# Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate



## ColonelAngus

What will the verdict be?

How long will the jury deliberate?

This should wrap up soon.


----------



## Rust_Cohle

Not Guilty, Kyle "The Vaporizer" Rittenhouse is an American Hero


----------



## TNHarley

Rittenhouse/Sandmann 2040


----------



## Mr Natural

Lock him up!


----------



## jbrownson0831

Mr Clean said:


> Lock him up!


Nope


----------



## TheGreatSatan

Rainbow_Randolph said:


> Not Guilty, Kyle "The Vaporizer" Rittenhouse is an American Hero


I would like to see a movement to build a huge Kyle monument.  He is a real life American hero.  We need more Kyles in this country.


----------



## TNHarley

I bet the left would support him if he killed normal people. You know, instead of kid fuckers, woman abusers and criminals.


----------



## ColonelAngus

It is appalling that so many dumb leftards think the dead people Kyle shot were BLACK.


----------



## eagle1462010

They will get him misdeameaner weapons charges which will be a sentence of no time in jail


----------



## TheGreatSatan

TNHarley said:


> I bet the left would support him if he killed normal people. You know, instead of kid fuckers, woman abusers and criminals.


I bet if he didn't kill a pedo, Democrats wouldn't even care.  Show a Democrat pics and videos od Brandon getting on little girls and listen to them spin and cover for his behavior.


----------



## aaronleland

I predict the jury will come back, and declare him still chubby.


----------



## JohnDB

I'm thinking that they are going to have a more difficult time with the paperwork than the actual time to consider the charges.


----------



## JohnDB

eagle1462010 said:


> They will get him misdeameaner weapons charges which will be a sentence of no time in jail


Those charges have been removed from consideration.


----------



## Peace

Mr Clean said:


> Lock him up!


For what?

Possibly obtaining the firearm illegally through a straw purchase but not for murder…


----------



## Resnic

Hope hee is found not guilty. He didn't do a god damn thing except shoot people who attacked him first. That's all there is to this and nothing more.

3 men attacked a 17 year old kind that was by himself and he shot them. End of story.


----------



## eagle1462010

JohnDB said:


> Those charges have been removed from consideration.


Didnt know that.  So i screwed up my vote.


----------



## ColonelAngus

eagle1462010 said:


> They will get him misdeameaner weapons charges which will be a sentence of no time in jail



weapons charges were already dismissed









						Kyle Rittenhouse jurors to begin deliberations Tuesday
					

A Wisconsin judge on Monday dismissed a weapons charge against Kyle Rittenhouse, the teen who fatally shot two people and wounded a third during a protest in Kenosha last year.




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## eagle1462010

Changed my vote.  LOL


----------



## aaronleland

I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.


----------



## progressive hunter

eagle1462010 said:


> They will get him misdeameaner weapons charges which will be a sentence of no time in jail


that charge was dropped,, best you not comment on things you dont know about,,


----------



## progressive hunter

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.


who are you to tell another where they should or shouldnt be??


----------



## ILOVEISRAEL

Mr Clean said:


> Lock him up!


Why?


----------



## bodecea

ColonelAngus said:


> What will the verdict be?
> 
> How long will the jury deliberate?
> 
> This should wrap up soon.


With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)


----------



## ColonelAngus

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.



The same could be said about the dead guys.  They did not have to be there.  Rosenbaum may be alive today if he didnt go there to riot.


----------



## eagle1462010

progressive hunter said:


> that charge was dropped,, best you not comment on things you dont know about,,


I already recanted.  So sue me.


----------



## JohnDB

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.


Legally they can't convict him over stupidity in choices of being inadequate to understand his surroundings...

All they have before them is murder.


----------



## jbrownson0831

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.


Being there or not is his own decision.


----------



## ColonelAngus

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)



Lets discuss the specific evidence.

Explain your post.


----------



## aaronleland

progressive hunter said:


> who are you to tell another where they should or shouldnt be??


Did I say he had no right to be there? No. He was an idiot for being there. He had his mom drive him out of state to drop him off in the middle of a riot so he could play Batman at 17 years old.


----------



## progressive hunter

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> For what?
> 
> Possibly obtaining the firearm illegally through a straw purchase but not for murder…


the straw purchase isnt on kyle,,


----------



## JohnDB

aaronleland said:


> Did I say he had no right to be there? No. He was an idiot for being there. He had his mom drive him out of state to drop him off in the middle of a riot so he could play Batman at 17 years old.


Not quite...His friend Dante did that.


----------



## progressive hunter

you say "out of state" like she drove him from Illinois to california..


aaronleland said:


> Did I say he had no right to be there? No. He was an idiot for being there. He had his mom drive him out of state to drop him off in the middle of a riot so he could play Batman at 17 years old.


 did I say you said he had no right to be there??


----------



## aaronleland

JohnDB said:


> Legally they can't convict him over stupidity in choices of being inadequate to understand his surroundings...
> 
> All they have before them is murder.


To clarify, my comments have nothing to do with the legality of what he did. I think he was justified in defending himself. I'm just saying the kid is a retard.


----------



## ColonelAngus

aaronleland said:


> Did I say he had no right to be there? No. He was an idiot for being there. He had his mom drive him out of state to drop him off in the middle of a riot so he could play Batman at 17 years old.



The rape victim shouldnt have worn a short skirt.


----------



## Resnic

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)



No, the judge is fair, impartial, and doesn't tolerate bullshit.



aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.



So you support the 3 guys rioting and burning shit and attacking him saying they deserve to be there?

How come they can be there but Kyle can't?


----------



## ColonelAngus

The left claims RACISM in an incident of white on white crime.   

You dumb pricks are like a broken record.


----------



## aaronleland

ColonelAngus said:


> The rape victim shouldnt have worn a short skirt.


The rape victim didn't stand in Rape Alley with a shirt saying "rape me".


----------



## aaronleland

Resnic said:


> No, the judge is fair, impartial, and doesn't tolerate bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> So you support the 3 guys rioting and burning shit and attacking him saying they deserve to be there?
> 
> How come they can be there but Kyle can't?


Where did I say either side couldn't be there? They were all idiots.


----------



## ColonelAngus

aaronleland said:


> The rape victim didn't stand in Rape Alley with a shirt saying "rape me".



Kyle made these dead guys chase him?

Huh?

Chase a person with a gun and you may get dead.


----------



## Resnic

aaronleland said:


> To clarify, my comments have nothing to do with the legality of what he did. I think he was justified in defending himself. I'm just saying the kid is a retard.



He is a retard for trying to help and then having to protect himself?

You seem to be going to great lengths to avoid even mentioning the 3 guys who ganged up on a 17 year kid by himself and we're also burning shit and causing problems. You're more interested in bashing him than acknowledging they were the problem or even saying anything about the rioters.


----------



## JohnDB

aaronleland said:


> To clarify, my comments have nothing to do with the legality of what he did. I think he was justified in defending himself. I'm just saying the kid is a retard.


Of that you will get no argument from me...
I understand why he went and the circumstances of his attendance...but his friend Dante (only 19 himself) didn't belong there either.  Nothing says stupid like another dumb friend agreeing with you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

progressive hunter said:


> who are you to tell another where they should or shouldnt be??


Of course he didn't say the rioters from out of State shouldn't have been there.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Kyle had every legal right to be there.

That should have zero bearing on the verdict.


----------



## bodecea

ColonelAngus said:


> The same could be said about the dead guys.  They did not have to be there.  Rosenbaum may be alive today if he didnt go there to riot.


And if the cops hadn't shot Jacob Blake.....there wouldn't have been any protest and Kyle could have stayed home and con-tinued sucker punching girls in high school.....https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/video-shows-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-punching-a-girl-report/


----------



## ColonelAngus

RetiredGySgt said:


> Of course he didn't say the rioters from out of State shouldn't have been there.



And dude who got his bicep vaporized was in ILLEGAL possession of a Glock…yet the left seems unconcerned by this…


----------



## RetiredGySgt

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)


LOL the Judge was of course on his side by ruling the prosecution couldn't violate his constitutional rights, I mean you don't like him so that made that attempt ok right?


----------



## ColonelAngus

bodecea said:


> And if the cops hadn't shot Jacob Blake.....there wouldn't have been any protest and Kyle could have stayed home and con-tinued sucker punching girls in high school.....https://nypost.com/2020/09/01/video-shows-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse-punching-a-girl-report/



What specific evidence presented makes it clear the trial is rigged?

You claimed the trial is not fair.

Explain specifically.


----------



## bodecea

RetiredGySgt said:


> Of course he didn't say the rioters from out of State shouldn't have been there.


How many people did they kill?


----------



## progressive hunter

bodecea said:


> How many people did they kill?


they tried to kill one but he fought back,,


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

A guilty verdict will put the gun confiscation movement into overdrive and accelerate racial tensions.

A not guilty verdict will postpone it for a few more months and accelerate racial tensions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

bodecea said:


> How many people did they kill?


They TRIED to kill Rittenhouse.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Odd that so little discussion of the evidence presented is being put forward by the left.

Why do you liars stick to false narratives even in the face of new evidence?


----------



## Hugo Furst

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)





bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty



Judge has no input into decision.


----------



## Penelope

TheGreatSatan said:


> I would like to see a movement to build a huge Kyle monument.  He is a real life American hero.  We need more Kyles in this country.


Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.


----------



## Penelope

Resnic said:


> Hope hee is found not guilty. He didn't do a god damn thing except shoot people who attacked him first. That's all there is to this and nothing more.
> 
> 3 men attacked a 17 year old kind that was by himself and he shot them. End of story.


Everybody had the right to take down an active shooter, and he was.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)




It seems you are distraught when real justice prevails.   tuff


----------



## tahuyaman

TNHarley said:


> Rittenhouse/Sandmann 2040


Not even comparable.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

All the last 50 years of Federal desegregation and diversity has done is put cans of gasoline right next to glowing embers.
The Federal Government mostly consists of the most stupid (and corrupt) ass clowns of a given society.


----------



## TNHarley

tahuyaman said:


> Not even comparable.


Im not comparing the two. I thought it was pretty clear i meant a presidential ticket.


----------



## ColonelAngus

White guy kills white guy….so the left claims the trial is racist.    

Who is getting the White Privilege?

You lefties are brain dead zombies.


----------



## ColonelAngus

See how the leftists just completely talk out of their asses and ignore all evidence presented in the trial?


----------



## tahuyaman

TNHarley said:


> Im not comparing the two. I thought it was pretty clear i meant a presidential ticket.


When? In 2044?


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.


what law did kyle take into his own hands??
I'll wait,,


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Mr Clean said:


> Lock him up!


Because self defense when threatened by bona fide criminals is illegal.

We all know that...right? It's the leftist way.


----------



## 22lcidw

If it ha snot been said, it is reported on TV the jury is not sequestored. They go home at night. And then they come back to deliberate.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.


We seriously need a 


emoji


----------



## DukeU

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.



And there would be a huge decline in criminals.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Penelope said:


> Everybody had the right to take down an active shooter, and he was.



You are lying.  Why?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

progressive hunter said:


> who are you to tell another where they should or shouldnt be??



Common sense should have told him that he didn't belong there.  Regardless of the verdict, he's learned a hard and painful lesson.  At least, one hopes he has learned.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

aaronleland said:


> Did I say he had no right to be there? No. He was an idiot for being there. He had his mom drive him out of state to drop him off in the middle of a riot so he could play Batman at 17 years old.


He was there to help out a friend whose business was damaged and defaced by rioters.
And I understand Rittenhouse also worked occasionally at that business.

So he was motivated by self interests as well as altruism for his friend.

When a city is under attack by criminals and rioters too bad other people didn't do more to help.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.



What specific evidence presented in the trial convinced you that Kyle was there to randomly murder people?


----------



## DukeU

ColonelAngus said:


> You are lying. Why?



Because the facts are not on their side.

They're for "truth" over facts.


----------



## progressive hunter

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> He was there to help out a friend whose business was damaged and defaced by rioters.
> And I understand Rittenhouse also worked occasionally at that business.
> 
> So he was motivated by self interests as well as altruism for his friend.
> 
> When a city is under attack by criminals and rioters too bad other people didn't do more to help.


you understand it wrong,, the business owners were friends of a friend,,


----------



## the other mike

TNHarley said:


> I bet the left would support him if he killed normal people. You know, instead of kid fuckers, woman abusers and criminals.


A lot of the misinformed out there still believe he shot
some black guys. Joe Biden called him a 'white supremacist'.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Mikey G said:


> A lot of the misinformed out there still believe he shot
> some black guys. Joe Biden called him a 'white supremicist'.




I know you read a lot of fake news.

When did Joe call Rittenhouse a white supremacist?

Find me on google where Joe said, "Rittenhouse is a white supremacist."


----------



## the other mike

Otis Mayfield said:


> I know you read a lot of fake news.
> 
> When did Joe call Rittenhouse a white supremacist?
> 
> Find me on google where Joe said, "Rittenhouse is a white supremacist."











						Psaki Refuses to Explain Why Biden Labeled Rittenhouse a ‘White Supremacist’ | National Review
					

‘What I can reiterate for you is the president’s view that we shouldn’t have…vigilantes patrolling our communities with assault weapons,’ she said.




					www.nationalreview.com
				











						Kyle Rittenhouse's mother slams Joe Biden for 'defam[ing]' her son in exclusive 'Hannity' interview
					

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy, accused President Joe Biden of defaming her son on "Hannity"




					www.foxnews.com
				











						Good Word News | an integrated news site covering all the news from all over the world, with a new vision that covers all the news as it happens from our different sources.
					

Good Word News an integrated news site covering all the news from all over the world, with a new vision that covers all the news as it happens from our different sources.



					goodwordnews.com


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

progressive hunter said:


> you understand it wrong,, the business owners were friends of a friend,,





Eric Arthur Blair said:


> He was there to help out a friend whose business was damaged and defaced by rioters.
> And I understand Rittenhouse also worked occasionally at that business.
> 
> So he was motivated by self interests as well as altruism for his friend.
> 
> When a city is under attack by criminals and rioters too bad other people didn't do more to help.


Nevertheless, the world is now minus one child molester and a woman beater and that's a
real positive difference made by Kyle Rittenhouse (not to mention the piece of shit who had
part of his arm shot off, while trying to kill Kyle).


----------



## jbrownson0831

Otis Mayfield said:


> I know you read a lot of fake news.
> 
> When did Joe call Rittenhouse a white supremacist?
> 
> Find me on google where Joe said, "Rittenhouse is a white supremacist."











						Joe Biden Claims, Without Evidence, Kyle Rittenhouse Is a White Supremacist
					

Joe Biden tweeted a video depicting Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot and killed rioters in Kenosha, as a white supremacist, without any evidence.




					www.breitbart.com


----------



## JohnDB

Look at the votes....
One in 6 chance of a guilty verdict.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Mikey G said:


> A lot of the misinformed out there still believe he shot
> some black guys. Joe Biden called him a 'white supremicist'.


Yeah,  but Joe Biden is a mentally diminished piece of crap. He lies frequently.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

WillHaftawaite said:


> We seriously need a View attachment 564827emoji




 The emoji I am thinking of for Penelope is much more involved.


----------



## the other mike

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Yeah,  but Joe Biden is a mentally diminished piece of crap. He lies frequently.


