Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Pogo]

Kyle was interviewed and stated his beliefs, that I mentioned above. Kyle was also photographed cleaning graffiti off of walls earlier in the day.

Oh do tell us more about Kyle's day. What's Kyle's favourite color? What's Kyle's sign? If you and Kyle were stranded on a desert island, who would make the first move?

 

[Pogo]

...there's no such thing as "evidence of innocence"...

Of course there is.

For instance, if a detective is investigating a rape and believes that a particular person may have committed the rape and then learns that the suspect was actually in the county jail at the time the rape occurred, that is obviously "evidence of innocence".

No it isn't. It's lack of evidence of guilt.
You can't have evidence of a nothing.

Ok, I'm talking to a fool. I hope you never serve on a jury because you are incapable of logic and reason.

Matter of fact I just got done with a grand jury.

 

[Pogo]

"Likely" was never involved in the assertion. The one you cut out of the quote (as inconvenient?).

I didn't cut it out of the quote. *sighs*

I supplied what he was likely talking about. What you two do with it is up to you.

Here's the part you "didn't" cut out:

YOU made the claim the case would be thrown out. Known and recorded.

"MADE the claim that the case WOULD BE thrown out".

Not "suggested", not "might be" -- WOULD be. Declarative. Versus the conditional I actually wrote.

That's six backquotes I had to click to get to what you "didn't cut out". And you'll notice the ass-erter hasn't been back to back his shit up.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

...scores an AR15 and takes it to another state...

How do you know that he did that? His attorneys say that the AR-15 was already in Wisconsin.

They make it up as they go along. When one lie is shot down they get another lie.

 

[K9Buck]

...scores an AR15 and takes it to another state...

How do you know that he did that? His attorneys say that the AR-15 was already in Wisconsin.

They make it up as they go along. When one lie is shot down they get another lie.

Leftists are liars. If they weren't liars, they wouldn't be leftists.

 

[Shelzin]

"Likely" was never involved in the assertion. The one you cut out of the quote (as inconvenient?).

I didn't cut it out of the quote. *sighs*

I supplied what he was likely talking about. What you two do with it is up to you.

Here's the part you "didn't" cut out:

YOU made the claim the case would be thrown out. Known and recorded.

"MADE the claim that the case WOULD BE thrown out".

Not "suggested", not "might be" -- WOULD be. Declarative. Versus the conditional I actually wrote.

That's six backquotes I had to click to get to what you "didn't cut out". And you'll notice the ass-erter hasn't been back to back his shit up.

*shrugs* Ok. I didn't cut it out.

 

[Muhammed]

ve Darwin Awards.

Who grabs the barrel of a gun while someone is holding the trigger ?

Stupid fucks.

A suicidal/homicidal maniac?

According to the prostitute that he lived with in a tent, the day before Joseph Rosenbaum, a man convicted of molesting 5 little boys between the ages of 9 and 11, two of whom he raped in the ass, had just been discharged from a mental institution where he had been admitted as a suicide risk. He was discharged the day before he attacked Kyle and is seen on video pushing a dumpster fire towards a gas station (a felony) and repeatedly screaming "SHOOT ME, N!GGER!"

I think it's clear that the object that the masked convict threw at Kyle, who was sprinting away from the child molester, was not a Molotov cocktail or a brick, as many people speculated. It was a white plastic bag, with something in it. Likely it contained toiletries that were given to him when he was discharged from the facility. However, according to his prison record, Rosenbaum had a history assaulting staff personnel with shit bombs on multiple occasions.

Was he really suicidal? Or just faking it to get 3 hot meals and a bed at the loony bin? We can only speculate because he's dead. #Good Rittence.

Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes (FightBack Foundation) - Leakreality.com Uncensored news, politics, latest news, unbiased news, humor,

 

[AZrailwhale]

And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.

No reason to pardon him... He shouldn't go to jail. He'll get hit for a couple lesser crimes... But...

If found guilty of his crimes he should certainly to go prison.

That far too many on the right perceive Rittenhouse as some sort of ‘hero’ is a symptom of the disease that is conservativism.

He might be found guilty of being a minor in possession of a firearm. That's a very minor crime and real criminal gang members are let slide on that one all the time. No impartial jury will convict him of murder UNLESS there are things not on the publicly available videos. What was shown on the videos is clearly self-defense by a pretty competent person who only shot at those who were an immediate threat to his well being.

