need for anger because it can't happen.

A Judge cannot , I say again CANNOT instruct a defense attorney how to present his case. Period. If Kyle Rittenhouse truly believes he acted in self defense then he has every right to make that claim and present his argument before a jury of his peers. The Judge cannot preclude him from doing that. I can't think of a quicker avenue to a mistrial.

Do you honestly not know how this works?

And, unlike you, I don't see this as a "democrat/republican? thing, because looking at it that way is totally ignorant. It's completely negates objectivity, and our justice system cannot function without objectivity...

 

[Correll]

There won't be a need for anger because it can't happen.

A Judge cannot , I say again CANNOT instruct a defense attorney how to present his case. Period. If Kyle Rittenhouse truly believes he acted in self defense then he has every right to make that claim and present his argument before a jury of his peers. The Judge cannot preclude him from doing that. I can't think of a quicker avenue to a mistrial.

Do you honestly not know how this works?

And, unlike you, I don't see this as a "democrat/republican? thing, because looking at it that way is totally ignorant. It's completely negates objectivity, and our justice system cannot function without objectivity...

So, if it happens,


will you be doubling down on your...current position,


or will you join me in my anger at the injustice of it all?

 

[Canon Shooter]

So, not looking at the merits of the defense , is part of the case?

Fascinating.

You keep blabbering on about the "merits of the case". Unfortunately, what's far more important than "the merits of the case" are "the facts of the case" and, truth be told, the facts of the case don't paint a very favorable picture of Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions that night...

 

[Canon Shooter]

So, if it happens,


will you be doubling down on your...current position,


or will you join me in my anger at the injustice of it all?

My God, I'm half a millisecond away from tossing you onto the steamy pile of human shit I refer to as my "ignore list".

IT CAN'T HAPPEN. IT WON'T HAPPEN.

Kyle Rittenhouse has a better chance of having a baby than he does of having the Judge tell him he can't claim self defense...

 

[Correll]

You keep blabbering on about the "merits of the case". Unfortunately, what's far more important than "the merits of the case" are "the facts of the case" and, truth be told, the facts of the case don't paint a very favorable picture of Kyle Rittenhouse and his actions that night...

I disagree. A young man defending himself from a violent attack, by a blood thirsty mob, imo, paints a wonderful picture of Rittenhouse.