Politicians like Biden are obligated to lie regularly. 
He wouldn't know how not to lie...it would take years of reprogramming.


----------



## Papageorgio

Penelope said:


> Everybody had the right to take down an active shooter, and he was.


Evidence doesn't matter to you, just politics. 

Rittenhouse a right winger... guilty
Bill Clinton a left winger (ALL THE WOMEN ARE LYING TRAMPS!)... innocent
Kavanaugh a right winger (ALL WOMEN MUST BE BELIEVED!)...guilty.
Biden a left winger (SHE IS LYING!) ...innocent.

I myself, Rittenhouse, Clinton, Kavanaugh, Biden are all innocent, I don't care what the politics are. You keep proving you are one of the Democratic Party's bitches.


----------



## Resnic

Penelope said:


> Everybody had the right to take down an active shooter, and he was.



Please provide proof showing he was an active shooter.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Every victim of a crime shouldn't have been there.  If only the guy who was shoved off a subway platform had taken the bus.  We know how dangerous subways are.  If only that pretty girl had not gone for a walk in the park.  If only that nice young man had not joined the military.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.  Kyle  Rittenhouse did something.


----------



## Papageorgio

Otis Mayfield said:


> I know you read a lot of fake news.
> 
> When did Joe call Rittenhouse a white supremacist?
> 
> Find me on google where Joe said, "Rittenhouse is a white supremacist."











						Psaki Refuses to Explain Why Biden Labeled Rittenhouse a ‘White Supremacist’
					

After the Rittenhouse trial began early this month, Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, appeared on Fox News to say that Biden "defamed" her son when he called him a white supremacist.




					www.yahoo.com
				












						User Clip: Jen Psaki Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Biden Calling Kyle Rittenhouse a 'White Supremacist'
					

Jen Psaki Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Biden Calling Kyle Rittenhouse a 'White Supremacist'




					www.c-span.org


----------



## jbrownson0831

Papageorgio said:


> Psaki Refuses to Explain Why Biden Labeled Rittenhouse a ‘White Supremacist’
> 
> 
> After the Rittenhouse trial began early this month, Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy Rittenhouse, appeared on Fox News to say that Biden "defamed" her son when he called him a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> User Clip: Jen Psaki Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Biden Calling Kyle Rittenhouse a 'White Supremacist'
> 
> 
> Jen Psaki Repeatedly Dodges Questions About Biden Calling Kyle Rittenhouse a 'White Supremacist'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.c-span.org


Hes a denier.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

TNHarley said:


> Rittenhouse/Sandmann 2040


I like the way your devious mind works.  

It reminds me of somebody I know very well.....




*ME.*


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Not guilty on the serious charges.


----------



## armadei

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.



Everyone who attacked Rittenhouse was attempting to take the law into their own hands and you're defending them, you midwit.


----------



## JohnDB

DigitalDrifter said:


> Not guilty on the serious charges.


There are none that are not serious....all others have been removed from consideration.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> It is appalling that so many dumb leftards think the dead people Kyle shot were BLACK.


It's class warfare dressed up as racial warfare.

They know the whole class warfare thing doesn't work in America.  

Thus, Critical Theory had to morph into Critical Race Theory. 

They are so fucking transparent that it's almost insulting.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Lefties claim racism, but they cannot articulate how this trial is racist.

Lefties.  Explain to us very specifically how this is a racist trial.


----------



## DrLove

My guess is three days of deliberation. Guilty of second degree intentional homicide and reckless endangerment.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

RetiredGySgt said:


> They TRIED to kill Rittenhouse.


And that's just a lone, scared shitless 17-year-old kid with limited experience and training.  

Imagine what the rest of us can do when fight mode takes over.  

There was a scene from the video footage that the defense lawyer played for the jury during closing arguments that shows Kyle running down the street with no less than 10 pursuers right before the first guy hit him in the head with a rock and knocked him to the ground.  A person with training would have turned and advanced on the mob ready to fire on them BEFORE they got close enough to touch him. 

In fact, that action might have saved lives because the pursuit would have ended right there.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Question for the left:

Why do you side with people who burn and loot and get violent in the streets?

Simple question.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> My guess is three days of deliberation. Guilty of second degree intentional homicide and reckless endangerment.


Jeez.

Explain yourself.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DigitalDrifter said:


> Question for the left:
> 
> Why do you side with people who burn and loot and get violent in the streets?
> 
> Simple question.


Because it's part of their communist revolution that will never actually happen because we have guns that will rip them apart.


----------



## the other mike

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It's class warfare dressed up as racial warfare.
> 
> They know the whole class warfare thing doesn't work in America.
> 
> Thus, Critical Theory had to morph into Critical Race Theory.
> 
> They are so fucking transparent that it's almost insulting.


Good point.
We basically went from protesting the Iraq War in '03 -'04 which the MSM ignored.......to Occupy Wall Street - which made everyone scared of pepper spray, to the George Floyd riots. (eventually culminating into Jan 6th)

The revolution won't be televised, kids.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Jeez.
> 
> Explain yourself.


He is a butthurt delusional lefty. I hope thee Judge explained to the Jury that simply carry a firearm is not a threat.


----------



## blackhawk

To riot or not to riot that is the question? By the jury’s verdict we will see which it shall be.


----------



## DrLove

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is a butthurt delusional lefty. I hope thee Judge explained to the Jury that simply carry a firearm is not a threat.


Sorry dude, Baby Kyle went looking for trouble and he found it without question.


----------



## DrLove

DigitalDrifter said:


> Question for the left:
> 
> Why do you side with people who burn and loot and get violent in the streets?
> 
> Simple question.


I don't side with anyone who burns or loots. 
I also don't sign with self-appointed vigilantes who go looking for trouble and play judge, jury and executioner.


----------



## Penelope

armadei said:


> Everyone who attacked Rittenhouse was attempting to take the law into their own hands and you're defending them, you midwit.


I don't see it take way, vigilantes is what he is , taking the law into his hands.


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> I don't see it take way, vigilantes is what he is , taking the law into his hands.


what law did he take into his own hands??


----------



## Resnic

Penelope said:


> I don't see it take way, vigilantes is what he is , taking the law into his hands.



Please provide us with proof where he took the law into his own hands.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> Sorry dude, Baby Kyle went looking for trouble and he found it without question.


Trouble went looking for him and trouble....was no trouble at all.

You mad?

Why don't you explain yourself?  Got NOTHING?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Penelope said:


> I don't see it take way, vigilantes is what he is , taking the law into his hands.


So, he has no right to stop a mob of rioting thugs from beating him to death?

FUCK YOU!!!!


----------



## ColonelAngus

Why will black people riot for a white person getting acquitted of killing white people?

What does this have to do with racism?


----------



## Penelope

Resnic said:


> Please provide us with proof where he took the law into his own hands.


Its not in  dispute he was a vigilante.


----------



## Penelope

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, he has no right to stop a mob of rioting thugs from beating him to death?
> 
> FUCK YOU!!!!


He shot and killed 2 people and wounded another, he is guilty of everything.

F--k you, only in your dreams.


----------



## Rambunctious

If Kyle is guilty I count about five good reasons for an appeal based on the way the prosecutor tried this case...


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> Its not in  dispute he was a vigilante.


then you shouldnt have a problem telling us what law he was enforcing??


----------



## Hugo Furst

DrLove said:


> I don't side with anyone who burns or loots.
> I also don't sign with self-appointed vigilantes who go looking for trouble and play judge, jury and executioner.


He was a vigilante?  He went in shooting?


----------



## 22lcidw

DrLove said:


> Sorry dude, Baby Kyle went looking for trouble and he found it without question.


He took out two of the enemy and wounded a third. Pretty good. We just live in a nation where the true rulers are the Progs at this moment. Mainly because they have had little pushback. There are many millions more with that potential who are in the Deplorable category.  They have done nothing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Penelope said:


> He shot and killed 2 people and wounded another, he is guilty of everything.


So, if he had let them beat him to death, he would be not guilty?

Why do I bother with you?

You are mad because he used an evil black rifle in self defense and that make you shit your pants with fear and anger.

Admit it.


----------



## Resnic

Penelope said:


> Its not in  dispute he was a vigilante.



Again, provide proof please where he took the law into his own hands.


----------



## Penelope

progressive hunter said:


> then you shouldnt have a problem telling us what law he was enforcing??


self cop!!


----------



## the other mike

The defense attorney dragged the closing arguments out over 2 hours, and put the jury to sleep , which may have hurt Kyle's case a little toward the end, but I think the jury will sleep on it one night and tomorrow morning find him not guilty.

If and when he's acquitted, I wonder how the media will react -- will they just put it to bed or try to fuel more unrest ?


----------



## Resnic

Penelope said:


> He shot and killed 2 people and wounded another, he is guilty of everything.
> 
> F--k you, only in your dreams.



Why did he kill 2 people and wound another one? What happened to cause this?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> I don't side with anyone who burns or loots.
> I also don't sign with self-appointed vigilantes who go looking for trouble and play judge, jury and executioner.


Well maybe if THOSE FUCKING COMMIE FUCKTARDS had not attempted to play judge, juror, and executioner, they would still be alive.

You have no argument here based in fact, law, or general reason.  You are a cluefuck.  You are parroting what your left-wing media masters command.


----------



## the other mike

Penelope said:


> self cop!!


We  need a lot more apparently.
Just like Kyle . ( not all lifeguards though )


----------



## Hugo Furst

Penelope said:


> self cop!!


^^^^^

Proof we have people posting from Mars


----------



## Penelope

Resnic said:


> Again, provide proof please where he took the law into his own hands.


Did you listen to the trial, they you know he took the law into his own hands.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Penelope said:


> He shot and killed 2 people and wounded another, he is guilty of everything.
> 
> F--k you, only in your dreams.



You do not know much about the legal system in the US, do you?

Was Kyle in illegal possession of the gun?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Penelope said:


> Did you listen to the trial, they you know he took the law into his own hands.



Why did you bother listening to the trial?

Your mind was made up long before it started.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Penelope said:


> He shot and killed 2 people and wounded another,


*IN SELF-DEFENSE!!!!*


----------



## Penelope

Resnic said:


> Why did he kill 2 people and wound another one? What happened to cause this?


They were trying to subdue a live shooter and after he shot the first guy and he was not defending himself.


----------



## Penelope

WillHaftawaite said:


> Why did you bother listening to the trial?
> 
> Your mind was made up long before it started.


I did and my mind is made up after the trial.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Penelope said:


> Did you listen to the trial, they you know he took the law into his own hands.


Grosskreutz is not from Kenosha and he was in ILLEGAL possession of a handgun.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

ColonelAngus said:


> What will the verdict be?
> 
> How long will the jury deliberate?
> 
> This should wrap up soon.


He is not guilty. Only reason the jury may take time is because some may be nervous regarding repercussions from deranged leftists.


----------



## Penelope

Mikey G said:


> We  need a lot more apparently.
> Just like Kyle . ( not all lifeguards though )


Lets hope that don't happen, you seen Jan 6th didn't you.


----------



## Resnic

Penelope said:


> Did you listen to the trial, they you know he took the law into his own hands.



Yes I did.

Again, what law did he take into his own hands? Why did he shoot them?


----------



## Hugo Furst

Penelope said:


> I did and my mind is made up after the trial.



Before and after.

anything you heard went in one ear and out the other.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Penelope said:


> Did you listen to the trial, they you know he took the law into his own hands.


Go there was his right, Carrying a firearm was his right and not a threat, being attacked by 3 thugs made his actions self defense as SHOWN by the evidence presented at trial. If you WATCHRD it you would know this. if on the other hand you relied on the press that night you wouldn't since they lied repeatedly on what was said and covered that day.


----------



## Votto

ColonelAngus said:


> What will the verdict be?
> 
> How long will the jury deliberate?
> 
> This should wrap up soon.


I put neither of those

I said the jury will come out and say, "Let's go Brandon!" and go home.


----------



## Mr Natural

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> *IN SELF-DEFENSE!!!!*


Having Mommy drive you and your gun out of state to attend a demonstration that has nothing to do with you has nothing to do with self defense.  That kind of behavior is called looking for trouble.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> Was Kyle in illegal possession of the gun?


No, he was not.

As I have said many times, the law against minors in possession of "dangerous weapons" only applied to Short-Barreled Rifles (barrel length shorter than 16 inches).  

The prosecution HAD POSSESSION OF THE FUCKING RIFLE!!!  They had no reason to NOT measure it and narrow charges accordingly.

It is prosecutorial misconduct to have included that charge because it had NO BASIS in law or fact.  

*Somebody *should be sanctioned, fined, and suspended by the state bar of Wisconsin for that shit.  Little Binger (little finger) gets my nomination.


----------



## Penelope

RetiredGySgt said:


> Go there was his right, Carrying a firearm was his right and not a threat, being attacked by 3 thugs made his actions self defense as SHOWN by the evidence presented at trial. If you WATCHRD it you would know this. if on the other hand you relied on the press that night you wouldn't since they lied repeatedly on what was said and covered that day.


The 3 thugs were not attacking him, he attacked them.


----------



## Yarddog

I'm pretty sure it was a clear case of self defense, but I have a feeling the jury might cave in to outside pressures here. I hope not


----------



## ColonelAngus

Mr Clean said:


> Having Mommy drive you and your gun out of state to attend a demonstration that has nothing to do with you has nothing to do with self defense.  That kind of behavior is called looking for trouble.



Just like the dead guys.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Mr Clean said:


> Having Mommy drive you and your gun out of state


You do not know the facts AT ALL.  This is why you should just shut the fuck up.

It was INDISPUTED that the rifle never left Wisconsin.



Mr Clean said:


> to attend a demonstration that has nothing to do with you has nothing to do with self defense.


until asshole criminals attempt to surround, corner, and beat the shit out of you?



Mr Clean said:


> That kind of behavior is called looking for trouble


And what do you call the behavior of the others?  Looking for trouble?

Self-defense is not predicated on a baseless, unproved allegation of "looking for trouble."


----------



## Doc7505

TheGreatSatan said:


> I would like to see a movement to build a huge Kyle monument.  He is a real life American hero.  We need more Kyles in this country.




He took out the garbage.


----------



## the other mike

Penelope said:


> Lets hope that don't happen, you seen Jan 6th didn't you.


Pelosi let it happen.
There were 15,000 National Guard in the area told to stand down . Why ?









						Trump wanted troops to protect his supporters at Jan. 6 rally
					

President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.




					www.reuters.com
				



Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.

Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Democrat who chairs the committee, demanded answers from Miller on why National Guard troops did not arrive until hours after the building was overrun.


----------



## DrLove

WillHaftawaite said:


> He was a vigilante?  He went in shooting?


Affirmative - If hanging out with a Boogaloo Boi ain't lookin' for trouble - NOTHING is.


----------



## Yarddog

Penelope said:


> The 3 thugs were not attacking him, he attacked them.




What video did you watch? yuou must have missed the one where he was running away right?  Why was your boy who got shot carrying a piece of chainlink in his hand? you know people use chain like that to hit other people with right?  Why were your peaceful protesters out looking for violence?


----------



## EvMetro

progressive hunter said:


> then you shouldnt have a problem telling us what law he was enforcing??


