Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Canon Shooter]

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant.

Only if Rittenhouse was aware of those violent pasts.

I'm betting he wasn't...

BS

Fascinating.

Can you respond, perhaps, intelligently, or is that all we get?

There are times when a mere two letters suffice. Take it easy with the commas btw.

Two letter responses are appropriate when you can't counter an argument.

How would Rittenhouse have been aware of the backgrounds of strangers he encounters on the streets? That would be like me seeing you for the first time as you drive through a school zone and concluding that you sell drugs to children. There'd be no real basis for it, but, fuck it, you don't seem to be concerned with anything like that, anyway...

Much better with the commas this time around. Sorry snowflake. Their records show a clear propensity to violence, especially Rosenbaum's, and this is a self-defense case.

But that's not something Rittenhouse would've been aware of, therefore he can't say it had any impact on his decision to open fire...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

He was a scared little boy who was out of his element, and now he's going to pay the price.

And, please, don't misunderstand. I have no problem with rioters being killed. But I look at this case factually, as opposed to so many on the right who insist on viewing it only emotionally. Do I think the kid should go to prison, when I view this from a moral perspective?

No, I don't.

But he's going to go to prison because the law says he'll go to prison...

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

It's a pity he murdered people.

 

[Meathead]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

It's a pity he murdered people.

He didn't murder anyone, certainly not any human beings. They were pieces of shit and now they're rotting corpses. Fair enough.

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

It's a pity he murdered people.

He didn't murder anyone, certainly not any human beings. They were pieces of shit and now they're rotting corpses. Fair enough.

They may have been pieces of shit, that still didn't provide Rittenhouse legal approval to kill Rosenbaum in the back or to kill Huber for trying to disarm him after shooting Rosenbaum.

 

[Meathead]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

It's a pity he murdered people.

He didn't murder anyone, certainly not any human beings. They were pieces of shit and now they're rotting corpses. Fair enough.

They may have been pieces of shit, that still didn't provide Rittenhouse legal approval to kill Rosenbaum in the back or to kill Huber for trying to disarm him after shooting Rosenbaum.

Look, you guys always lose these circular arguments. The only difference here is the thugs were white.

And what the fuck does "legal approval to kill" mean?

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

It's a pity he murdered people.

He didn't murder anyone, certainly not any human beings. They were pieces of shit and now they're rotting corpses. Fair enough.

They may have been pieces of shit, that still didn't provide Rittenhouse legal approval to kill Rosenbaum in the back or to kill Huber for trying to disarm him after shooting Rosenbaum.

Look, you guys always lose these circular arguments. The only difference here is the thugs were white.

And what the fuck does "legal approval to kill" mean?

Self-defense.

 

[Meathead]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

It's a pity he murdered people.

He didn't murder anyone, certainly not any human beings. They were pieces of shit and now they're rotting corpses. Fair enough.

They may have been pieces of shit, that still didn't provide Rittenhouse legal approval to kill Rosenbaum in the back or to kill Huber for trying to disarm him after shooting Rosenbaum.

Look, you guys always lose these circular arguments. The only difference here is the thugs were white.

And what the fuck does "legal approval to kill" mean?

Self-defense.

You can't defend yourself without killing?

 

[Faun]

Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.

Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...

If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.

Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...

Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.

Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.

"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"

It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...

All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.

Not too hip on the law, are you?
The victim's arrest records won't be allowed into evidence..they are irrelevant..Kyle had no way of knowing...when he pulled the trigger The film, eh? I imagine that the jurors are going to see many film...from many angles and perspectives..and not just of the shootings. Every action that Kyle engaged in will be scrutinized.

Jury Nullification is Kyle's only chance...and that is more of an uphill battle than you realize. Judges hate it...and rule against it. That's why Kyle's defense team is flooding media with their narrative...hoping that it will stick..with 1 juror. Kyle has no hope of acquittal...a hung jury is his best bet.

Don't be daft. Since Rittenhouse will claim self-defense, the violent criminal record of those who were assaulting him are of course relevant. Any conviction in which they are not introduced would result in an easy successful appeal. The judge and lawyers understand that.

You are no lawyer.

Oh? Exactly how are their pasts relevant to Rittenhouse who wasn't aware of their pasts?

The kid showed courage. In a bastion of potential enemies. He seemed to be cool under pressure also.

It's a pity he murdered people.

He didn't murder anyone, certainly not any human beings. They were pieces of shit and now they're rotting corpses. Fair enough.

They may have been pieces of shit, that still didn't provide Rittenhouse legal approval to kill Rosenbaum in the back or to kill Huber for trying to disarm him after shooting Rosenbaum.

Look, you guys always lose these circular arguments. The only difference here is the thugs were white.

And what the fuck does "legal approval to kill" mean?

Self-defense.

You can't defend yourself without killing?

Of course you can.

 

[Correll]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

You deny that, for a young man that wants to be a police officer that actually being part of facing down a violent mob and protecting property and other people in his group, would not be educational?

You are the one that wanted to get into the technical details of the law. Now you want to step back from seriously discussing those details.

 

[Correll]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

So?

