Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Shelzin]

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.

I missed the evidence... But I'm tired... I'll look again tomorrow.

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.

Well... I agree that he's going to get some time in jail... Sure. Maybe a fine. I just don't see him getting murder of any kind.

Reckless endangerment.... Yeah.. Sure. I can see that. I don't really agree with it, but I can at least see that case.

 

[Shelzin]

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

I'm happy we agree that it's pretty much morbidly stupid to attack someone with a gun and not think they'll get shot. Pretty sure a court will see it that way as well, and why I think only the lesser charges are going to stick.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

I'm happy we agree that it's pretty much morbidly stupid to attack someone with a gun and not think they'll get shot. Pretty sure a court will see it that way as well, and why I think only the lesser charges are going to stick.

I do agree. But i also think people dont get to be vigilantes. I think it is incumbent upon them not to do so. So it becomes a discussion of "original sin", which is subjective. À la a discussion of being charged with vehicular homicide when someone else makes a mistake and collides with you, because you were drunk and you and your vehicle should not have been there in the first place. This is not meant to be an analogy to the Rittenhouse case, just an example of such a discussion. Not a direct comparison.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Reckless endangerment.... Yeah.. Sure. I can see that. I don't really agree with it, but I can at least see that case.

Which can be rightfully perceived as a deadly threat, no? He had no right to police them or to roll up on them with his rifle. This is not okay. He escalated the situation. We have got to squash this behavior. And the justice department under Biden must immediately investigate the Kenosha sheriff's dept and city police for their coordination with the vigilante militias.

 

[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.

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.

In self defense. On camera.


You would rather that the mob had beat him to death?

 

[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.

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.

That self defense is a good thing? I agree.

 

[Correll]

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...

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

 

[Correll]

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.

Or it could be that the cops, disgusted with their orders to let the rioters riot, saw no reason to prevent someone else from doing their job of protecting property.


Your race baiting makes you a racist.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

Actually, you just described almost universally, the Left in this country, if not the world.

 

[Correll]

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.

Only an asshole would reference the "very fine people" lie at this point. That has been completely debunked.


You are that asshole.

 

[Correll]

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.

Libs like to imply shit. That why when you call them on it, they can pretend you are putting words in their mouths and make the argument about semantics, thus burying the fact that you totally called them on their shit and they got NOTHING to say to back their shit up.

 

[Correll]

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.

Just like I said.

 

[Correll]

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.

He was cool and calm when discussing minor technicalities that might put an innocent young man in jail for life, but discussion minor technicalities that might save that innocent young man from,

now he gets pissed off.

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

"Very educational" doesn't cut it...

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

You said he was a member of a group. You can't identify what group it was.

You're the one who's a miserable failure at supporting your position, not me...

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

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

You're just too big a coward to admit it.

By the way, dipshit, the group he started walking with was alledgedly the Boogaloo Bois, a far-right, anti-government, self-styled "militia". It was also rumored that he tried to ingratiate himself into the Kenosha Guard (which didn't happen). Essentially, while there were particular groups there, Rittenhouse was not a member of any of them.

Also, it bears pointing out that private, armed militias are actually illegal without the blessing of the Governor. Governor Tony Evers gave no such blessing, so they were essentially just armed mobs...

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

I'm not pissed off, I'm frustrated. And I'm not frustrated by the law, I'm frustrated because I was hoping I could converse with someone who had an IQ which surpassed his shoe size, but that's just not the case with you.

If anyone's frustrated with the law, it's you. I see it as being quite clear. You keep trying to twist it into some form to meet your belief that doing something "education" equates to a "course of instruction", which is discussed in Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a). It doesn't, and it's simply retarded for you to continue insisting that it does.

See, the difference between you and I isn't that you don't want him to go to prison and I do. The reality is that I don't want him to go to prison.

I'm just intelligent enough to realize that he's going to...

 

[Correll]

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

"Very educational" doesn't cut it...

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

You said he was a member of a group. You can't identify what group it was.

You're the one who's a miserable failure at supporting your position, not me...

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

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

You're just too big a coward to admit it.

By the way, dipshit, the group he started walking with was alledgedly the Boogaloo Bois, a far-right, anti-government, self-styled "militia". It was also rumored that he tried to ingratiate himself into the Kenosha Guard (which didn't happen). Essentially, while there were particular groups there, Rittenhouse was not a member of any of them.

Also, it bears pointing out that private, armed militias are actually illegal without the blessing of the Governor. Governor Tony Evers gave no such blessing, so they were essentially just armed mobs...

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

I'm not pissed off, I'm frustrated. And I'm not frustrated by the law, I'm frustrated because I was hoping I could converse with someone who had an IQ which surpassed his shoe size, but that's just not the case with you.

If anyone's frustrated with the law, it's you. I see it as being quite clear. You keep trying to twist it into some form to meet your belief that doing something "education" equates to a "course of instruction", which is discussed in Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a). It doesn't, and it's simply retarded for you to continue insisting that it does.

See, the difference between you and I isn't that you don't want him to go to prison and I do. The reality is that I don't want him to go to prison.

I'm just intelligent enough to realize that he's going to...

