Rittenhouse ordered to stand trial

[JohnDB]

Irrelevant.

I agree....but I got caught up in minor details....I'm out now.
Don't care...don't care to argue anymore about it.

 

[SavannahMann]

I'm agreeing with you about his delusions of grandeur. In no way shape, form, or fashion should a 17 year old think that he can stop a whole rioting mob of thugs. (And there wasn't not a felon in the crowd)

But that's not the problem...

The problem is one of conflicting laws concerning gun rights and constitutionality.
On one hand you have state issued permits.
The other is juvenile gang violence.
And on the third hand you have Good Samaritan laws.

No matter what the original verdict... Even if Kyle goes free he still has lost his normal life. If he is found guilty he will go free on appeal. No matter what.

I don’t see grounds for appeal yet. The trial hasn’t even been held.

 

[SavannahMann]

The property owner of the car lot DID ask Kyle to help.
Again that fact is not in dispute except by you apparently for some reason....care to explain?

I had heard and read the opposite. Here is my source.

Kenosha car dealer denies he asked gunmen to protect his business

The co-owner of Car Source said Thursday he didn't hire the men, ask for their help or endorse it.

www.jsonline.com

What is yours?

 

[Faun]

So if Texas was to make illegal Immigration worthy of a capital offense that should be allowed?

That would likely be a violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

Or how about just some racist laws against Asians? That's OK too?

That would likely be in violation of the Constitution's equal protect clause.

Of course not....that's utterly ridiculous.

True, of course not. But not because they're in contradiction with Federal laws but because they're in violation with the Constitution which applies to both Federal and state laws. The Supremacy clause places Federal laws above state laws; which means, for example, the Federal government can charge people with being in possession of weed even in states where it's legal. It doesn't mean states can use Federal laws to either charge or avoid state charges on state cases.

2nd amendment laws are not so much as passive as they are directive.... meaning that it's something that must be done. (How it's reached there I'm not exactly sure myself)
But a good constitution lawyer could probably answer that....I'll have to ask him next time I talk to him.

Nothing in the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution addresses age. Lower courts have ruled in favor of allowing 18 to 20 year olds the right to purchase a firearm, but states have laws banning minors from having guns. And the Supreme Court has ruled 2nd Amendment rights are not unlimited.

No matter what.... Kyle is going free one way or another.

Your opinion is noted. Mine is different.

 

[Faun]

I had heard and read the opposite. Here is my source.

Kenosha car dealer denies he asked gunmen to protect his business

The co-owner of Car Source said Thursday he didn't hire the men, ask for their help or endorse it.

www.jsonline.com

What is yours?

He won't say.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Looks like Kyle is going to stand trial for his alleged crimes:

Kyle Rittenhouse, teen charged with killings at Jacob Blake protest, ordered to stand trial

Kyle Rittenhouse — the 17-year-old charged with killing two people during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, after the shooting of Jacob Blake — will stand trial on charges of felony homicide and other crimes, a court commissioner ruled Thursday.
During a preliminary hearing at Kenosha County Circuit Court, which was held via video link, commissioner Loren Keating ruled that there was enough evidence to send Rittenhouse to trial over the Aug. 25 killings of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26.
Rittenhouse also faces charges of possession of a dangerous weapon while under the age of 18 and felony attempted homicide for injuring a third man, Gaige Grosskreutz.
Lawyers for Rittenhouse argued that the teen, who has been praised by right-wing commentators and viewed sympathetically by the Trump administration, had acted in self-defense when he opened fire.
But Keating said those arguments were issues for trial — not a preliminary hearing. The teen’s lawyers also asked Keating to dismiss two charges, including possession of a dangerous weapon, but the commissioner declined, saying that was also an issue for trial.
Rittenhouse, of Antioch, Illinois, was released on $2 million bond last month, money mostly raised by conservatives through a legal defense fund.

And in related news..the 19yo who posed as a straw buyer for Kyle's gun has been charged:

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse

The friend of Rittenhouse, 17, purchased the gun later used to allegedly fatally shoot two men in Kenosha, Wisconsin, prosecutors say.

www.nbcnews.com

Charges have been filed against a 19-year-old man who prosecutors allege purchased and supplied the gun used by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse in the fatal shootings of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Dominick Black, of Kenosha, faces two felony counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a minor, causing death, according to a criminal complaint filed in Kenosha County Circuit Court. If he's found guilty, he faces up to 6 years in prison per count.
According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

Didn’t he kill leftist anarchist thugs who had criminal records?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Didn’t he kill leftist anarchist thugs who had criminal records?

Were they human beings?

 

[freyasman]

Were they human beings?

Isn't he?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Were they human beings?

Why do you insist on answering my questions with questions? Ugh

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why do you insist on answering my questions with questions? Ugh

Why do you insist on trying to make everyone your assistants and ask questions you already know the answers to? Just make your points.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why do you insist on trying to make everyone your assistants and ask questions you already know the answers to? Just make your points.

I have no idea. I am Asking a question. Answer it and then I can answer yours. You’re assuming a I recall. I do Not. Rude people who were raised poorly answer questions with questions.

 

[Faun]

Didn’t he kill leftist anarchist thugs who had criminal records?

Yeah. So?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Isn't he?

Technically, yes, I believe so

 

[Correll]

Your opinion is noted. I disagree. I see nothing immoral with trying a minor charged with murder as an adult along with separate charges which are illegal for a minor.

It would be reasonable, to charge him for a crime that is a crime only BECASUE he is a minor and then to try him as a minor.


It would be reasonable to charge him, DROPPING THE CHARGE that would only apply, if he were considered a child, while charging him for on other charges as an adult, thus judging the claim of self defense based on it's merits.


But to dismiss the merits of the self defense claim BECAUSE he was a child, WHILE CHARGING HIM AS AN ADULT,


is having it both ways for the sole intent of INJUSTICE.

 

[Faun]

It would be reasonable, to charge him for a crime that is a crime only BECASUE he is a minor and then to try him as a minor.


It would be reasonable to charge him, DROPPING THE CHARGE that would only apply, if he were considered a child, while charging him for on other charges as an adult, thus judging the claim of self defense based on it's merits.


But to dismiss the merits of the self defense claim BECAUSE he was a child, WHILE CHARGING HIM AS AN ADULT,


is having it both ways for the sole intent of INJUSTICE.

Again, you see that as immoral. I don't. So what?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Canon Shooter Correll

Btw, Rittenhouse is being tried as an adult.

 

[Correll]

Again, you see that as immoral. I don't. So what?

If he loses the right of self defense BECASUE he is a child, then trying him as an adult, is immoral.

You are having it both ways. just so you can deny him his right of self defense and put your political enemy in prison.


If you see that as moral, it is because you have no morals at all.

 

[Correll]

Canon Shooter Correll

Btw, Rittenhouse is being tried as an adult.

Yes, we know. Thanks for contributing.

 

[freyasman]

Technically, yes, I believe so

So why shouldn't he be able to protect his life from people attacking him?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yeah. So?

Yes? Both were or just the guy with the skateboard? So if yes, then the jury may be more lenient vs. if he killed two people who were peaceful without a record. You Jew disrespecting OCD ridden fat fuck.