We know Penelope is NEVER going to cite any laws, lol..


----------



## Penelope

Yarddog said:


> I'm pretty sure it was a clear case of self defense, but I have a feeling the jury might cave in to outside pressures here. I hope not


Outside pressure from the supremacist.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Penelope said:


> They were trying to subdue a live shooter and after he shot the first guy and he was not defending himself.


The undisputed evidence not only disagrees with you, but also calls you a damn fool.


----------



## Hugo Furst

DrLove said:


> Affirmative - If hanging out with a Boogaloo Boi ain't lookin' for trouble - NOTHING is.



He was carrying an AR-15 with either a 10 or a 30 round magazine, and only shot 4 times?

He didn't shoot til he was attacked?

Defeats your claim.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> Affirmative - If hanging out with a Boogaloo Boi ain't lookin' for trouble - NOTHING is.


And what were the guys he shot doing?  

Looking for trouble?

Just what the fuck is your retarded argument here?


----------



## Yarddog

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, he was not.
> 
> As I have said many times, the law against minors in possession of "dangerous weapons" only applied to Short-Barreled Rifles (barrel length shorter than 16 inches).
> 
> The prosecution HAD POSSESSION OF THE FUCKING RIFLE!!!  They had no reason to NOT measure it and narrow charges accordingly.
> 
> It is prosecutorial misconduct to have included that charge because it had NO BASIS in law or fact.
> 
> *Somebody *should be sanctioned, fined, and suspended by the state bar of Wisconsin for that shit.  Little Binger (little finger) gets my nomination.




He also had every right to be there. Just as much right as any protestor.


----------



## Papageorgio

Penelope said:


> They were trying to subdue a live shooter and after he shot the first guy and he was not defending himself.


So if a guy comes after you with the intent to kill, which one person admitted doing, you are allowed to defend yourself. The video and testimony tells us that is what happened. Your active shooter scenario is irrelevant because the active shooter was defending himself from those that wanted to kill him.


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And what were the guys he shot doing?
> 
> Looking for trouble?
> 
> Just what the fuck is your retarded argument here?


HELL yes they were quite literally ITCHING for trouble!


----------



## DrLove

WillHaftawaite said:


> He was carrying an AR-15 with either a 10 or a 30 round magazine, and only shot 4 times?
> 
> He didn't shoot til he was attacked?
> 
> Defeats your claim.


We're gonna have to disagree Will. The ONLY reason Baby Kyle may walk is this redneck judge.


----------



## progressive hunter

Penelope said:


> self cop!!


what law was he enforcing?? its a simple question,,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Now, according to the retards like Dr. Love and Penny, anyone who acts in self-defense while in LEGAL possession of a firearm is "looking for trouble" and not entitled to a self-defense privilege.

This is EXACTLY what I told you all MONTHS ago.  It's not that he acted in self-defense that bothers them.  It's the fact that he LEGALLLY used a firearm and that makes the both angry and afraid. 

GOOD.

BE AFRAID, BITHCES!


----------



## EvMetro

DrLove said:


> Affirmative - If hanging out with a Boogaloo Boi ain't lookin' for trouble - NOTHING is.


That picture is propaganda, which is all lefties really have in this case.   The image does not show illegal activity.


----------



## Papageorgio

DrLove said:


> Sorry dude, Baby Kyle went looking for trouble and he found it without question.


He found it and so did the others involved in the shooting. It looks like self defense, to me and I think he will walk the prosecution just had a weak case and should not of tried to hit the home run but should have followed lesser charges.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> We're gonna have to disagree Will. The ONLY reason Baby Kyle may walk is this redneck judge.


God, you are stupid.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mr Clean said:


> Having Mommy drive you and your gun out of state to attend a demonstration that has nothing to do with you has nothing to do with self defense.  That kind of behavior is called looking for trouble.


Again for the slow and painfully slow he did NOT cross state lines with the rifle.


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, he has no right to stop a mob of rioting thugs from beating him to death?
> 
> FUCK YOU!!!!


They were attempting to take away a gun from what they reasonably considered to be an active shooter.


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> God, you are stupid.


I've read too many of your posts to believe you're smart.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> They were attempting to take away a gun from what they reasonably considered to be an active shooter.


Really?

How did they know he was an active shooter?  

You didn't watch the testimony, did you?  

You are a fucking parrot.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Penelope said:


> The 3 thugs were not attacking him, he attacked them.


LOL and you claim you watched the trial all 3 attacked Kyle after chasing him down.


----------



## Hugo Furst

DrLove said:


> We're gonna have to disagree Will. The ONLY reason Baby Kyle may walk is this redneck judge.





DrLove said:


> The ONLY reason Baby Kyle may walk is this redneck judge.



The 'redneck' judge, (if he is one), has nothing to do with the verdict. 12 jurors do.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> Affirmative - If hanging out with a Boogaloo Boi ain't lookin' for trouble - NOTHING is.




The first person to fire a weapons was one of the filthy ass BLM mob.  Kyle was attacked by a BLM asshole illegally carrying a Glock.

Then you have deranged Skateboard Sketter who tried to bash Kyle's head in.

However, nothing to worry about Moon Bat.

The goddamn Negro made it the final jury selection.  Kyle is fucked.

VERDICT WATCH: almost 1.5 hours into deliberating the fate of #KyleRittenhouse the jury requests 11 more copies of the complicated jury instructions...

THE JURY: 
- 7 Women
- 5 Men
- 1 Person of Color
- 6 Alternates on standby@courttv


----------



## Opie

There will be about 1 hour for each charge and a NOT GUILTY ver will be brought back


----------



## Yarddog

DrLove said:


> Affirmative - If hanging out with a Boogaloo Boi ain't lookin' for trouble - NOTHING is.





He was only guilty of having a strong sense of community. He went out into the street probably not quite knowing what he was getting into.... thats true. Just like a lot of 17 year olds who sign up for the Marine Corp or army out of an emotional sense of patriotism.... 
Was he looking to just go out and shoot people?   there is no evidence of that whatsoever


----------



## Mr Natural

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again for the slow and painfully slow he did NOT cross state lines with the rifle.


Where did he get it?


----------



## Resnic

Penelope said:


> The 3 thugs were not attacking him, he attacked them.



Please provide proof of this.

During the trial you said you watched they had witnesses say they attacked him, they showed video footage them them chasing him and knocking him down and hitting him with a skateboard, and one of them pointing a gun at him all before he shot them, and the guy who got shot by Kyle admitted on the stand under oath he pulled his gun and pointed it at Kyle first.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Mr Clean said:


> Where did he get it?


Only a person with no information about this topic would ask that question.


----------



## ColonelAngus

The weapons charges were dropped.

KYLE WAS IN LEGAL POSSESSION OF THE GUN.

You lefties, STOP FUCKING LYING.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Mr Clean said:


> Where did he get it?



It was kept at the house of the straw buyer.


----------



## Yarddog

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Now, according to the retards like Dr. Love and Penny, anyone who acts in self-defense while in LEGAL possession of a firearm is "looking for trouble" and not entitled to a self-defense privilege.
> 
> This is EXACTLY what I told you all MONTHS ago.  It's not that he acted in self-defense that bothers them.  It's the fact that he LEGALLLY used a firearm and that makes the both angry and afraid.
> 
> GOOD.
> 
> BE AFRAID, BITHCES!




Their error is based in a misunderstanding of firearms and why people own them in the first place I believe.


----------



## DrLove

Papageorgio said:


> He found it and so did the others involved in the shooting. It looks like self defense, to me and I think he will walk the prosecution just had a weak case and should not of tried to hit the home run but should have followed lesser charges.


Lesser charges are still on the table. Reckless endangerment and second degree homicide. I will say that the prosecutor sucked, although his closing argument was solid. This judge is beyond redneck. The outcome he wants has become quite clear. Leading applause for a defense witness who happened to be a veteran? Please.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Resnic said:


> Please provide proof of this.
> 
> During the trial you said you watched they had witnesses say they attacked him, they showed video footage them them chasing him and knocking him down and hitting him with a skateboard, and one of them pointing a gun at him all before he shot them, and the guy who got shot by Kyle admitted on the stand under oath he pulled his gun and pointed it at Kyle first.



She is a troll or a tard.


----------



## Yarddog

DrLove said:


> We're gonna have to disagree Will. The ONLY reason Baby Kyle may walk is this redneck judge.




I think that judge was appointed by a Democrat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

There are a bunch of uniformed twats in this thread making comments without any factual support, apparently relying solely on CNN to tell them what to think.  

I won't bother listing these idiots.  They have exposed themselves quite nicely.


----------



## the other mike

Mikey G said:


> Psaki Refuses to Explain Why Biden Labeled Rittenhouse a ‘White Supremacist’ | National Review
> 
> 
> ‘What I can reiterate for you is the president’s view that we shouldn’t have…vigilantes patrolling our communities with assault weapons,’ she said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nationalreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse's mother slams Joe Biden for 'defam[ing]' her son in exclusive 'Hannity' interview
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse's mother, Wendy, accused President Joe Biden of defaming her son on "Hannity"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.foxnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good Word News | an integrated news site covering all the news from all over the world, with a new vision that covers all the news as it happens from our different sources.
> 
> 
> Good Word News an integrated news site covering all the news from all over the world, with a new vision that covers all the news as it happens from our different sources.
> 
> 
> 
> goodwordnews.com


No reply Otis Mayfield  ?
You run and hide when proven wrong 
like all your hypocrite friends on the left ?


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> They were attempting to take away a gun from what they reasonably considered to be an active shooter.


It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.
No meaningful definition of active shooter covers what Rittenhouse did.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mr Clean said:


> Where did he get it?


From someone IN the State, which you would knw if you actually watched any of the trial or learned the facts.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Penelope said:


> The 3 thugs were not attacking him, he attacked them.


You apparently are completely ignorant of the evidence presented at the trial.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> HELL yes they were quite literally ITCHING for trouble!


If so, why were only people shot those that threatened Rittenhouse?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Penelope said:


> Everybody had the right to take down an active shooter, and he was.


He shot in self defense and soon will be acquitted of all charges against him, if not already declared innocent. 

Even for you your post is exceedingly stupid and erroneous.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

M14 Shooter said:


> If so, why were only people shot those that threatened Rittenhouse?


Dr. Love is thinking with his emotions, not reason.  He is mad because a guy with a gun rightfully defended himself against Dr. Love's communist ilk.


----------



## DrLove

Yarddog said:


> I think that judge was appointed by a Democrat.



You are correct. Democrats have made some horrible mistakes. This was one of them. Of course, the guy could have been considered reasonable back when he was appointed, and simply become senile since. 

Tony Earl​Former Governor of Wisconsin


Description​Description​Anthony Scully Earl is an American politician and a member of the Democratic party and served as the 41st Governor of Wisconsin from 1983 until 1987. He graduated from Michigan State University in 1958 and earned a J.D. from the University of Chicago.Wikipedia
Born: April 12, 1936 (age 85 years), Lansing, MI
Spouse: Sheila Coyle
Party: Democratic Party
Previous office: Governor of Wisconsin (1983–1987)
Education: Michigan State University, The University of Chicago


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Mikey G said:


> No reply Otis Mayfield  ?
> You run and hide when proven wrong
> like all your hypocrite friends on the left ?



*Biden posted a video on Twitter with a comment saying President Donald Trump “refused to disavow white supremacists” during the debate Tuesday night. The video plays the audio of moderator Chris Wallace asking Trump if he’ll condemn white supremacist and militia groups and ask them to not add to violence during protests, pointing to examples in Portland, Oregon, and Kenosha, Wisconsin. The video includes a photo and footage of 17-year-old Rittenhouse during protests in Kenosha on Aug. 25, the night he’s accused of killing two people and wounding a third, according to The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.




			https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/national/article246142010.html
		

*

So a campaign commercial was put on Twitter.

No where in it does Joe Biden say Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist.

How am I wrong?

Stop consuming fake news.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Lefties, if these 3 men were trying to disarm an ACTIVE SHOOTER, why were they the only ones shot?

You lying fucks are too stupid to consider this?


----------



## ColonelAngus

How is this trial racist when it is about white on white crime?

Lefties, your pretzel logic is fucking retarded.


----------



## the other mike

Otis Mayfield said:


> No where in it does Joe Biden say Kyle Rittenhouse is a white supremacist.


Me and 2 others posted 5 or 6 articles about it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> You are correct. Democrats have made some horrible mistakes. This was one of them. Of course, the guy could have been considered reasonable back when he was appointed, and simply become senile since.
> 
> Tony Earl​Former Governor of Wisconsin
> View attachment 564850
> 
> Description​Description​Anthony Scully Earl is an American politician and a member of the Democratic party and served as the 41st Governor of Wisconsin from 1983 until 1987. He graduated from Michigan State University in 1958 and earned a J.D. from the University of Chicago.Wikipedia
> Born: April 12, 1936 (age 85 years), Lansing, MI
> Spouse: Sheila Coyle
> Party: Democratic Party
> Previous office: Governor of Wisconsin (1983–1987)
> Education: Michigan State University, The University of Chicago


Be specific and tell us what egregious things the Judge did? Are you made he stopped the prosecutor from violating Kyles Constitutional rights? Mad he stopped the prosecutor from claiming hiring a lawyer made you untrustworthy? I see you are made he appreciates Veterans.


----------



## Flash

UPDATE: Judge Schroeder said the jury asked for copies of pages 1 through 6 of the jury instructions, and were provided 11 additional copies.  Pages 1 thought 6 appear to focus the self defense aspects of the case.@CourtTV https://t.co/uJglXbUQBX


----------



## the other mike

Otis Mayfield 
In September of last year, then Democratic presidential nominee Biden criticized incumbent President Trump on Twitter for refusing to condemn anti-BLM actors as “white supremacists.” The tweet text was accompanied by a video which showed an image of Rittenhouse’s face.








						Psaki Refuses to Explain Why Biden Labeled Rittenhouse a ‘White Supremacist’ | National Review
					

‘What I can reiterate for you is the president’s view that we shouldn’t have…vigilantes patrolling our communities with assault weapons,’ she said.




					www.nationalreview.com


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> If so, why were only people shot those that threatened Rittenhouse?


Your arguments for this little prick are stupid. He shouldn't have been there, least of all with his "cool" gun.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flash said:


> UPDATE: Judge Schroeder said the jury asked for copies of pages 1 through 6 of the jury instructions, and were provided 11 additional copies.  Pages 1 thought 6 appear to focus the self defense aspects of the case.@CourtTV https://t.co/uJglXbUQBX


That means they are looking at it and considering it first.

This is probably over in 1-2 hours with a not-guilty verdict.


----------



## DrLove

Flash said:


> UPDATE: Judge Schroeder said the jury asked for copies of pages 1 through 6 of the jury instructions, and were provided 11 additional copies.  Pages 1 thought 6 appear to focus the self defense aspects of the case.@CourtTV https://t.co/uJglXbUQBX


This tells us, well ... Nothing


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> Your arguments for this little prick are stupid. He shouldn't have been there, least of all with his "cool" gun.


And the truth reveals itself.

 

So fucking transparent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> Your arguments for this little prick are stupid. He shouldn't have been there, least of all with his "cool" gun.


Be specific and cite for us what other rights we aren't allowed to have if you get mad?


