Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[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.

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?

As I understand it, the illegal purchase happened well before the shootings. It was also kept in Wisconsin, not Illinois. Man charged with supplying Kyle Rittenhouse assault-style rifle used in deadly Wisconsin protest

As far as "setting up situations where he could get away with using it claiming "self-defense," I suppose you could make that argument about pretty much any case of self-defense. It seems pretty ridiculous based on the videos, but feel free to explain how Rittenhouse set this all up, rather than reacting to the situation as it occurred.

Oh, and once again: there is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. You keep arguing as if carrying a gun means a person intends to shoot someone with said gun.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Do the charges against Rittenhouse include threatening with a weapon?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

I wouldn't either. It was a hypothetical. Oops, too many syllables for you, apparently. I was pretending.

 

[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?

As I understand it, the illegal purchase happened well before the shootings. It was also kept in Wisconsin, not Illinois. Man charged with supplying Kyle Rittenhouse assault-style rifle used in deadly Wisconsin protest

As far as "setting up situations where he could get away with using it claiming "self-defense," I suppose you could make that argument about pretty much any case of self-defense. It seems pretty ridiculous based on the videos, but feel free to explain how Rittenhouse set this all up, rather than reacting to the situation as it occurred.

Oh, and once again: there is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. You keep arguing as if carrying a gun means a person intends to shoot someone with said gun.

You can't very well shoot someone NOT carrying a gun, now can you? As I said ----- what else can you do with a gun? Use two of them for chopsticks in a Chinese restaurant?

Why would you buy a car except for transportation? Why would you buy food except to eat?

This is a pointless rehash. We did this at least a week ago. There's nothing new here.

 

[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.

Do the charges against Rittenhouse include threatening with a weapon?

I am not your assistant. State your point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

As I understand it, the illegal purchase happened well before the shootings. It was also kept in Wisconsin, not Illinois. Man charged with supplying Kyle Rittenhouse assault-style rifle used in deadly Wisconsin protest

As far as "setting up situations where he could get away with using it claiming "self-defense," I suppose you could make that argument about pretty much any case of self-defense. It seems pretty ridiculous based on the videos, but feel free to explain how Rittenhouse set this all up, rather than reacting to the situation as it occurred.

Oh, and once again: there is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. You keep arguing as if carrying a gun means a person intends to shoot someone with said gun.

You can't very well shoot someone NOT carrying a gun, now can you? As I said ----- what else can you do with a gun? Use two of them for chopsticks in a Chinese restaurant?

Why would you buy a car except for transportation? Why would you buy food except to eat?

This is a pointless rehash. We did this at least a week ago. There's nothing new here.

I may just be a lowly pHD from a modern, civilized country...

...but what do "endangerment" mean, massa? Is that, like, threatening?

It's impossible to have a normal conversation with these queers. You can't even get them to agree to baseline facts and meanings of words. Their tactics are designed to preempt discussion, not to have a discussion.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Do the charges against Rittenhouse include threatening with a weapon?

I am not your assistant. State your point.

You made the statement earlier that "Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat." Then you went on to say that others didn't get attacked because they didn't confront people in the same manner as Rittenhouse. I'm curious if that is part of the charges against him, or if it was argued by the prosecution, basically what is leading you to the conclusion that the charges are based on Rittenhouse confronting others with a weapon. It sounds as though you are saying it was his actions prior to the shootings which, at least in part, led to the charges.

 

[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.

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?

As I understand it, the illegal purchase happened well before the shootings. It was also kept in Wisconsin, not Illinois. Man charged with supplying Kyle Rittenhouse assault-style rifle used in deadly Wisconsin protest

As far as "setting up situations where he could get away with using it claiming "self-defense," I suppose you could make that argument about pretty much any case of self-defense. It seems pretty ridiculous based on the videos, but feel free to explain how Rittenhouse set this all up, rather than reacting to the situation as it occurred.

Oh, and once again: there is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. You keep arguing as if carrying a gun means a person intends to shoot someone with said gun.

You can't very well shoot someone NOT carrying a gun, now can you? As I said ----- what else can you do with a gun? Use two of them for chopsticks in a Chinese restaurant?

Why would you buy a car except for transportation? Why would you buy food except to eat?

This is a pointless rehash. We did this at least a week ago. There's nothing new here.

Once again I'll ask: Does a person carrying an epinephrine shot intend to use it, or are they instead prepared to use it if they need to?

