Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[SavannahMann]

Ah.
"Kyle should be convicted because the justice system is unfair to black people."
Nice.

No. Kyle should be convicted because he committed crimes.

 

[Correll]

Nope, that was his biggest mistake. He wouldn't have gotten killed that night and he wouldn't have caused any shit for the city of Kenosha.

Except that as I pointed out, plenty of people went to the riot and didn't die. Rosenbaum did something that they did not do, that more directly resulted in his death.


Yet, you can't bring yourself to say it.


Because you are all about putting the man he attacked, in prison for life, for hte crime of defending himself.

 

[Correll]

I am relaying everything I know. I am withholding nothing. I assume you can search and find the information and any that has an explanation for the disparate sentences.

Can't be bothered. Sorry. Until I hear the other side, I will just dismiss this as more race baiting.

 

[SavannahMann]

Can't be bothered. Sorry. Until I hear the other side, I will just dismiss this as more race baiting.

No problem. Later when people are protesting or shouting about it you can claim their arguments are made up nonsense. Head in the sand works wonders.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No. Kyle should be convicted because he committed crimes.

He may have committed the crime of illegal posession of a firearm.
Other than that... no.

 

[SavannahMann]

He may have committed the crime of illegal posession of a firearm.
Other than that... no.

But doesn’t the illegal possession of a firearm mean the shooting was questionable at best?

 

[Faun]

Except that as I pointed out, plenty of people went to the riot and didn't die. Rosenbaum did something that they did not do, that more directly resulted in his death.


Yet, you can't bring yourself to say it.


Because you are all about putting the man he attacked, in prison for life, for hte crime of defending himself.

Can't bring myself to say what? I didn't deny it was a mistake to chase Rittenhouse. It just wasn't his biggest mistake.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But doesn’t the illegal possession of a firearm mean the shooting was questionable at best?

Not according to WI law re: self-defense.
You HAVE read the WI law re: self defense, haven't you?

 

[SavannahMann]

Not according to WI law re: self-defense.
You HAVE read the WI law re: self defense, haven't you?

I don’t think it does say that. The reason I can argue it is this. The Charges were offered up by the prosecutor. The Grand Jury indicted. Then the charges were reviewed by a Judge as part of the preliminary. The Defense team would have been able to get the charges tossed if you were right.

I believe the Precedents that you aren’t quoting that define what the law actually means negate your insistent argument.

Precedents are determined by the courts who examine the laws and not only the intent of the legislature but how the other laws interact.

So while you insist it is allowed. I doubt it. Because if it was the Judge would have thrown that particular charge out. Now the Defense can argue it before a Jury. And perhaps the Jury might agree. But the jury instructions will be if you think he did this beyond a reasonable doubt you have to find him guilty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don’t think it does say that.

Here's the law.

Wisconsin Legislature: 939.48

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov

Point out the part where someone in illegal possession of a firearm is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense
"Not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense" is the phrase you're looking for.

So while you insist it is allowed. I doubt it. Because if it was the Judge would have thrown that particular charge out. Now the Defense can argue it before a Jury. And perhaps the Jury might agree. But the jury instructions will be if you think he did this beyond a reasonable doubt you have to find him guilty.

In WI, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person claiming self-defense did not have a reasonable fear for his life, and/or was not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense - else, said claims stands, and the judge's instructions to the jury will reflect this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You HAVE read the WI law re: self defense, haven't you?

Do you think maybe the prosecutors have also read it?

 

[Canon Shooter]

The bottom line is this: We're all sitting here argument whether or not it was self-defense and whether or not he should be charged with murder, when the reality is that this case is big. So big, in fact, that the everyone involved is going to go out of their way to make sure their "t's" are crossed and their "i's" are dotted. If the prosecutors saw a probability that Rittenhouse would be acquitted, they probably wouldn't have charged him. No prosecutor wants a case this big to go into the "loss" column.

He's not going to be found guilty of only a simple weapons possession charge...

 

[Correll]

No problem. Later when people are protesting or shouting about it you can claim their arguments are made up nonsense. Head in the sand works wonders.

Realizing that people like you, always lie, is not "head in the sand" but more "keeping it real".

 

[Correll]

Can't bring myself to say what? I didn't deny it was a mistake to chase Rittenhouse. It just wasn't his biggest mistake.

It was the choice that led directly to his death. Sounds kind of "biggest".

 

[Correll]

The bottom line is this: We're all sitting here argument whether or not it was self-defense and whether or not he should be charged with murder, when the reality is that this case is big. So big, in fact, that the everyone involved is going to go out of their way to make sure their "t's" are crossed and their "i's" are dotted. If the prosecutors saw a probability that Rittenhouse would be acquitted, they probably wouldn't have charged him. No prosecutor wants a case this big to go into the "loss" column.

He's not going to be found guilty of only a simple weapons possession charge...

IMO, more and more, these calls to prosecute are more and more being made due to political reasons.

And even if it does go into the "loss column", they still get the political cred of trying it in the first place AND can milk it as future evidence of "injustice" because of "wacism" or some such bullshit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

IMO, more and more, these calls to prosecute are more and more being made due to political reasons.

That's exactly what happened here - better to prosecute this kid and let the jury take the blame for what happens after the acquittal then decline to prosecute and watch the city burn.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's exactly what happened here - better to prosecute this kid and let the jury take the blame for what happens after the acquittal then decline to prosecute and watch the city burn.

The cultists always have their pre emptive excuses all lined up and ready to go, when reality does not align with their fantasies. Which is virtually always.

 

[Correll]

The cultists always have their pre emptive excuses all lined up and ready to go, when reality does not align with their fantasies. Which is virtually always.

The video shows a violent mob attacking a young man who defends himself.


That is the reality of this situation. It is you people that are running away from that reality, in order to justify putting an innocent man in prison.

 

[Faun]

It was the choice that led directly to his death. Sounds kind of "biggest".

A choice he wouldn't have made had he not gone.

 

[Faun]

The cultists always have their pre emptive excuses all lined up and ready to go, when reality does not align with their fantasies. Which is virtually always.

That's exactly right.