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> Your arguments for this little prick are stupid. He shouldn't have been there, least of all with his "cool" gun.



Why were the dead guys there?

What law did Kyle break by being there?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW LAWS WORK?

Cite the statute Kyle violated by his mere presence in Kenosha that day.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> Why were the dead guys there?
> 
> What law did Kyle break by being there?
> 
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW LAWS WORK?
> 
> Cite the statute Kyle violated by his mere presence in Kenosha that day.


He is mad because Kyle proved that an AR15 is a very effective defense weapon and shot down ANY hope of a bullshit "assault weapons" ban.

And Kyle shot some commie filth.  That also made Dr. Love mad.

Right, Doc?


----------



## Papageorgio

DrLove said:


> Lesser charges are still on the table. Reckless endangerment and second degree homicide. I will say that the prosecutor sucked, although his closing argument was solid. This judge is beyond redneck. The outcome he wants has become quite clear. Leading applause for a defense witness who happened to be a veteran? Please.


The prosecution should never of tried the case. It is a weak case and I think he was either pressured or wanted to make a name for himself.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Did Rittenhouse's friend give him the gun for vigilantism or for self defense?
Did the prosecution prove that Rittenhouse was a vigilante?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Do we have a right to self-defense with a firearm or do we not have that right?

Go on record now.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> Your arguments for this little prick are stupid. He shouldn't have been there, least of all with his "cool" gun.




You are confused Moon Bat.

The BLM/ANTIFA scum shouldn't have been there burning and destroying.   The shithead mob  should not have tried to kill Kyle.  Is that so hard for little pricks like you to understand?

Kyle had the charges of curfew violation AND having the AR dropped because neither was against the law.  He had just as much a right to be there as any of the insurrectionist shitheads.


----------



## DrLove

ColonelAngus said:


> Why were the dead guys there?
> 
> What law did Kyle break by being there?
> 
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW LAWS WORK?
> 
> Cite the statute Kyle violated by his mere presence in Kenosha that day.



If Baby Kyle hadn't been there with his "cool gun" two guys would be alive and another would still have his bicep.


----------



## Flash

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That means they are looking at it and considering it first.
> 
> This is probably over in 1-2 hours with a not-guilty verdict.




It depends if there are any Left Wing assholes on the jury.  Cases like this are won or lost on jury selection, even if there a random element to it.

The Prosecution did not present a very compelling case.  In fact it was terrible.  The Prosecution stating that Kyle should have just taken a beating was one of the most despicable things I have ever heard.

It was self defense.  Absolutely no question about it.  If there are no jury members that want to make this a political trial or who might be afraid of being beaten up by Negroes then the jury will be do the right thing and find him innocent.


----------



## struth

eagle1462010 said:


> They will get him misdeameaner weapons charges which will be a sentence of no time in jail


Judge already dismissed that charge.


----------



## struth

DrLove said:


> If Baby Kyle hadn't been there with his "cool gun" two guys would be alive and another would still have his bicep.


maybe 

they likely would have attempted to murder someone else though and ended in a similar manner


----------



## Resnic

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Did Rittenhouse's friend give him the gun for vigilantism or for self defense?
> Did the prosecution prove that Rittenhouse was a vigilante?



Neither matters in this instance.

3 men as a group went after a 17 year old kid, they chased him, knocked him down, hit him with a skateboard, and pointed a gun at him, all that happened before he shot them.

That isn't being a vigilante, that is being attacked by a group of people trying to kill you and defending your own life. Honestly he went longer without shooting them than a lot of people in his situation would have. A lot would have fired soon as the chasing started.


----------



## bodecea

RetiredGySgt said:


> They TRIED to kill Rittenhouse.


No they didn't.....he was the aggressor.  But, as the judge's new BFF, he'll get off.  A new Zimmerman for the Right to canonize.


----------



## Mac-7

DrLove said:


> Sorry dude, Baby Kyle went looking for trouble and he found it without question.


Baby kyle took out two of your kind with no problem


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

I think that the threats of riots from the Violent Left Wing Extremists and Biden's "white supremist" comment, and Psaki's "vigilante" comment will influence the jury and for that reason Rittenhouse will not walk, they will convict him of something.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Penelope said:


> He shot and killed 2 people and wounded another, he is guilty of everything.
> 
> F--k you, only in your dreams.



  They attacked him first.
What was he supposed to do let them kill him?
   Oh....nobody wants to fuck you.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Resnic said:


> Neither matters in this instance.
> 
> 3 men as a group went after a 17 year old kid, they chased him, knocked him down, hit him with a skateboard, and pointed a gun at him, all that happened before he shot them.
> 
> That isn't being a vigilante, that is being attacked by a group of people trying to kill you and defending your own life. Honestly he went longer without shooting them than a lot of people in his situation would have. A lot would have fired soon as the chasing started.


I don't believe that Rittenhouse was a vigilante, but the jury might think that.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Your arguments for this little prick are stupid. He shouldn't have been there, least of all with his "cool" gun.


You failed to address the question.
I'll ask again:
If so, why were only people shot those that threatened Rittenhouse?


----------



## Mr Natural

HereWeGoAgain said:


> What was he supposed to do let them kill him?


He could have stayed home and watched it on TV like a normal person.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> If Baby Kyle hadn't been there with his "cool gun"


Why does insulting Rittehnhouse make you feel better?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Penelope said:


> The 3 thugs were not attacking him, he attacked them.



  He was running away from them turnip brain.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Mr Clean said:


> He could have stayed home and watched it on TV like a normal person.



Same can be said for the dead guys.


----------



## The Original Tree

DrLove said:


> If Baby Kyle hadn't been there with his "cool gun" two guys would be alive and another would still have his bicep.


*Only they had guns and fired at Kyle without provocation making them criminals and rioters.*


----------



## ColonelAngus

Moral of the story?

Dont attack the guy holding a gun.

The dead scumbags are a cautionary tale.

Lefties, your 15 months of LIES about this case have been exposed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> I don't believe that Rittenhouse was a vigilante, but the jury might think that.


And no facts supported that conclusion, which would support a JNOV.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Only a person with no information about this topic would ask that question.



  That and the fact that the judge dropped that charge.


----------



## the other mike

The judge should have sequestered the jury.


----------



## BackAgain

ColonelAngus said:


> What will the verdict be?
> 
> How long will the jury deliberate?
> 
> This should wrap up soon.


It’s tough to predict jury verdicts. I may be correct in Asserting what it ought to be. But juries often do their own things.

In theory and hopefully in practice, in this case — based on the credible evidence and what the law actually says — the verdict ought to be, across the board,

 “NOT GUILTY.”


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

If I am the judge, I give this jury another 2 hours to deliberate, and if they cannot reach a verdict, I would grant a directed verdict in favor of the defense.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.



Even then, Rittenhouse should've remained with the other militia members, instead he ran off into a crowd of hostile demonstrators.

The militia members didn't back him up.

Rittenhouse was very much on his own. Very stupid.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Mr Clean said:


> He could have stayed home and watched it on TV like a normal person.



  Thats a fucken stupid comment.
The same could be said about the pedo and the felon that had his bicep vaporized.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> If Baby Kyle hadn't been there with his "cool gun" two guys would be alive and another would still have his bicep.


You are Confused Moon Bat.  It was Jump Kick Man, a fucking piece of shit criminal Negro, that started this shit.

Why isn't "Jump Kick Man" being prosecuted?  He is the one that really started everything.

The Disturbing Story of the Rittenhouse Case's Mysterious 'Jump Kick Man' | News/Talk 1130 WISN | Dan O'Donnell

Jump Kick Man, whose attack on Rittenhouse (and Rittenhouse's subsequent response) arguably led to both Huber's and Grosskreutz's actions (and Rittenhouse's response to them), has never been identified--until now.

"The Dan O'Donnell Show" can now report exclusively that Jump Kick Man is a 40-year-old Black male from Kenosha with an extensive criminal record who was at the time of the Rittenhouse shootings on probation following a conviction for domestic violence battery.  He faced a maximum sentence of nine months in jail, but less than two months before he kicked Rittenhouse, he accepted a plea deal that netted him 12 months' probation.  The following year, he violated the terms of his probation and was sentenced to seven months in jail.

Had Jump Kick Man been sentenced to even two months in jail instead of probation, he would not have been in Kenosha the night of the shootings.  His kick, which prompted Rittenhouse to fire two shots at him, may well have provoked Huber to strike Rittenhouse with his skateboard a second time, causing Rittenhouse to shoot and kill him.   That in turn prompted Grosskreutz to advance on Rittenhouse and draw his handgun on him, which caused Rittenhouse to shoot him in the arm.

Jump Kick Man's actions likely set these events in motion, and thus had he not been on the streets of Kenosha that night, it is entirely possible that Huber and Grosskreutz would not have been shot.


----------



## BackAgain

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> If I am the judge, I give this jury another 2 hours to deliberate, and if they cannot reach a verdict, I would grant a directed verdict in favor of the defense.


I know that in Wisconsin a court can require a “special verdict,” as they refer to it.  I don’t know if that applies to their criminal cases though. I think it would have been useful to instruct them in the law of justification (muddled and complicated though they make it) and then ask a special verdict question like “do you find that the People have disproved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense of ‘justification’?” 

If yes, the judge could then direct the verdict on not guilty. Of course, if they say yes, the jury should acquit anyway.


----------



## BackAgain

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.


Why “should” he not have been there in the first place?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> If Baby Kyle hadn't been there with his "cool gun" two guys would be alive and another would still have his bicep.


If they hadn't ATTACKED him they would have been alive too.


----------



## BackAgain

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)


Riiight. A fair judge is really bothersome when you liberals have already made your predetermined decisions and fair rulings might get in the way of your desired outcome.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

bodecea said:


> No they didn't.....he was the aggressor.  But, as the judge's new BFF, he'll get off.  A new Zimmerman for the Right to canonize.


Another RETARD that didn't watch the trial.


----------



## Papageorgio

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)


I suppose you also believe that Biden stole the election?


----------



## Mac-7

RetiredGySgt said:


> If they hadn't ATTACKED him they would have been alive too.


The two missing rioters will not be missed

America is a better place without them


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Mr Clean said:


> He could have stayed home and watched it on TV like a normal person.


It was his RIGHT to be there.


----------



## struth

bodecea said:


> No they didn't.....he was the aggressor.  But, as the judge's new BFF, he'll get off.  A new Zimmerman for the Right to canonize.


Can you point me to the evidence that supports your claim?  The State's own witness, the alledged victim, stated he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse first.









						Did Shooting Survivor of Kyle Rittenhouse Say Survivor Pointed Gun First?
					

Supporters of Rittenhouse, who's on trial for murder, framed the alleged statement as evidence of his innocence.




					www.snopes.com


----------



## Lisa558

If the jury follows the law regarding self-defense and the standard ”beyond a reasonable doubt,” they should come back within hours with an acquittal on all charges.

It remains to be seen if the left’s threat of violence if the white kid isn’t made a scapegoat has an impact on the jury.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Lefties completely nailed after 15 months of lies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> If they hadn't ATTACKED him they would have been alive too.


You can disagree all you want dr stupid but the EVIDENCE was CLEAR in all 3 cases Kyle did not fire until either physically attacked or had a weapon pointed at him. Again you must not have watched the trial and depended on the lying nightly news for your info.


----------



## Lisa558

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can disagree all you want dr stupid but the EVIDENCE was CLEAR in all 3 cases Kyle did not fire until either physically attacked or had a weapon pointed at him. Again you must not have watched the trial and depended on the lying nightly news for your info.


Something that bodes VERY well for his case is that even though he was armed, he was running away from the thugs threatening his life, trying to avoid the use of deadly force. It was only after the savages caught up with him and his life was in imminent t danger that he fired.

Should be acquittal across the board. If this kid were black, the leftists would be screaming about racial injustice and lynching.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Lefties, why are you always liars?









						Rittenhouse Judge Tells Jury to Ignore Biden, Who Once Suggested Teen Is a 'White Supremacist'
					

For those on the left, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial isn't about justice, it's about politics - and that clearly includes President Joe Biden.




					www.westernjournal.com


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> Why does insulting Rittehnhouse make you feel better?


The guy is a dick. Why do you like dicks? Oh, never mind


----------



## DrLove

Mr Clean said:


> He could have stayed home and watched it on TV like a normal person.


Yep, or he could have been home playing his favorite violent video games.


----------



## JohnDB

Well...
Since they asked for jury instructions concerning self defense...

I'm guessing that they have one or two liberal moron holdouts... putting emotions over logic. 

That's why the pages of instructions...someone is making them second guess the law and what it says and then doesn't want to admit they are wrong.


----------



## Orangecat

DrLove said:


> The guy is a dick. Why do you like dicks? Oh, never mind


Projection^^^


----------



## DrLove

JohnDB said:


> Well...
> Since they asked for jury instructions concerning self defense...
> 
> I'm guessing that they have one or two liberal moron holdouts... putting emotions over logic.
> 
> That's why the pages of instructions...someone is making them second guess the law and what it says and then doesn't want to admit they are wrong.



A hung jury wouldn't surprise me. They can re-try the case with a decent prosecutor and a judge who isn't a right wing, self promoting dick next time around.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> A hung jury wouldn't surprise me. They can re-try the case with a decent prosecutor and a judge who isn't a right wing, self promoting dick next time around.


Be specific and cite all the things the Judge did wrong......


----------



## Lisa558

DrLove said:


> Yep, or he could have been home playing his favorite violent video games.


So could any of the tens of thousands of rioters throughout the summer of love, including the 30 murderers. Why all the outrage for this kid, and all the tolerance for the savages in support of the racist BLM movement?


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> The guy is a dick.


Why does insulting Rittenhouse make you feel better?


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be specific and cite all the things the Judge did wrong......


We've already established the fact that she can't.


----------



## TeeDub

eagle1462010 said:


> They will get him misdeameaner weapons charges which will be a sentence of no time in jail


They dropped that charge yesterday, Politi-Fact screwed the pooch on that charge. By Wisconsin law he was allowed to own and open carry that "scary" rifle.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Binger said YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BULLET THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR GUN.

Is this true?


----------



## struth

ColonelAngus said:


> Lefties, why are you always liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rittenhouse Judge Tells Jury to Ignore Biden, Who Once Suggested Teen Is a 'White Supremacist'
> 
> 
> For those on the left, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial isn't about justice, it's about politics - and that clearly includes President Joe Biden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.westernjournal.com


Wow...this is the second recent high profile case in which a Judge had to tell the jury to ignore Dems in Washington's opinions on the case.

It's really getting scary...fascist like, all these dems engaging themselves in the Court system


----------



## ColonelAngus

struth said:


> Wow...this is the second recent high profile case in which a Judge had to tell the jury to ignore Dems in Washington's opinions on the case.
> 
> It's really getting scary...fascist like, all these dems engaging themselves in the Court system



This is impeachable.  Abuse of power.

Biden must go.


----------



## ColonelAngus

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be specific and cite all the things the Judge did wrong......



Poster will not.


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> Why does insulting Rittenhouse make you feel better?


It doesn't. But I know a punk when I see a punk.


----------



## Orangecat

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be specific and cite all the things the Judge did wrong......


