Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[Shelzin]

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.

You downvoted my post... And then proceed to tell me why I'm right. o.0

Or are you suggesting that the legislature has provided this obligation to the people who were trying to burn shit down? f They supported that...

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You downvoted my post... And then proceed to tell me why I'm right. o.0

Or are you suggesting that the legislature has provided this obligation to the people who were trying to burn shit down? f They supported that...

Our legislators should be doing their job. Right wing gun lovers have already made it painfully obvious the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

 

[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.

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.

The reckless endangerment stems from the shootings, which doesn’t seem to exclude the possibility of self defense. Do you disagree?

McGinnis, for example, was nearby when Rosenbaum was shot and at least one round came close to McGinnis, which I think led to the endangerment charge.

 

[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.

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.

I neither agree that all liberals do that, nor do I think it’s something in any way limited by political affiliation

 

[Shelzin]

Our legislators should be doing their job.

You're right... In the case we are talking about they did not. So the unorganized militia did it. A group without a name I might add. I'm sure there were several groups without names there. Both for and against the destroying of shit.

Right wing gun lovers have already made it painfully obvious the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

Well... Those "right wing gun lovers" were not destroying shit in this case. It might have been "left wing gun lovers" but honestly I'm happy to just call them rioters.

 

[danielpalos]

The unorganized militia is and was worthless to the security of our free States.

 

[SavannahMann]

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?

OK. A man is selling Marijuana in a parking lot. Another man confronts him. The dope seller shoots him and declares self defense. Is that a valid claim of self defense?

 

[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.

That self defense is a good thing? I agree.

Of course you agree with inventions of your own mind. It would be exceedingly odd if you didn't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think if the police aren't allowed to do their jobs, others will do their jobs for them in a much worse way.

Neat, but I don't think that is a good excuse for police coordinating with vigilante militias. And them doing so in Kenosha was one of the steps that led to this tragedy. Time to investigate them and see which of them are in these militias and other, assorted white wing groups. See why they thought they could virtually deputize these armed cosplayer freaks on the spot. Put in measures to prevent this nauseating behavior.

 

[irosie91]

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.

You downvoted my post... And then proceed to tell me why I'm right. o.0

Or are you suggesting that the legislature has provided this obligation to the people who were trying to burn shit down? f They supported that...

Our legislators should be doing their job. Right wing gun lovers have already made it painfully obvious the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

'
Unorganized militias---aka MOBS. How about organized militias----like neighborhood patrol?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

You downvoted my post... And then proceed to tell me why I'm right. o.0

Or are you suggesting that the legislature has provided this obligation to the people who were trying to burn shit down? f They supported that...

Our legislators should be doing their job. Right wing gun lovers have already made it painfully obvious the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

'
Unorganized militias---aka MOBS. How about organized militias----like neighborhood patrol?

How about no, just pick up your phone and call 911 when you see something. How about we don't stand for police inviting white wing militias to do their light work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

here are some questions I would like to see answered:

Why did the Kenosha police buddy up to white wing militias from out of town? How did these militias coordinate with the police? Who in the police force had advance knowledge of these militia's actions and advance communication with them? What caused the police to pause from arresting people for breaking curfew to watch and wave as a child with a rifle, out after curfew, walked right past them, trailing a crowd of people screaming that he killed someone?

One interesting this about all this: The day after the Rittenhouse incident, guess how many white wing militia members showed up in Kenosha? Zero. Exactly zero. Well isn't that just a crazy coincidence! It's as if someone was coordinating with them and asked that they not show up, because now there was a PR shitstorm. I would like to know who that was coordinating with them. How high does it go? Was it just Deputy Cletus on their secret what's app chat? Was it the Sheriff? We need to know.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

You downvoted my post... And then proceed to tell me why I'm right. o.0

Or are you suggesting that the legislature has provided this obligation to the people who were trying to burn shit down? f They supported that...

Our legislators should be doing their job. Right wing gun lovers have already made it painfully obvious the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

'
Unorganized militias---aka MOBS. How about organized militias----like neighborhood patrol?

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.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

You downvoted my post... And then proceed to tell me why I'm right. o.0

Or are you suggesting that the legislature has provided this obligation to the people who were trying to burn shit down? f They supported that...

Our legislators should be doing their job. Right wing gun lovers have already made it painfully obvious the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

'
Unorganized militias---aka MOBS. How about organized militias----like neighborhood patrol?

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.

Yes. Exactly why Rittenhouse is charged with murder. We have to protect our citizens from crazy, violent vigilantes seeking to perform extra-judicial justice and executions.

 

[danielpalos]

Murder may be more difficult to prove. Manslaughter actually happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Murder may be more difficult to prove. Manslaughter actually happened.

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

 

[Polishprince]

Murder may be more difficult to prove. Manslaughter actually happened.

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

Why do you think its "obvious"? It seems obvious that he went there to keep the peace and defend life and property. Anyone who goes into a Riot Zone filled with violent leftards and child molesters should be armed

 

[danielpalos]

Murder may be more difficult to prove. Manslaughter actually happened.

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

Why do you think its "obvious"? It seems obvious that he went there to keep the peace and defend life and property. Anyone who goes into a Riot Zone filled with violent leftards and child molesters should be armed

He was not organized and should have stayed home. The unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

 

[Shelzin]

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It will be an interesting trial. Can they convince a jury of what seems obvious: that he went there hoping to plug someone? Might be tough.

I question your intelligence if you think it's obvious this young man wanted to kill someone.

I question your honesty and retention of your ability of independent thought if you think he didn't go there with his rifle hoping to shoot a faceless blm soros terrorist. So question away. Loud and proud. I will give you all the rope you need.