Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[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.

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

The idea that self defense is a good thing, is not something I came up with.


Indeed, the whole argument of liberals in this thread, is that Rittenhouse lost the right to self defense because hispossession of the gun was technically "illegal".

 

[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?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.

3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.

 

[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?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

He is a Patriot in the tradition of the Minutemen.

 

[Canon Shooter]

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

 

[Polishprince]

Libs really have a lot of sympathy for Rioters/Arsonists/Looters, and they just hate to see "push back".

And even those libs who don't have the guts to burn and loot themselves still stand with the Pro-BidenTerrorists in Kenosha and elsewhere.

Rittenhouse's audacity in going to Kenosha and standing up for our Democracy is something that has to be punished. And the fact that Rittenhouse defended himself instead of allowing himself to be attacked by the Child Molesting Mob is an "injustice" in their view.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

*and the prosecutors. Remember, will be their arguments. They think they can get a conviction. I bet they would be relieved to have you as the defense lawyer.

*nods*

How do you know what their arguments are going to be?

Easy to deduce. He is charged essentially with premeditated first degree murder.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

idea that self defense is a good thing, is not something I came up with.

Right, your invention was putting those words in my mouth. You don't need a message board. Just a mirror. Enjoy.

 

[Faun]

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?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.

3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.

I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

Fuck your assumptions.

 

[Correll]

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

 

[Correll]

idea that self defense is a good thing, is not something I came up with.

Right, your invention was putting those words in my mouth. You don't need a message board. Just a mirror. Enjoy.

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.


There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.


You know that. So, for you to reference that case, and that "logic", what else could you be referring to?


Are you wace baiting, pretending it was because the guy doing the vicious beating was black? LOL!!!

If you want to make such a stupid point, you need to be clear. Most people won't start with the assumption that you are a retard.

 

[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?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.

3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.

I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

Fuck your assumptions.

Hey, I admit I am assuming. If you can prove me wrong, do so. Otherwise, FUCK YOU.

 

[Faun]

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

 

[danielpalos]

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

All he did was prove the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

Only fascists believe they should have the Power to make up the law as they go along.

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.

 

[Faun]

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?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.

3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.

I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

Fuck your assumptions.

Hey, I admit I am assuming. If you can prove me wrong, do so. Otherwise, FUCK YOU.

LOL

You proved yourself wrong, numbnuts. Assumptions are worthless. Facts are all that matters.

 

[Correll]

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.


That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.


That is the way cowards and predators work.


In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.

YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.

 

[Correll]

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

All he did was prove the unorganized militia is worthless to the security of our free States.

Only fascists believe they should have the Power to make up the law as they go along.

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.

Did the building burn? Who won the fight? The mob or the member of the militia?

 

[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?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.

3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.

I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

Fuck your assumptions.

Hey, I admit I am assuming. If you can prove me wrong, do so. Otherwise, FUCK YOU.

LOL

You proved yourself wrong, numbnuts. Assumptions are worthless. Facts are all that matters.

No, making assumptions is risky because facts do trump them.


SO, if you have a "fact" to present to trump my assumption, then do so.

Otherwise, stfu.

 

[Faun]

1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!

Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.

Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...

2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.

In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.

And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...

3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.

If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...

4. I think I am doing pretty well.

You think that because you're stupid.

Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.

I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.

The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.

Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...

1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.

3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.

4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.

He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.

Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.


That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.


That is the way cowards and predators work.


In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.

YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.

As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.

Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."

You lose yet again because you're a loser.

 

[Faun]

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?

LOLOL

You're such a flaming dumbfuck.

Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.

1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.

3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.

I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.

Fuck your assumptions.

Hey, I admit I am assuming. If you can prove me wrong, do so. Otherwise, FUCK YOU.

LOL

You proved yourself wrong, numbnuts. Assumptions are worthless. Facts are all that matters.

No, making assumptions is risky because facts do trump them.


SO, if you have a "fact" to present to trump my assumption, then do so.

Otherwise, stfu.

Moron, it's no one's burden but yours to prove what you claim.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.

Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.

There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.

Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.

But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.

Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.