He said "asian food" and he upheld the constitutional right to remain silent?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be specific and cite all the things the Judge did wrong......


So no answer from Drlove they just funnied this post.


----------



## DrLove

RetiredGySgt said:


> Be specific and cite all the things the Judge did wrong......



1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food

That'll do for starters


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> It doesn't. But I know a punk when I see a punk.


The fact you repeatedly insult Rittenhouse - to no effect whatsoever - means you must get -something- out of it.
If not to make you feel better, then what?


----------



## Papageorgio

DrLove said:


> Yep, or he could have been home playing his favorite violent video games.


Video games don't make you violent, at least that is what many studies claim.  Playing video games doesn't lead to violent behaviour, study shows

Everyone at the riot could have made different paths for themselves, instead they all wanted to be in a dangerous place where physical harm could happen. All were guilty for being there and all had a right to be there.


----------



## struth

ColonelAngus said:


> This is impeachable.  Abuse of power.
> 
> Biden must go.


Well, he said it while he was running for office, not President I believe....but certainly it should of been a giant red flag coming from a person who's been in public office for 50 years.


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> The fact you repeatedly insult Rittenhouse - to no effect whatsoever - means you must get -something- out of it.
> If not to make you feel better, then what?


Hey if Babyface Kyle is your hero, so be it. He isn't mine. We all get to choose our heroes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> 1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims


Prejudicial.  it presumes Rittenhouse shot them illegally.


DrLove said:


> 2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor


Can you demonstrate anything the defense did or said that shoud lhave raised similar ire?


DrLove said:


> 3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran


How is this in any way in violation of a the jurist code of conduct?


DrLove said:


> 4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood


How is this in any way in violation of a the jurist code of conduct?


DrLove said:


> 5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF


This is a lie.


DrLove said:


> That'll do for starters


You better quit while you're behind.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Hey if Babyface Kyle is your hero....


You didn't answer the question:
The fact you repeatedly insult Rittenhouse - to no effect whatsoever - means you must get -something- out of it.
If not to make you feel better, then what?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> 1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
> 2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
> 3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
> 4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
> 5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
> 6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food
> 
> That'll do for starters


Be specific now and cite the times the defense fucked up like the prosecution? And then explain why you hate us veterans?


----------



## ColonelAngus

struth said:


> Well, he said it while he was running for office, not President I believe....but certainly it should of been a giant red flag coming from a person who's been in public office for 50 years.



One can be impeached for things they did prior to being in office.


----------



## DrLove

Papageorgio said:


> Video games don't make you violent, at least that is what many studies claim.  Playing video games doesn't lead to violent behaviour, study shows
> 
> Everyone at the riot could have made different paths for themselves, instead they all wanted to be in a dangerous place where physical harm could happen. All were guilty for being there and all had a right to be there.



There are other studies that say violent video games DO often lead to violence. Not always of course, but if you look at some of the worst mass murderers in history, most had that in common. 

Klebold and Harris come to mind. 





__





						Do Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior? — CIVCM
					

by Jeremy David Johnson




					civcm.psu.edu
				











						Study confirms link between violent video games and physical aggression
					

Study finds link between violent games, aggression




					www.wgrz.com
				











						Computer games linked to violence
					

Violent video games step up aggressive behaviour in young males, according to both laboratory and real life studies, two US psychologists claim today.




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Papageorgio

DrLove said:


> There are other studies that say violent video games DO often lead to violence. Not always of course, but if you look at some of the worst mass murderers in history, most had that in common.
> 
> Klebold and Harris come to mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do Violent Video Games Cause Violent Behavior? — CIVCM
> 
> 
> by Jeremy David Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> civcm.psu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Study confirms link between violent video games and physical aggression
> 
> 
> Study finds link between violent games, aggression
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wgrz.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Computer games linked to violence
> 
> 
> Violent video games step up aggressive behaviour in young males, according to both laboratory and real life studies, two US psychologists claim today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 564898


I personally think video games, movies, tv, music and books all contribute to ones personality, aggressive, non-aggressive, likes and dislikes. I have said that in the past got ripped for suggesting it.


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> It doesn't. But I know a punk when I see a punk.



The mirror?


----------



## DrLove

Papageorgio said:


> I personally think video games, movies, tv, music and books all contribute to ones personality, aggressive, non-aggressive, likes and dislikes. I have said that in the past got ripped for suggesting it.



There are dozens of peer reviewed studies that prove this point. That doesn't mean that the average kid who plays violent video games is going to be aggressive or kill someone. But most of the mass murderers appear to have that in common.


----------



## JohnDB

DrLove said:


> A hung jury wouldn't surprise me. They can re-try the case with a decent prosecutor and a judge who isn't a right wing, self promoting dick next time around.


Nope...
Judge can direct the verdict or declare a mistrial with prejudice. 

And because of the evidence I can see either happening.


----------



## DrLove

JohnDB said:


> Nope...
> Judge can direct the verdict or declare a mistrial with prejudice.
> 
> And because of the evidence I can see either happening.



Judge can direct the verdict? Where did you come up with that? He can declare a mistrial with prejudice based on prosecutorial misconduct or something of that nature. Now that the jury is in deliberation, it's too late for that. If there is mistrial due to a hung jury, it will be up to the prosecutor whether they want to retry the case.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Judge can direct the verdict? Where did you come up with that?


Wow.  You -really- know nothing about he law.


----------



## tahuyaman

Papageorgio said:


> Evidence doesn't matter to you, just politics.
> 
> Rittenhouse a right winger... guilty


Rittenhouse has no clue what he is.


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> Wow.  You -really- know nothing about he law.


Obviously, more than you do! 

The *judge may direct them to deliberate further*, usually no more than once or twice. This direction is most commonly known as an Allen charge. If a verdict still cannot be delivered, at some point the judge will declare a mistrial due to the hung jury.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Judge can direct the verdict? Where did you come up with that? He can declare a mistrial with prejudice based on prosecutorial misconduct or something of that nature. Now that the jury is in deliberation, it's too late for that. If there is mistrial due to a hung jury, it will be up to the prosecutor whether they want to retry the case.


If the jury can’t reach a verdict the judge would grant a mistrial. Then I believe it’s up the prosecution whether or not they try again.  I don’t believe the judge would have the authority at this point to grant a mistrial with prejudice.  He would have had to do that before it went to the jury in the first place.


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> If the jury can’t reach a verdict the judge would grant a mistrial. Then I believe it’s up the prosecution whether or not they try again.  I don’t believe the judge would have the authority at this point to grant a mistrial with prejudice.  He would have had to do that before it went to the jury in the first place.


You sir are correct. Once it's gone to the jury - He can send them back to mull it over a time or two. But that's it.


----------



## tahuyaman

Tipsycatlover said:


> Every victim of a crime shouldn't have been there….


That’s not true.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Obviously, more than you do




*Judgment notwithstanding the verdict*, also called *judgment* _*non obstante veredicto*_, or *JNOV*, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law, formerly called a directed verdict.[1] In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "*judgment of acquittal*".[2]
JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. The rarely-granted intervention permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[3]
A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution.
A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case but the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.
The reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. That procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.[4]
​


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> 1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
> 2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
> 3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
> 4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
> 5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
> 6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food
> 
> That'll do for starters


My god you are confused you stupid Moon Bat.

1.  The Judge does that for all his trials.  It is common practice.
2.  The prosecutor deserved his ire by not remembering what the 5th Amendment was all about.
3.  He asked for any veteran to stand up.  He had no idea who any of them were.
4.  Rap music is goofy, not Patriotic songs.
5.  He did none of that.
6.  Calling Asian food "Asian food" is only racist in Libtardland.


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> 1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
> 2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
> 3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
> 4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
> 5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
> 6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food
> 
> That'll do for starters


I just realized that you’re a professional jackass.


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> *Judgment notwithstanding the verdict*, also called *judgment* _*non obstante veredicto*_, or *JNOV*, is a type of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that is sometimes rendered at the conclusion of a jury trial. In U.S. federal civil court cases, the term has been replaced by the renewed judgment as a matter of law, which emphasizes its relationship to the judgment as a matter of law, formerly called a directed verdict.[1] In U.S. federal criminal cases, the term is "*judgment of acquittal*".[2]
> JNOV is the practice in American courts whereby the presiding judge in a civil jury trial may overrule the decision of a jury and reverse or amend their verdict. In literal terms, the judge enters a judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict. The rarely-granted intervention permits the judge to exercise discretion to avoid extreme and unreasonable jury decisions.[3]
> A judge may not enter a JNOV of "guilty" following a jury acquittal in United States criminal cases. Such an action would violate a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to be placed in double jeopardy and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. If the judge grants a motion to set aside judgment after the jury convicts, however, the action may be reversed on appeal by the prosecution.
> A JNOV is appropriate only if the judge determines that no reasonable jury could have reached the given verdict. For example, if a party enters no evidence on an essential element of their case but the jury still finds in their favor, the court may rule that no reasonable jury would have disregarded the lack of evidence on that key point and reform the judgment.
> The reversal of a jury's verdict by a judge occurs when the judge believes that there were insufficient facts on which to base the jury's verdict or that the verdict did not correctly apply the law. That procedure is similar to a situation in which a judge orders a jury to arrive at a particular verdict, called a directed verdict. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict is occasionally made when a jury refuses to follow a judge's instruction to arrive at a certain verdict.[4]
> ​



A judge would have no power to overrule a hung jury or make a decision that they could not. That's just stupid, but perhaps you can point me to a case where that actually happened.


----------



## Indeependent

I predict the courthouse will be burnt to the ground and every LibBot here will cheer.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> A judge would have no power to overrule a hung jury or make a decision that they could not.=


You have no idea whatsoever if this is true or not.


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> You have no idea whatsoever if this is true or not.


Unless you can point me to such a case, you are FOS.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Unless you can point me to such a case, you are FOS.



You have no idea whatsoever if -this- is true.
You argue wholly from ignorance.


----------



## Flash

Indeependent said:


> I just realized that you’re a professional jackass.



He takes pride in being a stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> Binger said YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BULLET THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR GUN.
> 
> Is this true?


It's true in Texas.


----------



## tahuyaman

M14 Shooter said:


> You have no idea whatsoever if this is true or not.


If a judge was to declare a mistrial with prejudice it would need to be done before it went to the jury.     Now that it's in the hands of the jury he no longer has that authority.  

If the jury can't reach a verdict his only option then is to declare a mistrial and let the prosecution decide if they want another trial.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> 1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims


Do you know why?

Because to do so would prejudice the jury against the guy on trial for his life.  The judge did NOT want to get overturned on appeal if the jury would have convicted (but they won't).


DrLove said:


> 2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor


When?  After the prosecutor was defiant about the Court's orders and likely committed prosecutorial misconduct?


DrLove said:


> 3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran


And?

Are you saying that this action was a comment on the weight of the witness's testimony? 

Maybe.  The question is whether that would be deemed "harmful error."  What did that witness say that was or could have been harmful?


DrLove said:


> 4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood


Bad taste is not harmful error.


DrLove said:


> 5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF


For example?


DrLove said:


> 6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food


How was the joke "racist" and why does race matter ONE FUCKING BIT???  All the "victims" and the accused are WHITE!!!

You have MAYBE one ground for complaint, and that's assuming it was even harmful error.


----------



## the other mike




----------



## tahuyaman

ColonelAngus said:


> Binger said YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BULLET THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR GUN.
> 
> Is this true?


The shooter is responsible.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> If a judge was to declare a mistrial with prejudice it would need to be done before it went to the jury.     Now that it's in the hands of the jury he no longer has that authority.
> 
> If the jury can't reach a verdict his only option then is to declare a mistrial and let the prosecution decide if they want another trial.


The judge has authority to enter a directed verdict at any time during the process, including when a jury is deliberating.  He even has the authority to enter a JNOV after the verdict is in. 

If a jury can't reach a verdict, he has the authority to enter a directed verdict, declare a mistrial with prejudice (meaning it's over), or declare a mistrial and instruct the parties to appear for re-trial on a certain date.


----------



## JohnDB

DrLove said:


> Judge can direct the verdict? Where did you come up with that? He can declare a mistrial with prejudice based on prosecutorial misconduct or something of that nature. Now that the jury is in deliberation, it's too late for that. If there is mistrial due to a hung jury, it will be up to the prosecutor whether they want to retry the case.


Not necessarily...
Especially from the preponderance of evidence and the prosecutor misconduct.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> The shooter is responsible.


That only means that each bullet must be justifiably fired.  

This is irrelevant to the Rittenhouse case.


----------



## ColonelAngus

tahuyaman said:


> The shooter is responsible.



So Alec Baldwin committed murder.


----------



## JohnDB

tahuyaman said:


> If a judge was to declare a mistrial with prejudice it would need to be done before it went to the jury.     Now that it's in the hands of the jury he no longer has that authority.
> 
> If the jury can't reach a verdict his only option then is to declare a mistrial and let the prosecution decide if they want another trial.


Nope... because he can interview the jury and find out exactly what the problem is...

And in this case it's likely one or two people not understanding the law. Or more likely, refusing to understand the law.

So then those reserve jurors can come into play...there are 6 of them.  Because if it's discovered that juror misconduct is taking place...then the misbehaving jurors can find themselves in a world of trouble...they will be replaced and the alternates placed in their place...and the jurors involved in misconduct might see a bit of jail time.


----------



## tahuyaman

JohnDB said:


> Nope... because he can interview the jury and find out exactly what the problem is...
> 
> And in this case it's likely one or two people not understanding the law. Or more likely, refusing to understand the law.
> 
> So then those reserve jurors can come into play...there are 6 of them.  Because if it's discovered that juror misconduct is taking place...then the misbehaving jurors can find themselves in a world of trouble...they will be replaced and the alternates placed in their place...and the jurors involved in misconduct might see a bit of jail time.


You don't understand the process.  I explained it accurately.


----------



## tahuyaman

ColonelAngus said:


> So Alec Baldwin committed murder.


Not necessarily. He did if he intended to kill her.  

If he didn't he be could be charged with negligent homicide.  


Killing someone through a careless or negligent act is not necessarily murder.   I'm not sure why this is new concept to you


----------



## ColonelAngus

Lefties are so used to screaming RACISM!  They do not know what to do with a situation that has nothing to do with race.


----------



## ColonelAngus

tahuyaman said:


> Not necessarily. He did if he intended to kill her.
> 
> If he didn't he be could be charged with negligent homicide.
> 
> 
> Killing someone through a careless or negligent act is not necessarily murder.   I'm not sure why this is new concept to you



The prosecutor claimed one is responsible for anything shot from ones gun.

Seems that Kyle and Alec have similar responsibility.


----------



## Flash

Somebody that sat as an observer in the courtroom made the comment to someone doing live streaming there are two obvious "Karens" on the jury.


----------



## DrLove

JohnDB said:


> Not necessarily...
> Especially from the preponderance of evidence and the prosecutor misconduct.


That is a different subject my friend. Please catch up!


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> You have no idea whatsoever if -this- is true.
> You argue wholly from ignorance.


Find that case yet loony bird? No you didn’t, therefore you are FOS!


----------



## DrLove

Flash said:


> Somebody that sat as an observer in the courtroom made the comment to someone doing live streaming there are two obvious "Karens" on the jury.