Here is a rational, factual post. No hyperbole. No wild associations with nazi’s and fascists and communists. No name calling. Just a rational analysis of the facts of what we have seen (video), prior legal occurrences (minors in possession of a weapon is a wrist slap at worst), and a reasonable assessment of what is to come.... and yet I see the “laughing face” reaction was selected by someone.
seeing that there wasn’t any comedy in there, no joking or sarcasm, I am left to believe that someone is laughing at the post. If anything, selecting that reaction gives insight into your judgment and/or character.

Indeed, being a minor with a firearm is the least of his transgressions. Much more to the point is his deliberately taking that firearm to another state for the purpose of intimidating and/or mowing down people.

To put it in the proper phrasing, he went hunting. For humans.

The parallel would be to beg that James Fields in Charlottesville's only transgression was that the the car he used to mow people down had an expired registration.

Please do some research, Rittenhouse didn’t take that firearm
to a different state. He borrowed it from a local friend. The friend may be in more trouble than Rittenhouse.

 

[Shelzin]

Please do some research, Rittenhouse didn’t take that firearm
to a different state. He borrowed it from a local friend. The friend may be in more trouble than Rittenhouse.

Your research is out of date. He bought it through a friend. That same one you are talking about that he "burrowed" it from.

 

[Pogo]

And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.

No reason to pardon him... He shouldn't go to jail. He'll get hit for a couple lesser crimes... But...

If found guilty of his crimes he should certainly to go prison.

That far too many on the right perceive Rittenhouse as some sort of ‘hero’ is a symptom of the disease that is conservativism.

He might be found guilty of being a minor in possession of a firearm. That's a very minor crime and real criminal gang members are let slide on that one all the time. No impartial jury will convict him of murder UNLESS there are things not on the publicly available videos. What was shown on the videos is clearly self-defense by a pretty competent person who only shot at those who were an immediate threat to his well being.

Here is a rational, factual post. No hyperbole. No wild associations with nazi’s and fascists and communists. No name calling. Just a rational analysis of the facts of what we have seen (video), prior legal occurrences (minors in possession of a weapon is a wrist slap at worst), and a reasonable assessment of what is to come.... and yet I see the “laughing face” reaction was selected by someone.
seeing that there wasn’t any comedy in there, no joking or sarcasm, I am left to believe that someone is laughing at the post. If anything, selecting that reaction gives insight into your judgment and/or character.

Indeed, being a minor with a firearm is the least of his transgressions. Much more to the point is his deliberately taking that firearm to another state for the purpose of intimidating and/or mowing down people.

To put it in the proper phrasing, he went hunting. For humans.

The parallel would be to beg that James Fields in Charlottesville's only transgression was that the the car he used to mow people down had an expired registration.

Please do some research, Rittenhouse didn’t take that firearm
to a different state. He borrowed it from a local friend. The friend may be in more trouble than Rittenhouse.

Wow, way to duck and miss the entire point.

 

[Polishprince]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

 

[Faun]

And several posters on this very board have publicly called for Rump to PARDON this piece of shit.

So conservatives clamoring to defend homicidal maniacs now. We live in interesting times.

No reason to pardon him... He shouldn't go to jail. He'll get hit for a couple lesser crimes... But...

If found guilty of his crimes he should certainly to go prison.

That far too many on the right perceive Rittenhouse as some sort of ‘hero’ is a symptom of the disease that is conservativism.

He might be found guilty of being a minor in possession of a firearm. That's a very minor crime and real criminal gang members are let slide on that one all the time. No impartial jury will convict him of murder UNLESS there are things not on the publicly available videos. What was shown on the videos is clearly self-defense by a pretty competent person who only shot at those who were an immediate threat to his well being.

Here is a rational, factual post. No hyperbole. No wild associations with nazi’s and fascists and communists. No name calling. Just a rational analysis of the facts of what we have seen (video), prior legal occurrences (minors in possession of a weapon is a wrist slap at worst), and a reasonable assessment of what is to come.... and yet I see the “laughing face” reaction was selected by someone.
seeing that there wasn’t any comedy in there, no joking or sarcasm, I am left to believe that someone is laughing at the post. If anything, selecting that reaction gives insight into your judgment and/or character.

Indeed, being a minor with a firearm is the least of his transgressions. Much more to the point is his deliberately taking that firearm to another state for the purpose of intimidating and/or mowing down people.

To put it in the proper phrasing, he went hunting. For humans.

The parallel would be to beg that James Fields in Charlottesville's only transgression was that the the car he used to mow people down had an expired registration.

Please do some research, Rittenhouse didn’t take that firearm
to a different state. He borrowed it from a local friend. The friend may be in more trouble than Rittenhouse.

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

 

[Faun]

How does someone running away shoot their pursuer in the back?

