Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Shelzin]

Fascinating.

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

Well... Given that he could shot a whole lot more people and didn't, it would suggest that he only fired on those who were aggressive toward him. Their past shows that those people are both willing and able to do that very thing. Two of the three you don't even need to know their past or anything, you can clearly see that attacked him first.

 

[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?

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.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Except for the fact that the people Rittenhose shot after he fell in the road really were chasing him, and I believe at least 2 did attack him.
Nobody that Fields ran into attacked him, or at least not at the time he drove into them.

You keep bringing up Fields as though the situations were very similar. They were not.

 

[Canon Shooter]

God, you're fucking stupid. If stupidity was painful, you'd be dead...

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.

Okay, dipshit, pull your head out of your ass. The law in Wisconsin discusses a "course of instruction", which walking down the street with a bunch of people does not qualify as...

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.

I've cited the law. Period. I don't lie. I've no reason to...

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

What's to debate? The law, as it's written, clearly shows how his possession of the firearm was illegal.

Now, I understand that you hate to be wrong and that Mommy coddled you every time you got a ninth place trophy in field hockey, but that doesn't make you right. You're wrong.

Own it...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Their past shows that those people are both willing and able to do that very thing.

No lawyer would promote that as a reason for him to open fire, simply because it would've been impossible for him to know anything about the people he was confronting...

 

[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?

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.

It bears noting that Rittenhouse was also violating curfew...

 

[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.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

I think that in an area and/or a time when cops are ordered to stand down and let rioters riot and burn and loot,


to then arrest someone and charge them, as though they were operating in Mayberry on a peaceful Sunday morning, instead of a freaking WARZONE, while still not caring about all the other crimes committed en mass that night?


Is a violation of the Right to be Equal before the Law.


And is so obviously unfair, that no sane person could truly support it.

 

[Shelzin]

Their past shows that those people are both willing and able to do that very thing.

No lawyer would promote that as a reason for him to open fire, simply because it would've been impossible for him to know anything about the people he was confronting...

Why he opened fire is clear.. He was being attacked. So you are right, they wouldn't use those peoples past to justify why he opened fire on them. No reason to even try.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Their past shows that those people are both willing and able to do that very thing.

No lawyer would promote that as a reason for him to open fire, simply because it would've been impossible for him to know anything about the people he was confronting...

Why he opened fire is clear.. He was being attacked. So you are right, they wouldn't use those peoples past to justify why he opened fire on them. No reason to even try.

Well, that certainly seems to be what a lot of non-thinkers here believe is pertinent.

I just don't see where he gets off. He wasn't supposed to have that gun, and there wasn't a single thing legal about him having it. Now, where he'll really be fucked is if the fact that he had a firearm impacts the severity of the other charges...

 

[Shelzin]

Well, that certainly seems to be what a lot of non-thinkers here believe is pertinent.

I just don't see where he gets off. He wasn't supposed to have that gun, and there wasn't a single thing legal about him having it. Now, where he'll really be fucked is if the fact that he had a firearm impacts the severity of the other charges...

Oh he'll get charged with a crime to be sure... But... Pretty sure self defense will get him off the major ones.

 

[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.

Except for the fact that the people Rittenhose shot after he fell in the road really were chasing him, and I believe at least 2 did attack him.
Nobody that Fields ran into attacked him, or at least not at the time he drove into them.

You keep bringing up Fields as though the situations were very similar. They were not.

Of course they are. Strikingly so.

A young easily-influence hothead leaves town to deliberately infiltrate a known place of potential civil unrest, in another state. Having arrived he instigates his own violent situation, voluntarily, and kills/injures people. The only significant difference is one set himself up with an illegal assault rifle while the other used his car.

That's why I point out that in Fields' case it isn't clearly established that he left home with the specific intention of assaulting people (since the car also transported him to Charlottesville) while on the other hand it's obvious that Rittenhouse acquired the AR-15 specifically for that purpose. You can't drive an AR-15. You can't do anything with it except assault.

And we already did this, like a week ago.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Now, where he'll really be fucked is if the fact that he had a firearm impacts the severity of the other charges...

That should've said "is if the fact that he had an illegal firearm"...

 

[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?

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.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

I think that in an area and/or a time when cops are ordered to stand down and let rioters riot and burn and loot,


to then arrest someone and charge them, as though they were operating in Mayberry on a peaceful Sunday morning, instead of a freaking WARZONE, while still not caring about all the other crimes committed en mass that night?


Is a violation of the Right to be Equal before the Law.


And is so obviously unfair, that no sane person could truly support it.

That's fine, but doesn't really fall under the phrase "equal application of the law" as I understand it. That phrase is about different people having particular laws applied to them the same way, not completely different laws.