The “Karens & Kens are the barrel strokers who get sceerd if black peoples come down their street.


----------



## Flash




----------



## tahuyaman

ColonelAngus said:


> Thet prosecutor claimed one is responsible for anything sho from ones gun.
> 
> Seems that Kyle and Alec have similar responsibility.


This shouldn't come as a huge surprise to anyone, but the shooter is responsible for the handling of a firearm.


----------



## BackAgain

ColonelAngus said:


> Binger said YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY BULLET THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR GUN.
> 
> Is this true?


He didn’t say it clearly. He doesn’t say much of anything all that well.

 If I clear a round, for example, I’m not all that responsible for it being fired out of someone else’s gun.  

But I do kind of agree that when I fire any weapon by lifting up the weapon, “aiming” it and pulling the trigger, I pretty much AM responsible for where it goes and who that round strikes.


----------



## ColonelAngus

tahuyaman said:


> This shouldn't come as a huge surprise to anyone, but the shooter is responsible for the handling of a firearm.


Yes, so Alec is in trouble.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Somebody that sat as an observer in the courtroom made the comment to someone doing live streaming there are two obvious "Karens" on the jury.


Whatever that  means


----------



## Papageorgio

ColonelAngus said:


> Lefties are so used to screaming RACISM!  They do not know what to do with a situation that has nothing to do with race.


I'm waiting for lefties to claim it is because of global warming or it is because of unvaccinated people. That seems to be their standard answers.


----------



## BackAgain

DrLove said:


> 1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
> 2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
> 3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
> 4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
> 5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
> 6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food
> 
> That'll do for starters


If a prosecutor calls an alleged victim a “victim” the prosecutor is essentially asserting that he was undeserving of what befell him. Prosecutors are NOT the ones to testify or state the ultimate conclusion. The question is whether the alleged victim was truly a victim.

Similarly, the prosecutor did worse. He stated that they were the “murder” victims. Whether it was a murder is a question to be answered not some already established fact.  It is actually improper to testify like that.

The judge showed ire to the attorney who earned the ire. Why show ire to a defense attorney for conduct and behavior that didn’t  cross any lines?

I don’t think a judge should show special respect for any witness — even over something as meritorious as prior military service.  But that’s not judicial misconduct. 

Yeah yeah — his phone rang once. Get over it. His ringtone choice is of no consequence at all.

Saying it is not the same as demonstrating it. I saw nothing he did or said which made the trial all about himself. What are you alluding to?

Even a dumb joke about Asian food doesn’t make it a racist joke.


----------



## DrLove

ColonelAngus said:


> Yes, so Alec is in trouble.


Yes he is. He’ll lose a few million at minimum in a civil suit.


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> Whatever that  means


You don't know what a Karen is?  LOL!


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> This shouldn't come as a huge surprise to anyone, but the shooter is responsible for the handling of a firearm.


It shouldn't come as a huge surprise to you but the shitheads that attacked Kyle are responsible for the outcome of their stupidity.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> It shouldn't come as a huge surprise to you but the shitheads that attacked Kyle are responsible for the outcome of their stupidity.


What does that have to do with the shooter being responsible for the safe handling of the firearm?


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> You don't know what a Karen is?  LOL!


Everyone is a Karen to someone.  To me you appear to be a Karen.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> What does that have to do with the shooter being responsible for the safe handling of the firearm?


Well...shooting someone who is about to slam your head into the ground is safe handling.
In your case, it wouldn't affect your IQ.


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> What does that have to do with the shooter being responsible for the safe handling of the firearm?




Kyle safetly handled the AR.  He only shot at people that attacked him.


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> Everyone is a Karen to someone.  To me you appear to be a Karen.




Yo me you appear to be a stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat.


----------



## Indeependent

Flash said:


> Yo me you appear to be a stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat.


True story.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Kyle safetly handled the AR.  He only shot at people that attacked him.


I'll wait to see how this plays out.


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> I'll wait to see how this plays out.




Just go over there and sit in the corner with all the other stupid uneducated low information confused Moon Bats.


----------



## Flash

Not only did Kyle not shoot any people of color, the rifle that he used was given to him by a BLACK GUY.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Yo me you appear to be a stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat.


You seem to be one of the duller tools in the shed here.  You should change your name to Flush,  as most of your comments are flush worthy


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Not only did Kyle not shoot any people of color, the rifle that he used was given to him by a BLACK GUY.


So what?  Who said anything about race?


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Yo me you appear to be a stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat.


If you want to get into an insult contest that's not my style, but I can go there.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> If you want to get into an insult contest that's not my style, but I can go there.


It's not an insult, its a fact.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> It's not an insult, its a fact.


Huh? You mean that you're a sperm gurgling AIDS infected flit-boy?


----------



## ColonelAngus

Lefties seem to think the rioters had a moral entitlement to burn and destroy Kenosha.

THEY DO NOT.


----------



## toobfreak

tahuyaman said:


> Huh? You mean that you're a sperm gurgling AIDS infected flit-boy?



Knock it off, jackass.  Get with the thread.


----------



## tahuyaman

toobfreak said:


> Knock it off, jackass.  Get with the thread.


I have been.  Get with the program.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Still deliberating?

I did not expect this.

Wonder what's going on?


----------



## tahuyaman

ColonelAngus said:


> Lefties seem to think the rioters had a moral entitlement to burn and destroy Kenosha.
> 
> THEY DO NOT.


I'm not a leftist or liberal, but I haven't seen anyone say that.  If you have point them out.


----------



## tahuyaman

Otis Mayfield said:


> Still deliberating?
> 
> I did not expect this.
> 
> Wonder what's going on?


I expected at least a two day deliberation.


----------



## DrLove

Flash said:


> Yo me you appear to be a stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat.


Dude, I have known Tahu on boards like this for a very long time. He is NOT some lefty moonbat.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Well...shooting someone who is about to slam your head into the ground is safe handling.
> In your case, it wouldn't affect your IQ.


Why would you say something like that?   

 People like you are why a lot of people think conservative or right wing types are rubes.


----------



## toobfreak

tahuyaman said:


> I have been.  Get with the program.



No you haven't.  Don't try to bullshit me.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Dude, I have known Tahu on boards like this for a very long time. He is NOT some lefty moonbat.


Let them think what they want.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Why would you say something like that?
> 
> People like you are why a lot of people think conservative or right wing types are rubes.


Do people have the right to defend themselves when the police are told to stay back?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> Dude, I have known Tahu on boards like this for a very long time. He is NOT some lefty moonbat.


Coming FROM a lefty moonbat I will take that with a grain of salt.


----------



## tahuyaman

toobfreak said:


> No you haven't.  Don't try to bullshit me.


Review the thread then get get back to me


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Find that case yet loony bird? No you didn’t, therefore you are FOS!


Thank you for the further demonstration of your ignorance.


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> Dude, I have known Tahu on boards like this for a very long time. He is NOT some lefty moonbat.


So he's not like *you*.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Do people have the right to defend themselves when the police are told to stay back?


They may or may not.  According to the law, one loses the right to claim self defense when they provoke a confrontation. The availability of the police isn't relevant to that.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> So he's not like *you*.


Nor am I like you.  Fortunately


----------



## RetiredGySgt

A Judge CAN overturn a guilty verdict... Can A Judge Overturn A Jury's Guilty Verdict?


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> A Judge CAN overturn a guilty verdict... Can A Judge Overturn A Jury's Guilty Verdict?


He's not going to do that if the verdict is guilty.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> He's not going to do that if the verdict is guilty.


You don't know that and yes if a hung jury he can rule too.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Nonetheless, in the United States today, *it is generally permitted*. If a mistrial occurs due to a hung jury, the prosecutor may decide to retry the case. A judge may decide to disallow this in some cases, but the prosecutor is usually allowed to proceed.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You don't know that and yes if a hung jury he can rule too.


If it's a hung jury, he'll declare a mistrial and it will then be up to the prosecution to either re-try him or drop it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> If it's a hung jury, he'll declare a mistrial and it will then be up to the prosecution to either re-try him or drop it.


the Judge can rule otherwise.


----------



## WEATHER53

What is time estimate for when all unwarranted hell will break loose because libs didn’t get their way and must tantrum, loot burn and destroy in order to vent. Vent is such a safe space pussy concept. 

Democrat  politicians will nod in approval as their constituents once again prove how Unfit they are to be called American


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> If it's a hung jury, he'll declare a mistrial and it will then be up to the prosecution to either re-try him or drop it.


can a judge rule if it is a hung jury - Bing wrong on all counts today


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> They may or may not.  According to the law, one loses the right to claim self defense when they provoke a confrontation. The availability of the police isn't relevant to that.


The answer to the question is a resounding Yes. Because police are choosing to stand back does not mean citizenry in the process of being assaulted  have to just take the beating,


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> can a judge rule if it is a hung jury - Bing wrong on all counts today


This judge is not going to set aside the verdict.  

If it's a hung jury he'll do what most judges usually do.  Declare a mistrial and give the prosecution the option to try again or drop it  .


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> So what?  Who said anything about race?




You being low information don't know that the guy that bought the rifle for Kyle is named Dominic Black.

That comment was made to ridicule you hateful ignorant Moon Bats claiming that Kyle is a "White Supremacists".


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> The answer to the question is a resounding Yes. Because police are choosing to stand back does not mean citizenry in the process of being assaulted do not have to just take the beating,


A police presence has nothing to do with it. 


 If one provokes a confrontation, one loses the right to claim self defense.  That's just a matter of law.  Wisconsin state law as well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> This judge is not going to set aside the verdict.
> 
> If it's a hung jury he'll do what most judges usually do.  Declare a mistrial and give the prosecution the option to try again or drop it  .


You declared he had no choice over and over and now when presented with the fact  he can act you claim you are a mind reader. Just apologize for being wrong and move on.


----------



## Flash




----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> You being low information don't know that the guy that bought the rifle for Kyle is named Dominic Black.
> 
> That comment was made to ridicule you hateful ignorant Moon Bats claiming that Kyle is a "White Supremacists".


When did I ever claim he's a white supremacist?  Why are you making these false claims?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> A police presence has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> If one provokes a confrontation, one loses the right to claim self defense.  That's just a matter of law.  Wisconsin state law as well.


Carrying a lawful firearm is NOT by itself provocation and pointing said firearm at people physically threatening you also is not provocation.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> A police presence has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> If one provokes a confrontation, one loses the right to claim self defense.  That's just a matter of law.  Wisconsin state law as well.


Incorrect
Provocation is an opinion and not a fact
Additionally, if I call you a racially insensitive name and you begin to beat me with a baseball bat I can legally shoot you dead.
It’s delightful to encounter another liberal babbling emotive bullshit and offering the uniquely safe space concept of “if you started it…you can’t defend yourself nor claim you were”


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You declared he had no choice over and over and now when presented with the fact  he can act you claim you are a mind reader. Just apologize for being wrong and move on.


Jeebus dude.  You are  arguing just for the  sake of arguing now.   At one point you agreed with me and now you want to argue.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> Jeebus dude.  You are  arguing just for the  sake of arguing now.   At one point you agreed with me and now you want to argue.


I never agreed with you or link to it?


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> A police presence has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> If one provokes a confrontation, one loses the right to claim self defense.  That's just a matter of law.  Wisconsin state law as well.


OMG
If you “started it” you can’t defend yourself

all humans are bags of water but you emotional libs loons are bags of sap


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Carrying a lawful firearm is NOT by itself provocation and pointing said firearm at people physically threatening you also is not provocation.


Carrying a firearm in a ready position in the middle of a violent riot and pointing it at people can indeed be considered a provocative action.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> I never agreed with you or link to it?


Just scroll back. I won't play your little game here.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> Carrying a firearm in a ready position in the middle of a violent riot and pointing it at people can indeed be considered a provocative action.


But Kyle didn't do that as evidenced by the TRIAL, he pointed it at people threatening him and he only shot at people attacking him. Let me guess you did not watch the trial and depended on the nightly news?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> Just scroll back. I won't play your little game here.


LOL now you are LYING I have never EVER said a Judge couldn't rule.


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> OMG
> If you “started it” you can’t defend yourself
> 
> all humans are bags of water but you emotional libs loons are bags of sap


I've defended every one of my comments.  Specifically what do you take exception to?


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> But Kyle didn't do that as evidenced by the TRIAL, he pointed it at people threatening him and he only shot at people attacking him. Let me guess you did not watch the trial and depended on the nightly news?


He did do that.  I guess it's just a matter of opinion as to whether that's a provocative act.


----------



## WEATHER53

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL now you are LYING I have never EVER said a Judge couldn't rule.


It does take long
Name calling first
Lie second
Address issue Never


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL now you are LYING I have never EVER said a Judge couldn't rule.


Don't start this lying crap .  You're being a dink now .


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> I've defended every one of my comments.  Specifically what do you take exception to?


Could not have been more clear.
Your  offering of “if you “started” it then you can’t claim self defense (nor presumably engage in self defense either)” has no standing in law and there is No Law about that which is what you said there is.
Clear now.?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> Don't start this lying crap .  You're being a dink now .


I repeat you are a LIAR or prove me wrong link to me agreeing with you.


----------



## Yarddog

DrLove said:


> Your arguments for this little prick are stupid. He shouldn't have been there, least of all with his "cool" gun.




No one should have been there. You don't hold ligitimate protests at night and burn stuff. Rittenhouse had just as much right as anyone else who was out there. Your just repeating what others have said.

Secondly, its interesting that the medic who was shot, also brought a hand gun. Ask yourself... if he came to treat people why did he need to bring a gun?  This is the same argument for Rittenhouse, so lets be consistent. Also, at least Rittenhouse had a *legal *gun. The other guy had an expired concealed carry permit.


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> Could not have been more clear.
> Your  offering of “if you “started” it then you can’t claim self defense (nor presumably engage in self defense either)” has no standing in law and there is No Law about that which is what you said there is.
> Clear now.?


The law says that one loses the right to claim self defense when they are the one who provoked the confrontation. 

  I didn't say that, the law says it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> The law says that one loses the right to claim self defense when they are the one who provoked the confrontation.
> 
> I didn't say that, the law says it.


And testimony delivered in COURT shows Rittenhouse did NOT provoke anyone


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> I repeat you are a LIAR or prove me wrong link to me agreeing with you.


You're a game player.  Go hump someone else's leg


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And testimony delivered in COURT shows Rittenhouse did NOT provoke anyone


That's your opinion.


----------



## skye




----------



## Yarddog

ColonelAngus said:


> Why were the dead guys there?
> 
> What law did Kyle break by being there?
> 
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW LAWS WORK?
> 
> Cite the statute Kyle violated by his mere presence in Kenosha that day.




I think theres a lot of parroting going on here. It sounds good to say Rittenhouse shouldnt even have been there to the Prosecutiuon... seeing as the rest of their case is a dumpster fire.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> You're a game player.  Go hump someone else's leg


You just can't help yourself get caught either by an honest mistake believing I was someone else or lying and you double down on stupid.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> The law says that one loses the right to claim self defense when they are the one who provoked the confrontation.
> 
> I didn't say that, the law says it.