Especially from a legal standpoint, I don't think the mere fact that Rittenhouse had the gun qualifies as an intent to shoot people. Even having it illegally doesn't establish an intent to shoot anyone. It may well affect whether the murder charges can stick (I don't know the relevant laws and whether the gun being obtained/carried illegally could turn a self-defense shooting into murder), though.

You ignored most of my post. What leads you to conclude that this whole scenario was some sort of pre-planned murder spree by Rittenhouse? He bought a gun illegally (technically, someone else bought it for him, it seems) and picked it up to carry at the protests. Is that pretty much the extent of what brought you to that conclusion? Is there anything he's said, information about his social media posts, actions he took on the videos that also lead you to that conclusion?

To compare this to Fields, as you've done a couple of times, Fields drove INTO a crowd of people. Rittenhouse ran AWAY from a group of people before he shot them. Are you saying that he ran away only to make the shootings seem like self-defense, and that he intended to shoot those people all along?

 

[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.

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?

As I understand it, the illegal purchase happened well before the shootings. It was also kept in Wisconsin, not Illinois. Man charged with supplying Kyle Rittenhouse assault-style rifle used in deadly Wisconsin protest

As far as "setting up situations where he could get away with using it claiming "self-defense," I suppose you could make that argument about pretty much any case of self-defense. It seems pretty ridiculous based on the videos, but feel free to explain how Rittenhouse set this all up, rather than reacting to the situation as it occurred.

Oh, and once again: there is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. You keep arguing as if carrying a gun means a person intends to shoot someone with said gun.

You can't very well shoot someone NOT carrying a gun, now can you? As I said ----- what else can you do with a gun? Use two of them for chopsticks in a Chinese restaurant?

Why would you buy a car except for transportation? Why would you buy food except to eat?

This is a pointless rehash. We did this at least a week ago. There's nothing new here.

I may just be a lowly pHD from a modern, civilized country...

...but what do "endangerment" mean, massa? Is that, like, threatening?

It's impossible to have a normal conversation with these queers. You can't even get them to agree to baseline facts and meanings of words. Their tactics are designed to preempt discussion, not to have a discussion.

Oh, you sound very much like someone interested in having a discussion.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

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?

As I understand it, the illegal purchase happened well before the shootings. It was also kept in Wisconsin, not Illinois. Man charged with supplying Kyle Rittenhouse assault-style rifle used in deadly Wisconsin protest

As far as "setting up situations where he could get away with using it claiming "self-defense," I suppose you could make that argument about pretty much any case of self-defense. It seems pretty ridiculous based on the videos, but feel free to explain how Rittenhouse set this all up, rather than reacting to the situation as it occurred.

Oh, and once again: there is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. You keep arguing as if carrying a gun means a person intends to shoot someone with said gun.

There is no illegal purchase of the gun.

 

[Montrovant]

There is no illegal purchase of the gun.

The allegedly illegal purchase.

 

[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.

Do the charges against Rittenhouse include threatening with a weapon?

I am not your assistant. State your point.

You made the statement earlier that "Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat." Then you went on to say that others didn't get attacked because they didn't confront people in the same manner as Rittenhouse. I'm curious if that is part of the charges against him, or if it was argued by the prosecution, basically what is leading you to the conclusion that the charges are based on Rittenhouse confronting others with a weapon. It sounds as though you are saying it was his actions prior to the shootings which, at least in part, led to the charges.

You are curious? Then you must have read the charging statement. I am not your mommy. It's all there.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no illegal purchase of the gun.

The allegedly illegal purchase.

Rittenhouse has admitted he made a straw purchase of the weapon he is not allowed to purchase or possess. So you can lose the word, "alleged".

 

[Montrovant]

There is no illegal purchase of the gun.

The allegedly illegal purchase.

Rittenhouse has admitted he made a straw purchase of the weapon he is not allowed to purchase or possess. So you can lose the word, "alleged".

That was a tongue in cheek response to Tipsycatlover's comment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no illegal purchase of the gun.

The allegedly illegal purchase.

Rittenhouse has admitted he made a straw purchase of the weapon he is not allowed to purchase or possess. So you can lose the word, "alleged".

That was a tongue in cheek response to Tipsycatlover's comment.

Oh, haha, don't mind me...

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Do the charges against Rittenhouse include threatening with a weapon?

I am not your assistant. State your point.

You made the statement earlier that "Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat." Then you went on to say that others didn't get attacked because they didn't confront people in the same manner as Rittenhouse. I'm curious if that is part of the charges against him, or if it was argued by the prosecution, basically what is leading you to the conclusion that the charges are based on Rittenhouse confronting others with a weapon. It sounds as though you are saying it was his actions prior to the shootings which, at least in part, led to the charges.