By applying excessive force.

How is excessive force applied by someone running away? You know that Kyle Rittenhouse is not a police officer. Claims of excessive force don't apply to him.

Utter nonsense. Of course excessive force applies to someone claiming self-defense. The law only allows people to apply a sufficient amount of force to stop an imminent threat. Any force beyond that is excessive. Shooting someone in the back is excessive and no longer self-defense. At that point, it becomes murder.

You keep bringing up “shot in the back” as if that means anything at all. Now I don’t mean this in a rude or condescending manner at all when I say this, but saying “he was shot in the back” as if it proves anything is nonsense and demonstrates you either don’t know anything about fighting/gun fighting, or you are grabbing the first thing that confirms your opinion and latching on to it.
In a fight, fist or gun, people don’t hold still and pose to take incoming hits. They move, squirm, twist, etc. You can fire off rounds as fast as you can twitch your finger, and a person doesn’t generally stand there as there are incoming. They move. It isn’t uncommon for someone being shot at to
Be struck all over the place if there are multiple rounds taken. Being shot in the back doesn’t mean the person was running away, and the person pursued them and shot them from behind. It simply means that as rounds were incoming, which can be a matter of seconds, the person twisted and turned their back.
Look at a boxing match. It’s not uncommon for someone to get punched in the back or the back of the head. That doesn’t mean the person turned and ran and the other fighter pursued and punched them from
Behind. It is almost always because the person was throwing punches, and the other fighter twisted and turns away and is struck in the back or head.
I get it, you think rittenhouse is to blame. Ok. But to keep saying “shoot me nigga pedo-manlet was shot in the back, that means xyz” is not accurate, and only helps your case with people who don’t know any better. People who do know better, such as myself, just see that you are ignorant on this topic. And again I don’t mean that as an insult.

Rosenbaum was shot after he grabbed the rifle. How was he in a position to twist in such a way as to be shot in the back if he had ahold of the rifle?

Was he really shot by Ziminski? Why haven't the results of the ballistic tests been made public.

Man charged with firing handgun just before alleged Kyle Rittenhouse shootings

A man has admitted being first to open fire at the Kenosha protests in the moments before accused teen gunman Kyle Rittenhouse allegedly shot and killed two people and seriously injured another, ac…

www.google.com

Maybe he was shot by someone else.
I don’t know.
I’m merely pointing out that acting as if a bullet striking someone in the back is proof of them retreating, or proof of unjustified force is nonsense.

Who said "retreating?" Rosenbaum was falling to the ground when Rittenhouse shot him in the back.

I am not going to cry about a paedophile, a convicted child molester, getting shot in the back.

Why such a tender heart for the chomo?

As I've said in the past, Rosenbaum was an absolute piece of shit and I couldn't care less that he's dead. That said, I still see it as murder. Shooting someone in the back is not self-defense.

 

[Muhammed]

...there's no such thing as "evidence of innocence"...

Of course there is.

For instance, if a detective is investigating a rape and believes that a particular person may have committed the rape and then learns that the suspect was actually in the county jail at the time the rape occurred, that is obviously "evidence of innocence".

...unless the rape occurred in the county jail.

 

[K9Buck]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

 

[Faun]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered anyone.

 

[Montrovant]

Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".

Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.

Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.

Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.

1) the kid lives in Illinois.​

2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;​

3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;​

4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;​

5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.​

He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.

My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?

And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.

I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.

1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree

None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.

Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Are you suggesting that Rittenhouse's possession of that rifle was legal?

Actually, it quite likely was.

 

[K9Buck]

True, he didn't carry from Illinois to Wisconsin, but he didn't borrow it. He bought it. He couldn't purchase it legally because he was under 18, so he gave the money to a friend who purchased for him. That friend has since been charged for doing that. Rittenhouse then carried the gun across state lines upon returning to Illinois.

Let me guess. You want "Rittenhouse" to be executed or receive life in prison, correct? Rittenhouse was obligated to be beaten into a coma or worse, right?

If he didn't want to go to prison, he shouldn't have murdered anyone.

So he was obligated to allow himself to beaten to death, right?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yuh HUH.

Diga me Tonto, what the fuck kind of "first aid" can you "provide" with a fucking AR15?

Dumbass.

Say cheesebreath, if the hospital can extract your head from your anterior canal notice that I didn't ask anything about anybody's fucking "RIGHT to be there". I asked what the fuck his PURPOSE was. I can see why you can't handle it.

"Violent joe [sic] biden [sic] voters"
Most ironic line since Donovan's "violent hash smoker".

Are you on some sort of drugs, boy?