There is no law anywhere which states that’s it’s illegal to defend yourself if “you started” it.
I’m not going to bother your feelings, they are not thoughts, that there Is such a legal statute which would be so arbitrary, undefinable and capricious.
I call you a coon then I started it, you advance on me with a baseball bat and strike me, i shoot you dead. There is No LAW which makes it illegal for me having defended myself because I “started it” by saying something.

can I just have a quick show of hands as to whether his contention is elegible  for “Dumbest  Post of the Year” award voting?


----------



## WEATHER53

RetiredGySgt said:


> And testimony delivered in COURT shows Rittenhouse did NOT provoke anyone


It doesn’t matter  anyway 
There is no universal you started it.
Now, I will agree that circumstances can rarely be different in that if I start the shooting with no need for defense apparent then that’s likely a debatably different matter.
Universal or general “you started it” is non existent


----------



## Weatherman2020




----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> There is no law anywhere which states that’s it’s illegal to defend yourself if “you started” it.
> I’m not going to bother your feelings, they are not thoughts, that there Is such a legal statute which would be so arbitrary, undefinable and capricious.
> I call you a coon then I started it, you advance on me with a baseball bat and strike me, i shoot you dead. There is No LAW which makes it illegal for me having defended myself because I “started it” by saying something.
> 
> can I just have a quick show of hands as to whether his contention is elegible  for “Dumbest  Post of the Year” award voting?


You intentionally and dishonestly mischaracterized my comment   


Once again,  the law states that one loses the right to claim self defense if they provoked the confrontation.    I have never said it's illegal to defend yourself.


----------



## struth

DrLove said:


> 1. Said that the prosecution couldn't refer to the victims as victims
> 2. Reserved his ire ONLY for the prosecutor
> 3. Led a round of applause for a defense witness just because he was a veteran
> 4. His ringtone is one of the goofiest songs ever written - God Bless the USA by Lee Greenwood
> 5. Constantly made the entire trial all about HIMSELF
> 6. Cracked a racist joke about Asian food
> 
> That'll do for starters


1) that’s a lie.  He did however allow the defense refer to them as rioters
2) that’s because the State keep trying to violate the Constitution, ans was unprepared 
3) why do you have a problem with honoring vets?
4) how do you know his ringtone? 
5) another lie 
6) what was the joke?


----------



## Resnic

tahuyaman said:


> That's your opinion.



Please provide us with proof of him starting it then.

I mean I watched the trial and they had witnesses say they attacked him, we have footage of them chasing him and knocking him down and hitting him with a skateboard and pointing a gun at him all before he shot them. That's not opinion, those are facts shown in court.

You must be a alt account to Penelope or something.


----------



## DrLove

RetiredGySgt said:


> the Judge can rule otherwise.


Give us an example where a judge pronounced guilt or innocence following a hung jury.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> You intentionally and dishonestly mischaracterized my comment
> 
> 
> Once again,  the law states that one loses the right to claim self defense if they provoked the confrontation.    I have never said it's illegal to defend yourself.


There is no such law as you state.
If there was then I could be murdered and not able to defend myself because I said something that upset you with your claim afterward being  “I started it”as exhonerating  you. 
Stop lying


----------



## tahuyaman

skye said:


> View attachment 564967




These two cases are not even remotely similar.


----------



## DrLove

RetiredGySgt said:


> Carrying a lawful firearm is NOT by itself provocation and pointing said firearm at people physically threatening you also is not provocation.


Lotta assumptions here ^ Butt Munch


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> There is no such law as you state....


Yes there is.  You don't know What you're talking about . 

This is not an obscure law.   Generally self defense is only used when one is accused of a violent crime.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And testimony delivered in COURT shows Rittenhouse did NOT provoke anyone


Not sure what universe you live in. But, in this one, video was shown at the trial that showed Rittenhouse repeatedly pointing his rifle at protestors.


----------



## DrLove

skye said:


> View attachment 564967


250 million?  Word is SmirkyBoy got 50 grand and a lifetime supply of Depends!


----------



## tahuyaman

Resnic said:


> Please provide us with proof of him starting it then.
> 
> I mean I watched the trial and they had witnesses say they attacked him, we have footage of them chasing him and knocking him down and hitting him with a skateboard and pointing a gun at him all before he shot them. That's not opinion, those are facts shown in court.
> 
> You must be a alt account to Penelope or something.


The jury is deliberating that right now.   The judge said in his jury instructions that they can decide whether or not his actions were provocative for one the killings.


----------



## Opie

2 jurors are holding due to fears of backlash


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> When did I ever claim he's a white supremacist?  Why are you making these false claims?


All you stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat are obsessed with thinking that anybody that doesn't kiss the ass of the Negroes are White Supremacist.  That is your bread and butter key to hating White Americans.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Patriot43 said:


> 2 jurors are holding due to fears of backlash


Taking a walk down fantasy lane


----------



## DrLove

Patriot43 said:


> 2 jurors are holding due to fears of backlash


Meh, can u say HUNG JURY? I knew I could!


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> 250 million?  Word is SmirkyBoy got 50 grand and a lifetime supply of Depends!


Actually no one knows what settlement Sandman received.  It's all just media speculation.  I think he should have gotten a substantial sum.  He was obviously slandered by the liberal media.


----------



## struth

DrLove said:


> Give us an example where a judge pronounced guilt or innocence following a hung jury.


he can’t there has to be a verdict before


DrLove said:


> 250 million?  Word is SmirkyBoy got 50 grand and a lifetime supply of Depends!


The brave high school kid, that stood up to dnc brownshirts threatening him, and then the leftist propagandist that lied about him got $250 million from the Post alone…the CNN settlement wasn’t made public


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

No princess militia cosplayers there, yet. Of course.


----------



## tahuyaman

Patriot43 said:


> 2 jurors are holding due to fears of backlash


Link?



Lol.


----------



## DrLove

Flash said:


> All you stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat are obsessed with thinking that anybody that doesn't kiss the ass of the Negroes are White Supremacist.  That is your bread and butter key to hating White Americans.


Calling black people “negroes” identifies u as a fucking RACIST. Capische?


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

Why did he go to this protest with a gun? What a psycho. And a crazy mom for driving him


----------



## DrLove

struth said:


> he can’t there has to be a verdict before
> 
> The brave high school kid, that stood up to dnc brownshirts threatening him, and then the leftist propagandist that lied about him got $250 million from the Post alone…the CNN settlement wasn’t made public


Link please as you are FOS


----------



## struth

DrLove said:


> Calling black people “negroes” identifies u as a fucking RACIST. Capische?


agreed and you voted for that guy Joey Xiden


----------



## struth

DrLove said:


> Link please as you are FOS


Google is your friend


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> All you stupid uneducated low information Moon Bat are obsessed with thinking that anybody that doesn't kiss the ass of the Negroes are White Supremacist.  That is your bread and butter key to hating White Americans.


A potted plant is more intelligent than you.


----------



## struth

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Why did he go to this protest with a gun? What a psycho. And a crazy mom for driving him


the evidence at trial shows he went there to help clean up property destroyed by the dnc brownshirts.  The gun was for protection from them…which appears was likely warranted


----------



## tahuyaman

Well, the jury was released.  No verdict today.


----------



## DrLove

struth said:


> Google is your friend


Your contention/ prove or you’re an idiot bullshit artist


----------



## airplanemechanic

DrLove said:


> Calling black people “negroes” identifies u as a fucking RACIST. Capische?



Then I'll stop donating to the United NEGRO College Fund, capische? The last thing I want to do is use my money to fund a racist organization.


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> Well, the jury was released.  No verdict today.


Gosh Tahu, we had several who predicted an innocent verdict within “2 hours”


----------



## Opie

Jury breaks until 9am, looks good for Kyle. Let 2 of them sleep on it. Mistrial atleast


----------



## Opie

tahuyaman said:


> Link?
> 
> 
> 
> Lol.


Jack Posebic Twitter feed per US Marshal


----------



## tahuyaman

There's one thing this trial has clearly demonstrated and that is people on all sides of the political aisle can demonstrate a lot of hypocrisy.


----------



## airplanemechanic

tahuyaman said:


> There's one thing this trial has clearly demonstrated and that is people on all sides of the political aisle can demonstrate a lot of hypocrisy.



What hypocrisy from the right has this brought out?


----------



## tahuyaman

Patriot43 said:


> Jury breaks until 9am, looks good for Kyle. Let 2 of them sleep on it. Mistrial atleast


Where are getting this 2 jurors thing?    These things are usually kept secret until after the trial is over.


----------



## DrLove

struth said:


> the evidence at trial shows he went there to help clean up property destroyed by the dnc brownshirts.  The gun was for protection from them…which appears was likely warranted


You “appear” to be yet another fucking idiot


----------



## tahuyaman

airplanemechanic said:


> What hypocrisy from the right has this brought out?


All of a sudden in this case the actual law should be ignored.  Two wrongs make a right.  Calling people a racist because you disagree.


----------



## DrLove

Patriot43 said:


> Jury breaks until 9am, looks good for Kyle. Let 2 of them sleep on it. Mistrial atleast


Hung jury and another trial with another prosecutor & another judge!

Ankle bracelet the bitch. He’s dangerous!


----------



## Otis Mayfield

*Wendy Rittenhouse** made the appeal in an email and estimated that Kyle Rittenhouse's legal costs for the month of November will amount to $110,000, according to CNN.

She called the court battle "an extremely uphill battle from the beginning" and said that her son's team could put up a "big fight" because of the support of "thousands of our fellow Americans," per CNN.

“Both the prosecution and my son Kyle's defense team have finished their closing arguments and I am beyond nervous,” she wrote in the email.

“We have been but with the support of thousands of our fellow Americans we have put up a big fight,” she added.

The Kyle Rittenhouse Defense Fund, also known as FreeKyleUSA, said on its Twitter account in June that it had raised $464,111 since March 1.










						Rittenhouse's mother asks for donations to legal fund
					

Kyle Rittenhouse's mother appealed for donors on behalf of a defense fund set up to help pay her son's legal costs as the jury continues deliberations in his case,




					thehill.com
				



*

There you go, put your money where your mouth is.

Throw ol' Kyle a couple a Benjamins.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Hung jury and another trial with another prosecutor & another judge!
> 
> Ankle bracelet the bitch. He’s dangerous!


They are going to get enough time to deliberate properly.


----------



## struth

DrLove said:


> You “appear” to be yet another fucking idiot


can you provide something from the trial that contradicts my summery?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> They may or may not.  According to the law, one loses the right to claim self defense when they provoke a confrontation. The availability of the police isn't relevant to that.


That didn't happen.

But, even if it did, one can RE-GAIN the privilege by withdrawing and retreating.

(deny Kyle retreated, I dare you)


----------



## struth

DrLove said:


> Your contention/ prove or you’re an idiot bullshit artist


figured…the truth scares you so you refuse it


----------



## airplanemechanic

tahuyaman said:


> All of a sudden in this case the actual law should be ignored.  Two wrongs make a right.  Calling people a racist because you disagree.



Who on the right is ignoring the actual law? It would be DEMOCRATS who are ignoring the law. They argue this case with feelings, when presented with the law they scream "racist!" and go crying back into their parents basement.


----------



## tahuyaman

airplanemechanic said:


> Who on the right is ignoring the actual law? It would be DEMOCRATS who are ignoring the law. They argue this case with feelings, when presented with the law they scream "racist!" and go crying back into their parents basement.


In this thread  some people who claim to be a conservative are calling people a racist who disagree with their opinion on this.  I see those same people arguing from an emotional standpoint.   .


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> Give us an example where a judge pronounced guilt or innocence following a hung jury.


I dont need to I linked to the FACTS you MORON. And they can not say guilty just over rule a guilty conviction. You can disagree all you want just proves you are stupid.


----------



## WEATHER53

Patriot43 said:


> 2 jurors are holding due to fears of backlash


If so that gets reported to judge and he finds the way their duties can be completed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> Lotta assumptions here ^ Butt Munch


No assumption at all in Wisconsin one can open carry LEGALLY and it is not a threat as it IS LEGAL.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> Calling black people “negroes” identifies u as a fucking RACIST. Capische?


That shithead you voted for Preisident and ignored when he stole the election used the term Negro a few days ago so cram your delerious Moon Bat hatred up your ass.


----------



## WEATHER53

airplanemechanic said:


> What hypocrisy from the right has this brought out?


Well I had to straighten him out on the fact that the nebulous “you started it” does Not legally prevent the “starter” from defending himself nor in claiming he needed to defend himself. I guess there is fsomething  hypocritical in defeating feeling with fact???


----------



## RetiredGySgt

I provided LINKS to the law and still retard drlove gave me a disagree ON the post WITH the LINK.


----------



## bodecea

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Because self defense when threatened by bona fide criminals is illegal.
> 
> We all know that...right? It's the leftist way.


"bone fide criminals".................


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> I dont need to I linked to the FACTS you MORON. And they can not say guilty just over rule a guilty conviction. You can disagree all you want just proves you are stupid.


You can laugh all you want I provided a LINK that states the law.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> No assumption at all in Wisconsin one can open carry LEGALLY and it is not a threat as it IS LEGAL.


Now DRlove is disagreeing with STATED WISCONSIN LAW god is he ever STUPID.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Nor am I like you.  Fortunately


Originality...give it a try.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> The “Karens & Kens are the barrel strokers who get sceerd if black peoples come down their street.


----------



## eagle1462010

Kyle will be found innocent and the Fascist terrorists of the left will burn Loot and Murder again.

Like normal.  I think the guard should bring water cannons and play water bowling.


----------



## JohnDB

RetiredGySgt said:


> I provided LINKS to the law and still retard drlove gave me a disagree ON the post WITH the LINK.


Ya play with trolls and you expect something different?


----------



## lantern2814

bodecea said:


> "bone fide criminals".................


Your support of a domestic  abuser and convicted pedophile is noted. Yes idiot, they were convicted of those things, making them criminals.


----------



## JohnDB

lantern2814 said:


> Your support of a domestic  abuser and convicted pedophile is noted. Yes idiot, they were convicted of those things, making them criminals.


You are forgetting the grandmother beater...yep Grosskreutz beat up his own grandmother.


----------



## lantern2814

JohnDB said:


> You are forgetting the grandmother beater...yep Grosskreutz beat up his own grandmother.


Just when you think the general opinion of him can’t get any lower....


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

struth said:


> the evidence at trial shows he went there to help clean up property destroyed by the dnc brownshirts.  The gun was for protection from them…which appears was likely warranted


Its not his job to go help. Sounds to me like a bad kid looking for a time and place to murder people


----------



## AZrailwhale

bodecea said:


> With the judge as his BFF, it will be not guilty...........pre-determined.   White wash (in more than one way)


All the judge was doing was forcing the prosecutor to conform to the law.


----------



## AZrailwhale

He h


aaronleland said:


> Did I say he had no right to be there? No. He was an idiot for being there. He had his mom drive him out of state to drop him off in the middle of a riot so he could play Batman at 17 years old.


ad his mom drive him TWENTY MINUTES from home.


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> "bone fide criminals".................




Yeah, what part of that don't you get? There were violent rioting thugs, and their criminality did not start that night.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

RetiredGySgt said:


> Now DRlove is disagreeing with STATED WISCONSIN LAW god is he ever STUPID.


To be perfectly fair to DrLove, though ,he is even better at being completely dishonest than he is utterly stupid.