You are curious? Then you must have read the charging statement. I am not your mommy. It's all there.

I've read the criminal complaint. Richard McGinnis (who's the basis of the first reckless endangerment charge) states in that complaint that Rittenhouse tried to avoid Rosenbaum, who chased him, before the first shooting. That doesn't make the shooting self defense or legally acceptable, but it also doesn't seem to indicate that things began with Rittenhouse threatening or confronting someone with his weapon. In fact, according to McGinnis's statements, Rosenbaum actually tried to engage Rittenhouse, not the other way around.

From what I've seen and read about this case, my opinion is currently that Rittenhouse was in over his head in a situation he was ill-prepared for. The video of the Rosenbaum shooting is less clear than the video of the later shooting. Again looking at McGinnis's statements, he said that Rosenbaum was grabbing for Rittenhouse's gun before Rittenhouse fired. If that is accurate, I would suspect it is enough of a threat to justify shooting in self defense. The video of the second shooting incident is clearer, and in my mind, more likely to be seen as self-defense. I'm not sure how the first shooting might play into that, however.

None of the charges, and nothing I've read in the complaint, indicate that this chain of events began with Rittenhouse "confronting people with his weapon." If I missed something, I'm perfectly happy to find out about it. You seem to be under the impression that I'm unwilling to discuss the issue. I don't think I'm the one who's been snarky and vaguely insulting in their comments here, though.

 

[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.

Do the charges against Rittenhouse include threatening with a weapon?

I am not your assistant. State your point.

You made the statement earlier that "Apparently the authorities think him confronting people with his weapon was the initial threat." Then you went on to say that others didn't get attacked because they didn't confront people in the same manner as Rittenhouse. I'm curious if that is part of the charges against him, or if it was argued by the prosecution, basically what is leading you to the conclusion that the charges are based on Rittenhouse confronting others with a weapon. It sounds as though you are saying it was his actions prior to the shootings which, at least in part, led to the charges.

You are curious? Then you must have read the charging statement. I am not your mommy. It's all there.

I've read the criminal complaint. Richard McGinnis (who's the basis of the first reckless endangerment charge) states in that complaint that Rittenhouse tried to avoid Rosenbaum, who chased him, before the first shooting. That doesn't make the shooting self defense or legally acceptable, but it also doesn't seem to indicate that things began with Rittenhouse threatening or confronting someone with his weapon. In fact, according to McGinnis's statements, Rosenbaum actually tried to engage Rittenhouse, not the other way around.

From what I've seen and read about this case, my opinion is currently that Rittenhouse was in over his head in a situation he was ill-prepared for. The video of the Rosenbaum shooting is less clear than the video of the later shooting. Again looking at McGinnis's statements, he said that Rosenbaum was grabbing for Rittenhouse's gun before Rittenhouse fired. If that is accurate, I would suspect it is enough of a threat to justify shooting in self defense. The video of the second shooting incident is clearer, and in my mind, more likely to be seen as self-defense. I'm not sure how the first shooting might play into that, however.

None of the charges, and nothing I've read in the complaint, indicate that this chain of events began with Rittenhouse "confronting people with his weapon." If I missed something, I'm perfectly happy to find out about it. You seem to be under the impression that I'm unwilling to discuss the issue. I don't think I'm the one who's been snarky and vaguely insulting in their comments here, though.

You read the filing and understood why he was charged with reckless endangerment? Why the prosecution rejects a self defense claim and thinks it will win a conviction? Because that is, indeed, what they think. And they base that on the information in the filing.

 

[Shelzin]

We're not talking about building a resume, dumbfuck.

As for being a member of a group, who requested he join the group? Who approved his application to join said group.

The answer to both is "no one".

He was a hanger-on...

You... Are... Taking that to an extreme. He was there in a planned manner with other people. The "group" isn't like Antifa or Proud Boys... They were just there together to protect a car dealership I believe it was.

 

[Shelzin]

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.

I don't think so. You assume those things because he's charged, but you have no proof of it. All you have is what I have, are are absolutely free to share more evidence that he did approach this the wrong way. He was RUNNING away from them. They chased him down, and attacked him. Yeah... Sure... He confronted them the wrong way... As he's running away. Ok.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You assume those things because he's charged, but you have no proof of it.

I did not assume. As you can read for youraelf, i am describing what the prosecutors are assuming. And i am pointing to the information they are arguing from.

But since you asked: It does seem to indicate to me that he was recklessly endangering people, and that self defense isnt going to cut it, this time. But maybe there is more information to be had. It doesnt look good for him right now, though.