Additionally, other people were arrested during that week following the Blake shooting. It's possible, maybe probable, some of those arrests occurred the night of the Rittenhouse shooting. For example: Kenosha Police Reveal Most Riot Arrests Were From Outside The City

As far as charging someone, are you saying that because there were protests/riots, people were free to murder like some kind of Purge night? I disagree with the charges based on the videos of the incidents, but you seem to be arguing that if a person is in a dangerous place, they shouldn't have to worry about being charged with murder.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Except for the fact that the people Rittenhose shot after he fell in the road really were chasing him, and I believe at least 2 did attack him.
Nobody that Fields ran into attacked him, or at least not at the time he drove into them.

You keep bringing up Fields as though the situations were very similar. They were not.

Of course they are. Strikingly so.

A young easily-influence hothead leaves town to deliberately infiltrate a known place of potential civil unrest, in another state. Having arrived he instigates his own violent situation, voluntarily, and kills/injures people. The only significant difference is one set himself up with an illegal assault rifle while the other used his car.

That's why I point out that in Fields' case it isn't clearly established that he left home with the specific intention of assaulting people (since the car also transported him to Charlottesville) while on the other hand it's obvious that Rittenhouse acquired the AR-15 specifically for that purpose. You can't drive an AR-15. You can't do anything with it except assault.

And we already did this, like a week ago.

Once again you seem to ignore the concept of preparedness. Based on your reasoning, every time a person leaves their home with a gun, one can argue they are intending to go shoot people. That is ridiculous.

And to reiterate, Rittenhouse WAS chased before he fell, and he WAS attacked after he fell. He was running away before he shot those men in the second incident. That is very, very different than the Fields incident.

If every person who carries and AR-15 or similar rifle is going out with the specific intention of shooting people, why are there not a lot more such shootings? I've seen plenty of pictures and videos of people carrying such rifles where no shooting occurred.

 

[Mac-7]

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

They thought he was a Black Lies Matter or ANTIFA anarchist

only later did they realize their mistake

 

[Canon Shooter]

Their past shows that those people are both willing and able to do that very thing.

No lawyer would promote that as a reason for him to open fire, simply because it would've been impossible for him to know anything about the people he was confronting...

Why he opened fire is clear.. He was being attacked. So you are right, they wouldn't use those peoples past to justify why he opened fire on them. No reason to even try.

And don't misunderstand me. From a moral perspective, I don't think Rittenhouse belongs in jail at all. But the fact of the matter is that there aren't too many things working in his favor.

I don't think he should go to jail, but I believe he will...

 

[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.

The cops let Rittenhouse walk away. He turned himself in later.

I think the equal application of law generally refers to a specific law being applied the same regardless of things such as race, religion, sociology-economic status, etc.

And Rittenhouse is being slammed because he is on the wrong side of the partisan divide.


If he was a good little Antifa or BLM member, defending himself from Proud Boys who attacked him for no reason, he would not be being charged.

 

[Correll]

God, you're fucking stupid. If stupidity was painful, you'd be dead...

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.

Okay, dipshit, pull your head out of your ass. The law in Wisconsin discusses a "course of instruction", which walking down the street with a bunch of people does not qualify as...

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.

I've cited the law. Period. I don't lie. I've no reason to...

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

What's to debate? The law, as it's written, clearly shows how his possession of the firearm was illegal.

Now, I understand that you hate to be wrong and that Mommy coddled you every time you got a ninth place trophy in field hockey, but that doesn't make you right. You're wrong.

Own it...

1. He was a member of a group that planned out a task, involving protecting a building from a violent mob, and providing first aid and other services to the community. And he did it. That type of shit, in normal times, would be a good resume builder.

2. You lied about what he and his group was doing.

3. The law, as it is written, could be reasonably interpreted to allow him to possess that firearm, for reasons I stated above.

 

[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.

It bears noting that Rittenhouse was also violating curfew...

Yep. A law that the cops were not enforcing at all. Among many other laws that they were not enforcing at all. Because they were ordered to stand down and allow violent mobs to rampage as they saw fit.


What we have here, is a breakdown of civilization. That people like Rittenhouse step forward to help out, traditionally was one of America's defining strength.


That he has been arrested for it, is a sign of how much we have declined.

 

[Correll]

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.

Except for the fact that the people Rittenhose shot after he fell in the road really were chasing him, and I believe at least 2 did attack him.
Nobody that Fields ran into attacked him, or at least not at the time he drove into them.

You keep bringing up Fields as though the situations were very similar. They were not.

Of course they are. Strikingly so.

A young easily-influence hothead leaves town to deliberately infiltrate a known place of potential civil unrest, in another state. Having arrived he instigates his own violent situation, voluntarily, and kills/injures people. The only significant difference is one set himself up with an illegal assault rifle while the other used his car.

That's why I point out that in Fields' case it isn't clearly established that he left home with the specific intention of assaulting people (since the car also transported him to Charlottesville) while on the other hand it's obvious that Rittenhouse acquired the AR-15 specifically for that purpose. You can't drive an AR-15. You can't do anything with it except assault.

And we already did this, like a week ago.

Rittenhouse did not "infiltrate" the area. He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.


There has been no indication that he instigated the attack on him. How do you instigate other people to attack you?


His actions were self defense. That you can't support that, is you being a supporter of the use of political violence, by your side.