1. I think "very educational" does cut it.

2. My position is not based on the name of the group, just that there was someone older than 18 organizing it.

3. I don't care and don't know and I "admitted" it in the post you just responded to, so you talk of "cowardice" is you trying to bolster your weakening case with bluster.

4. I think that if he gets a fair trial, he gets off on self defense. Because it is clearly is self defense.

 

[Meathead]

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

"Very educational" doesn't cut it...

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

You said he was a member of a group. You can't identify what group it was.

You're the one who's a miserable failure at supporting your position, not me...

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

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

You're just too big a coward to admit it.

By the way, dipshit, the group he started walking with was alledgedly the Boogaloo Bois, a far-right, anti-government, self-styled "militia". It was also rumored that he tried to ingratiate himself into the Kenosha Guard (which didn't happen). Essentially, while there were particular groups there, Rittenhouse was not a member of any of them.

Also, it bears pointing out that private, armed militias are actually illegal without the blessing of the Governor. Governor Tony Evers gave no such blessing, so they were essentially just armed mobs...

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

I'm not pissed off, I'm frustrated. And I'm not frustrated by the law, I'm frustrated because I was hoping I could converse with someone who had an IQ which surpassed his shoe size, but that's just not the case with you.

If anyone's frustrated with the law, it's you. I see it as being quite clear. You keep trying to twist it into some form to meet your belief that doing something "education" equates to a "course of instruction", which is discussed in Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a). It doesn't, and it's simply retarded for you to continue insisting that it does.

See, the difference between you and I isn't that you don't want him to go to prison and I do. The reality is that I don't want him to go to prison.

I'm just intelligent enough to realize that he's going to...

Look, unless the jury is made up of the flakiest of snowflakes, the kid will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Get over it.

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. I think "very educational" does cut it.

Well, you need to wrap that pointed little head around the fact that what you "think" doesn't matter an iota...

2. My position is not based on the name of the group, just that there was someone older than 18 organizing it.

No groups, militia or otherwise, were approved by the Governor. That means they're little more than armed street mobs.

And whether or not someone over 18 was "organizing" it doesn't matter...

3. I don't care and don't know and I "admitted" it in the post you just responded to, so you talk of "cowardice" is you trying to bolster your weakening case with bluster.

You say you don't care, but the fact of that matter is that it appears as though it's going to become a rather integral part of the defense his lawyers intend to proffer.

Given your position on this matter, if you don't care, you should...

4. I think that if he gets a fair trial, he gets off on self defense. Because it is clearly is self defense.

Well, when I look at things you've thought about in the past, you don't seem too adept at the whole "thinking" thing...

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

"Very educational" doesn't cut it...

2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.

You said he was a member of a group. You can't identify what group it was.

You're the one who's a miserable failure at supporting your position, not me...

3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.

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

You're just too big a coward to admit it.

By the way, dipshit, the group he started walking with was alledgedly the Boogaloo Bois, a far-right, anti-government, self-styled "militia". It was also rumored that he tried to ingratiate himself into the Kenosha Guard (which didn't happen). Essentially, while there were particular groups there, Rittenhouse was not a member of any of them.

Also, it bears pointing out that private, armed militias are actually illegal without the blessing of the Governor. Governor Tony Evers gave no such blessing, so they were essentially just armed mobs...

4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?

I'm not pissed off, I'm frustrated. And I'm not frustrated by the law, I'm frustrated because I was hoping I could converse with someone who had an IQ which surpassed his shoe size, but that's just not the case with you.

If anyone's frustrated with the law, it's you. I see it as being quite clear. You keep trying to twist it into some form to meet your belief that doing something "education" equates to a "course of instruction", which is discussed in Wisconsin state law 948.60(2)(a). It doesn't, and it's simply retarded for you to continue insisting that it does.

See, the difference between you and I isn't that you don't want him to go to prison and I do. The reality is that I don't want him to go to prison.

I'm just intelligent enough to realize that he's going to...

Look, unless the jury is made up of the flakiest of snowflakes, the kid will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Get over it.

I'd be surprised.

He killed two people in a scenario in which he never should've been, but willingly entered. His best hope is that they don't charge him as an adult...

 

[Shelzin]

Reckless endangerment.... Yeah.. Sure. I can see that. I don't really agree with it, but I can at least see that case.

Which can be rightfully perceived as a deadly threat, no? He had no right to police them or to roll up on them with his rifle. This is not okay. He escalated the situation. We have got to squash this behavior. And the justice department under Biden must immediately investigate the Kenosha sheriff's dept and city police for their coordination with the vigilante militias.

I think if the police aren't allowed to do their jobs, others will do their jobs for them in a much worse way. Yes... I do believe he had the right to protect property against others.

 

[danielpalos]

Reckless endangerment.... Yeah.. Sure. I can see that. I don't really agree with it, but I can at least see that case.

Which can be rightfully perceived as a deadly threat, no? He had no right to police them or to roll up on them with his rifle. This is not okay. He escalated the situation. We have got to squash this behavior. And the justice department under Biden must immediately investigate the Kenosha sheriff's dept and city police for their coordination with the vigilante militias.

I think if the police aren't allowed to do their jobs, others will do their jobs for them in a much worse way. Yes... I do believe he had the right to protect property against others.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.