Was it against the law for the BLM/Antifa/NAMBLA folks to have a riot?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

 

[Montrovant]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

So?

Was it against the law for the BLM/Antifa/NAMBLA folks to have a riot?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

 

[danielpalos]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

So?

Was it against the law for the BLM/Antifa/NAMBLA folks to have a riot?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of our free States whenever it should need to be referred to for disambiguation purposes.

 

[laferia52]

Looks like Kyle is going to stand trial for his alleged crimes:

Kyle Rittenhouse, teen charged with killings at Jacob Blake protest, ordered to stand trial

Kyle Rittenhouse — the 17-year-old charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the shooting of Jacob Blake — will stand trial on charges of felony homicide and other crimes, a court commissioner ruled Thursday.
During a preliminary hearing at Kenosha County Circuit Court, which was held via video link, commissioner Loren Keating ruled that there was enough evidence to send Rittenhouse to trial over the Aug. 25 killings of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26.
Rittenhouse also faces charges of possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18 and felony attempted homicide for injuring a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz.
Lawyers for Rittenhouse argued that the teen, who has been praised by right-wing commentators and viewed sympathetically by the Trump administration, had acted in self-defense when he opened fire.
But Keating said those arguments were issues for trial — not a preliminary hearing. The teen’s lawyers also asked Keating to dismiss two charges, including possession of a dangerous weapon, but the commissioner declined, saying that was also an issue for trial.
Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was released on $2 million bond last month, money mostly raised by conservatives through a legal defense fund.

And in related news..the 19yo who posed as a straw buyer for Kyle's gun has been charged:

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse

The friend of Rittenhouse, 17, purchased the gun later used to allegedly fatally shoot two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, prosecutors say.

www.nbcnews.com

Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.
According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership

 

[laferia52]

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

Your evidence is lacking. Nowhere did I say that. Nor was he what you claimed him to be. I repeat, can't fix stupid.

The guys that Rittenhouse shot chased him and attacked him that is why he shot them. Once they stopped attacking him Rittenhouse walked away. If your are stupid enough to attack a person with a rifle and you get shot it is your own fault. Maybe he can be charge with unlawfully carrying a weapon but not for defending himself

 

[Pogo]

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

Your evidence is lacking. Nowhere did I say that. Nor was he what you claimed him to be. I repeat, can't fix stupid.

The guys that Rittenhouse shot chased him and attacked him that is why he shot them. Once they stopped attacking him Rittenhouse walked away. If your are stupid enough to attack a person with a rifle and you get shot it is your own fault. Maybe he can be charge with unlawfully carrying a weapon but not for defending himself

Yet another rewrite of the old tired "James Fields plowed those people down because he was in fear for his life" horseapple.

Ignorance is Strength, Winston.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

You deny that, for a young man that wants to be a police officer that actually being part of facing down a violent mob and protecting property and other people in his group, would not be educational?

You are the one that wanted to get into the technical details of the law. Now you want to step back from seriously discussing those details.

Goddammit you're stupid.

If you think walking down the street with a bunch of people who didn't ask you to be there counts as a course of instruction, then you're pathetic...

 

[Correll]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

So?

Was it against the law for the BLM/Antifa/NAMBLA folks to have a riot?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

What law was applied unequally?

The Law, as a concept. The rioters, were rioting and violating curfew and burning shit and the cops saw it and let it happen.


Rittenhouse? SLAMMED.

 

[Correll]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

So?

Was it against the law for the BLM/Antifa/NAMBLA folks to have a riot?

Yeah, it was.

So what?

And, just for clarification, you'd probably be far better suited to explaining what happens at a NAMBLA riot than anyone else...

Unequal application of the law, is a massive injustice and a violation of Rittenhouse's Constitutional Rights.


That is the law too.

Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of our free States whenever it should need to be referred to for disambiguation purposes.

Your gibberish is noted and dismissed. My point stands.

 

[Correll]

Some one made a point about Rittenhouse being in violation of a gun law.

I pointed out a way of looking at it, that could be argued that he was NOT in violation.

You can twist it any way you want, but his possession of that firearm was unlawful. The way he obtained the gun was illegal.

He violated the law.

Period.

I don't want my brilliant post buried by a dumb comment from a drooling retard, so I keep reposting my point.


People have a right to see and read my ideas. NOt to have them buried by a retarded leftie.

LOL!

Mighty high opinion of yourself, huh?

You deny that, for a young man that wants to be a police officer that actually being part of facing down a violent mob and protecting property and other people in his group, would not be educational?

You are the one that wanted to get into the technical details of the law. Now you want to step back from seriously discussing those details.

Goddammit you're stupid.

If you think walking down the street with a bunch of people who didn't ask you to be there counts as a course of instruction, then you're pathetic...

THe act of going to a designated place as an unit, and working together as an unit to protect a building from violent rioters who want to burn it down, would be very educational for anyone interested in Law Enforcement.


That you felt a need to lie about what actually happened, that was your brain trying to protect you from the painful realization that your position on this issue is wrong.


Because, if your brain calculated that you were right, you would have felt fine debating what ACTUALLY occurred, instead of lying about it.