Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

Oh bullshit. Absolute Bullshit. That is like saying a speeding ticket is unconstitutional because every speeder does not get one. The weakest of all excuses is shouting in a childish way they did it too.

You watch several hundred people break the law, and choose to slam just ONE, I want to know why.

He is the one who shot and killed people. On camera.

And he could be acquitted by the George Zimmerman logic.

 

[Correll]

1. Big difference between protecting a building and a beating. My point stands. It was educational.

What building was Rittenhouse protecting?

2. Sorry, could you post the law again? I don't recall the law saying it had to be a "formal" course.

Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a) states: "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." However, the exception is: "when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult."

There was no adult leading "a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use" of anything.

At 17 years old, Rittenhouse shouldn't have had that firearm.

If he's tried as an adult, he's completely fucked...

3. As I said before, I don't know, nor do I see how it is relevant. Do you have a point to make?

It's relevant because you can't name the group. You can't name the group Rittenhouse was a member of because he wasn't a member of any group.

I don't know for which I pity you more: The fact that you resort to making up complete fabrications in order make an argument or the fact that you're profoundly retarded...

1. I don't care what building he was protecting.

2. There was not an adult in charge of the group? It was an unorganized rabble? First I heard that claim. Seems unlikely from what little I saw.

3. I saw a clip of a man discussing the intentions of the group. Their name doesn't matter to me.

 

[Correll]

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

No, it's not.

The position you're advocating is that two wrongs should make a right.

Try that in any criminal trial and see how far you get, F. Lee...

I assume that your "first" wrong is the minor technical gun violation, if so, then what is the second "wrong"?

Well, you were whining about Rittenhouse's civil rights (which weren't violated), meaning that the first "wrong" was those rioters who broke curfew and the second was Rittenhouse breaking curfew.

You want Rittenhouse to be absolved for that, for no other reason than someone else was.

That's not how the law works...

That is quite a stretch.

Normally in a "Two wrongs" bit, the person who commits the first wrong, gets hit with second wrong, for balance. That is not .... this.


So, no.

 

[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.

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.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

1. In the case of curfews, Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with breaking one, was he?

2. Rittenhouse is being charged with murder. Right or wrong, it’s more than “technical violations of the letter of the law.”

BUT, one of the primary reasons that the left has presented as to why the self defense is not self defense, is because the gun was "illegal".

So, if the gun is illegal, that supposedly undermines the Self Defense clause because you don't get to self defense if you are in the process of a crime.


Thus, the "technical violation" decides, supposedly, whether the killings are self defense or murder.

 

[Correll]

He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.

What was the name of the group he was a member of?

Don't care. And I don't see how it is relevant.

You said he was a member of a group.

What's the name of that group?

Why are you being such a chickenshit little coward?

The fact of the matter is that you don't answer the question because you know you can't.

Rittenhouse wasn't affiliated or a member of any group that was there...

This is the first I've heard this claim. Can you back that up?

You said he was a member of a group.

You've been a pathetic failure at backing that up.

Ergo, I don't have to back up anything, even though Rittenhouse wasn't a member of any armed group that night.

He was a little boy... just like you. Only he had an illegal firearm...

If I do, if I research it, and prove that he was a member of an organized group, what will that mean to you?


Or are you just yanking my chain now?

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. I don't care what building he was protecting.

It's not that you don't care, it's that you don't know...

2. There was not an adult in charge of the group? It was an unorganized rabble? First I heard that claim. Seems unlikely from what little I saw.

Okay, now you're going full-retard now.

Even if it was an organized action in the street, it fails to adhere to Wisconsin state law...

3. I saw a clip of a man discussing the intentions of the group. Their name doesn't matter to me.

Of course it doesn't, because you don't know. You don't know anything. You're a, well, you're a retard...

 

[Canon Shooter]

He was part of a group that publicly announced their arrival and their intentions in a broadcast interview with the media.

What was the name of the group he was a member of?

Don't care. And I don't see how it is relevant.

You said he was a member of a group.

What's the name of that group?

Why are you being such a chickenshit little coward?

The fact of the matter is that you don't answer the question because you know you can't.

Rittenhouse wasn't affiliated or a member of any group that was there...

This is the first I've heard this claim. Can you back that up?

You said he was a member of a group.

You've been a pathetic failure at backing that up.

Ergo, I don't have to back up anything, even though Rittenhouse wasn't a member of any armed group that night.

He was a little boy... just like you. Only he had an illegal firearm...

If I do, if I research it, and prove that he was a member of an organized group, what will that mean to you?


Or are you just yanking my chain now?

So now you're admitting to lying? Got it.

You've already stated that he was a member. Now you're asking what it'll mean to me if you can research it and prove he was? What that tells me is that, right now, you have no idea, and you're making statements without the benefit of actual knowledge.

You're lying.

Save your energy, Nancy. He wasn't a member of any organized group. The one organized group which was there had no idea who he is...

 

[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.

1. Since there was a curfew in effect, the police should have arrested EVERYONE who was violating it. They did not. They sat there and watched as people, for different reasons, walked around in violation of it. That some people managed to be violate some threshold and get arrested, does not mean that the Law was being applied equally.

2. No, I am not saying, "Purge", I am saying putting someone in jail, for minor and technical violations of the letter of the law, when other people are committing FELONIES and being given a pass, is Unjust and a violation of Rittenhouse's civil rights.

1. In the case of curfews, Rittenhouse wasn’t charged with breaking one, was he?

2. Rittenhouse is being charged with murder. Right or wrong, it’s more than “technical violations of the letter of the law.”

BUT, one of the primary reasons that the left has presented as to why the self defense is not self defense, is because the gun was "illegal".

So, if the gun is illegal, that supposedly undermines the Self Defense clause because you don't get to self defense if you are in the process of a crime.


Thus, the "technical violation" decides, supposedly, whether the killings are self defense or murder.

I’m sorry, I did not realize that was the violation you were referencing. In that scenario calling it a technical violation makes sense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

While the deaths are tragic, let's not miss what was really exposed, here: the Kenosha police coordinating with white wing vigilante militias. I have to believe that, had the Kenosha police not buddied up to the white wing soldier cosplayers, this child would not have felt emboldened and enabled to play vigilante. The most reasonable suspicion is that the kenosha police are infected with white wing wackos.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And if i am the prosecutor in this case, i am looking for a different venue. The jury pool is coming from a county that has repeatedly reelected a white wing wacko as sheriff.

 

[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.

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.

Do you know another purpose for a gun?

Simply "carrying it" is one level, and way oversimplified, one is tempted to say deliberately oversimplified. What's ignored in that portrait is (1) acquiring/transporting the weapon illegally; (2) choosing specifically an assault weapon; (3) voluntarily taking it to a place in another state where he had no business; and (4) setting up situations where he could get away with using it claiming "self-defense".

Again, this is about intentions. He went a-huntin'. And again, we've already done this. What's the point of restating the whole thing?

 

[Shelzin]

Again, this is about intentions. He went a-huntin'. And again, we've already done this. What's the point of restating the whole thing?

You're right... It is about intentions. He was attacked first by every one of the people that he shot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, this is about intentions. He went a-huntin'. And again, we've already done this. What's the point of restating the whole thing?

You're right... It is about intentions. He was attacked first by every one of the people that he shot.

Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat. We could try it out. I wilkl come up to you unannounced with my weapon and confront you. Let's see if you feel threatened. I bet you do.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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

Actions under pressure are something that would be impressive even from a trained soldier.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

If you hear those voices in your head regularly, you should probably see a professional. I get that you are really stupid, but this is over the top even for you.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Pogo is a disciple of Goebbels: he thinks that if he regurgitates a lie often enough, it becomes true.

 

[Pogo]

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.

If you hear those voices in your head regularly, you should probably see a professional. I get that you are really stupid, but this is over the top even for you.

Go forth and stick a cherrybomb up your ass. That shit was posted on this site, in the wake of Charlottesville. You know, the "very fine people" event. That you weren't/aren't intelligent enough to keep up with it is your bag, not mine.

And if you ever come up with an actual intelligent thought on any topic at all, you be sure to let us all know, Hunior. We'll have a frickin' coming out party.

 

[Shelzin]

Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat. We could try it out. I wilkl come up to you unannounced with my weapon and confront you. Let's see if you feel threatened. I bet you do.

Given the amount of people there with guns... That wouldn't be logical. Why didn't they get attacked?

Edit: Just so there is no misunderstanding... This is me saying that's a pretty stupid argument.

 

[Shelzin]

Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat. We could try it out. I wilkl come up to you unannounced with my weapon and confront you. Let's see if you feel threatened. I bet you do.

Apparently I'm a genius compared to you. I wouldn't attack someone with a gun.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Given the amount of people there with guns... That wouldn't be logical. Why didn't they get attacked

Because they didn't confront people in the same manner, or if they did, nothing resulted. Easy qeustion, easy answer. You can call it illogical, but you remarks seem contrived and empty, as he is charged. If you are looking for someone to buy into the charges having no merit or argument and deriving merely from emotion, you will have to find someone dumber and more gullible to discuss this than me.