----------



## AZrailwhale

ColonelAngus said:


> Odd that so little discussion of the evidence presented is being put forward by the left.
> 
> Why do you liars stick to false narratives even in the face of new evidence?


There is an old attorney’s axiom:  “when the facts favor you, argue the facts, when the law favors you, argue the law, when neither the facts or law favor you argue emotion”. The left has neither facts or law on their side, so they emote and ignore the law and facts.  The sad thing is that they expect to get away with it,


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Correll said:


> Yeah, what part of that don't you get? There were violent rioting thugs, and their criminality did not start that night.


I wonder how many of these worthless leftist trolls will hag around to eat the e-dick they are begging to be fed.

W'll see.


----------



## AZrailwhale

WillHaftawaite said:


> Judge has no input into decision.


Unless he enters a directed verdict of not guilty, something he may do if the jury falls for the prosecution’s rhetoric and games.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.


Criminals tended to have short and exciting lives in the Wild West.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Penelope said:


> Everybody had the right to take down an active shooter, and he was.


Not by any reasonable definition of the word.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Mikey G said:


> The defense attorney dragged the closing arguments out over 2 hours, and put the jury to sleep , which may have hurt Kyle's case a little toward the end, but I think the jury will sleep on it one night and tomorrow morning find him not guilty.
> 
> If and when he's acquitted, I wonder how the media will react -- will they just put it to bed or try to fuel more unrest ?


I thought the defense did a great job.  He went through the entire incident issue by issue and demolished the prosecution’s case.  He even pointed out how the prosecution altered the video evidence to make Rittenhouse look guilty.


----------



## the other mike

AZrailwhale said:


> I thought the defense did a great job.  He went through the entire incident issue by issue and demolished the prosecution’s case.  He even pointed out how the prosecution altered the video evidence to make Rittenhouse look guilty.


I haven't gone back and watched all of it, but at least he did much better than the courtroom rifle-pointing prosecutor.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.





Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.



Great idea.

shopkeepers shooting looters, arsonists and horse, and cattle, (car) thieves hung from the nearest tree.

Robbers shot by an armed citizenry before they can get out of town.

Could be what America, (the world), needs.


----------



## Esdraelon

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. *Should he have been there in the first place? No.*


The same can be said of all those who were taking part in an illegal assembly, looting, and arson.  Bottom line is that everyone who took a round did so while attacking Rittenhouse.  He sought NO ONE OUT.  THEY came at him.


----------



## AZrailwhale

DrLove said:


> If Baby Kyle hadn't been there with his "cool gun" two guys would be alive and another would still have his bicep.


And if the three guys hadn’t attacked Rittenhouse, NO ONE would have been shot or killed.  Rittenhouse was defensive and was attempting to retreat in the case of every attack.   Hell he was knocked to the ground by a rock to the head before the last two shootings.


----------



## AZrailwhale

DrLove said:


> A hung jury wouldn't surprise me. They can re-try the case with a decent prosecutor and a judge who isn't a right wing, self promoting dick next time around.


If the DA gets a mistrial, he will thank god and quietly drop the case.  A mistrial is the only thing that might protect him from a wrongful prosecution lawsuit.  A mistrial would be a gross miscarriage of justice. There is no evidence at all of anything except self defense.


----------



## AZrailwhale

tahuyaman said:


> I'll wait to see how this plays out.


It’s pretty self-evident.  Rittenhouse didn’t fire wildly into the crowd, he only shot at people who directly attacked him, or threatened his life.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Rainbow_Randolph said:


> Not Guilty, Kyle "The Vaporizer" Rittenhouse is an American Hero


Love your positive Thinking...


----------



## Turtlesoup

Penelope said:


> Imagine if all took the law into their own hands, it would be the wild west again.


IF people didn't take the law into their own hands, criminals would have continued to murder, rape, loot and the Wild WEST would have never be WON.   

The Government has failed and is getting worse.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Mikey G said:


> I haven't gone back and watched all of it, but at least he did much better than the courtroom rifle-pointing prosecutor.


I had to give up watching the prosecutor’s closing.  He was jumping around and most of his points made no sense to me.


----------



## WEATHER53

Wyatt Earp was right


----------



## tahuyaman

AZrailwhale said:


> It’s pretty self-evident.  Rittenhouse didn’t fire wildly into the crowd, he only shot at people who directly attacked him, or threatened his life.


What does failing to “fire wildly” have to do with anything?    

Seriously, I don’t know how supposed law and order type conservatives can condone his conduct.  We should discourage this kind of stuff.


----------



## tahuyaman

AZrailwhale said:


> I had to give up watching the prosecutor’s closing.  He was jumping around and most of his points made no sense to me.


He is completely incompetent. He was unprepared to prosecute his case.  I think he prepared by listening to media reports


----------



## Doc7505

EXCLUSIVE: Prosecutors in Kenosha shooter trial WITHHELD high-definition video evidence from the defense that was 'at the center of their case' and initially shared a lower quality version of drone footage from the night of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting​








						Prosecutors in Kenosha shooter trial WITHHELD evidence from defense
					

Prosecutors in the Kenosha shooter trial withheld evidence from the defense that was 'at the center of their case,' DailyMail.com reveal.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				



16 Nov 2021 ~~ By Laura Collins 10:14 PM 

*Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger initially shared low quality drone footage from the night of the shooting with the defense *
*The defense claims Binger only shared the high-definition footage after evidence had closed on Saturday  *
*According to a motion filed today by the defense,  'The problem is the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video'*
*'What that means is the video provided to the defense was not as clear as the video kept by the state,' the motion states *
*Lawyers for Rittenhouse filed their motion for mistrial with prejudice based on this and several other grounds *
In the motion obtained by DailyMail.com, Rittenhouse's defense insist that the state only shared it with the defense after evidence had closed on Saturday November 13.
~Snip~ 
'The video footage has been at the center of this case. The idea that the state would provide lesser quality footage and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case is the very reason they requested and were granted the provocation instruction by the Court.'


Comment:
Binger was playing games from day one to provoke Hedge Schroeder into having no choice but declare a mistrial with prejudice. The biased MSM, PM/DSA Democrat politicians and Leftists in general have branded Schroeder as everything from. "biased" to actually suggesting he is a is. member of The Klan.  Imagine their reaction when judge Schroeder declares the mistrial with prejudice.  
If these PM/DSA Democrat Leftists are prepared to fix a murder trial, they're prepared to fix Presidential Elections.


----------



## struth

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Its not his job to go help. Sounds to me like a bad kid looking for a time and place to murder people


yeah i mean geez why should anyone go help people…helping people just means you are a bad person 

it’s really not the job of a group of people to loot, riot, assault and fire bomb…sounds to me that group of demafascist were looking to murder people…and they tried…


----------



## Ray9

The Kyle Rittenhouse trial raises some interesting observations. Rittenhouse was seventeen when he decided to intervene in a riot that was burning the small town where his father lived less than 20 miles from where he and his mother made their home. As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home. There were calls on social media for people to protect the homes and businesses under attack and Rittenhouse responded.

Unfortunately, Rittenhouse answered the call with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, an AR-15-like rifle he legally owned despite false press reports echoing the prosecution saying the gun was illegally in his possession. For some reason no one in media bothered to check Wisconsin laws on firearms that made Rittenhouse’s gun legal for a seventeen-year-old instead just taking the word of the prosecution that was lying.

The judge threw out the charge of illegal possession of a firearm early on in what turned out to be a slew of criticism aimed at prosecutorial sloppiness and outright incompetence. It became evident as soon as video evidence was shown that the prosecution’s case was built on a house of cards, and it started falling apart almost immediately. The video clearly showed that Rittenhouse was being pursued by a mob and that he acted in self-defense. 

At this writing the jury is still out likely because lynch mob influence is seen by the jury as a threat to them and their families. Incredibly, national press coverage was so poor that up until the trial started most African Americans thought Rittenhouse had used his rifle to shoot three blacks especially after Joe Biden had publicly accused the teenager of being a white supremacist. The lone black member of the jury is no doubt under tremendous pressure to vote guilty and ignore the obvious evidence that Rittenhouse discharged the rifle to save his life from imminent attacks of rioters that were out of control and out for blood. 

Rittenhouse stuck his neck out when the rest of us just stood back and hoped Washington would come to its senses and put a stop to the destruction of communities under the banner of a concocted Black Lives Matter movement when no one in the country was saying black lives do not matter. Maybe Rittenhouse's actions were dumb or maybe they were what was needed.


----------



## maybelooking

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> Why did he go to this protest with a gun? What a psycho. And a crazy mom for driving him


It was OBVIOUSLY necessary to have one.  If not,  he would have been beaten to death.


----------



## Correll

1. The fact that this trail was not moved, AND the jury sequestered, was fucking retarded.

2. The judge needs to declare a mistrial with prejudice immediately.

3. Rittenhouse's actions were laudable. That he has been charged is a shame on our society.


----------



## Opie

Just wanted to share this


----------



## maybelooking

RetiredGySgt said:


> Now DRlove is disagreeing with STATED WISCONSIN LAW god is he ever STUPID.


not only stupid,  but a lying,  bet welching scum bag.


----------



## maybelooking

Patriot43 said:


> Just wanted to share this


anti gun loons should never EVER be allowed to handle a firearm.


----------



## Thinker101

Ray9 said:


> The Kyle Rittenhouse trial raises some interesting observations. Rittenhouse was seventeen when he decided to intervene in a riot that was burning the small town where his father lived less than 20 miles from where he and his mother made their home. As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home. There were calls on social media for people to protect the homes and businesses under attack and Rittenhouse responded.
> 
> Unfortunately, Rittenhouse answered the call with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, an AR-15-like rifle he legally owned despite false press reports echoing the prosecution saying the gun was illegally in his possession. For some reason no one in media bothered to check Wisconsin laws on firearms that made Rittenhouse’s gun legal for a seventeen-year-old instead just taking the word of the prosecution that was lying.
> 
> The judge threw out the charge of illegal possession of a firearm early on in what turned out to be a slew of criticism aimed at prosecutorial sloppiness and outright incompetence. It became evident as soon as video evidence was shown that the prosecution’s case was built on a house of cards, and it started falling apart almost immediately. The video clearly showed that Rittenhouse was being pursued by a mob and that he acted in self-defense.
> 
> At this writing the jury is still out likely because lynch mob influence is seen by the jury as a threat to them and their families. Incredibly, national press coverage was so poor that up until the trial started most African Americans thought Rittenhouse had used his rifle to shoot three blacks especially after Joe Biden had publicly accused the teenager of being a white supremacist. The lone black member of the jury is no doubt under tremendous pressure to vote guilty and ignore the obvious evidence that Rittenhouse discharged the rifle to save his life from imminent attacks of rioters that were out of control and out for blood.
> 
> Rittenhouse stuck his neck out when the rest of us just stood back and hoped Washington would come to its senses and put a stop to the destruction of communities under the banner of a concocted Black Lives Matter movement when no one in the country was saying black lives do not matter. Maybe Rittenhouse's actions were dumb or maybe there were what was needed.



Considering crisis after crisis it's pretty safe to say the Biden administration is absolutely useless and incompetent.  Biden personally stoked the flames on Rittenhouse and the administration sits with their thumbs up their rear for each and every issue that has turned into a crisis.


----------



## JWBooth




----------



## FA_Q2

Ray9 said:


> As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home.


I somewhat disagree with this in general.  It is only a poor decision in the context of Rittenhouse himself.  If all the founders had the same idea of what constituted a 'poor' decision there would be no US.


----------



## FA_Q2

Correll said:


> 1. The fact that this trail was not moved, AND the jury sequestered, was fucking retarded.
> 
> 2. The judge needs to declare a mistrial with prejudice immediately.
> 
> 3. Rittenhouse's actions were laudable. That he has been charged is a shame on our society.


While the trial being moved and the jury sequestered should have happened, a mistrial with prejudice is not really the best outcome here for Rittenhouse.  He really does need a full exoneration.  The public lynching will be bad enough with that, if it were dismissed with prejudice I fear that there will be an even greater amount of hate targeted at Rittenhouse.


----------



## Canon Shooter

I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:

First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?

He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.

He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.

He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid.

He provided first aid to no one.

He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.

Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...


----------



## Correll

FA_Q2 said:


> While the trial being moved and the jury sequestered should have happened, a mistrial with prejudice is not really the best outcome here for Rittenhouse.  He really does need a full exoneration.  The public lynching will be bad enough with that, if it were dismissed with prejudice I fear that there will be an even greater amount of hate targeted at Rittenhouse.




I don't trust the jury to be able to stand up to the pressure or the fear of doxxing and violence. 

NOt to mention I have no faith that the jury was not stuffed with lefties.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> I don't trust the jury to be able to stand up to the pressure or the fear of doxxing and violence.
> 
> NOt to mention I have no faith that the jury was not stuffed with lefties.


All it takes is 1 holdout to let him go free.

I wish Kyle looked like this




I'm sure everyone would feel much differently about everything that went down that night if Kyle's name instead was Mohammad.


----------



## Correll

Canon Shooter said:


> I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:
> 
> First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?



I believe it was an attempt to comply with the legal technicalities. 




Canon Shooter said:


> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.



So? DId you see that unarmed man? He was far larger and very aggressive and looked like he would have no problem killing Rittenhouse despite being "unarmed" as he had expressly threatened to do earlier if he caught any of them alone, AND he was reaching for Rittenhouse's weapon. 




Canon Shooter said:


> He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.



So? Obviously a mistake, considering how things went, but I don't see that, indicative of anything.




Canon Shooter said:


> He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid



sO?




Canon Shooter said:


> He provided first aid to no one.



I don't know that that is true, but regardless, his stated intent was to do so. 




Canon Shooter said:


> He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.
> 
> Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...




Agreed. Any delay means that someone is not agreeing to a not guilty verdict. What should happen is a quick return of not guilty.


----------



## Claudette

Should be an interesting verdict.


----------



## 22lcidw

Looking at the the events of that night, the teenager was cool under pressure. Progs can maker heroes of the evil people all they want. In the end that is what we all will be stuck with. None of the media people destroying Rittenhouse would live next door to the two dead felons and the injured one. They are pure frauds. But it plays to a percentage of the population who are fools.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

From looking at the trial, he's innocent on all charges.  If the jury listened to biden or the false media narrative, he's screwed.


----------



## maybelooking

I thought we would have a verdict by lunch time yesterday.

Unfortunately,  the crowd outside the courthouse may be having the desired effect.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> All it takes is 1 holdout to let him go free.
> 
> I wish Kyle looked like this
> 
> View attachment 565223
> I'm sure everyone would feel much differently about everything that went down that night if Kyle's name instead was Mohammad.




No, one holdout for NOT GUILTY leads to a hung jury and a retrial. 



Yes, if he was brown and named Mohammad, and everything else was the same, it would really reduce the chances of him even being charged or god forbid convicted. 


It would be a very good message to remind people that Muslim Americans can be good  Americans instead of the lefties that the media showcases constantly.


----------



## freyasman

The idea is to scare people out of defending themselves; if you can't defend yourself from degenerates wilding in the streets or threatening your homes or property, without going to prison, then they win.
Even if you do win at trial, just being put on trial is a punishment in itself. How many of you can spend 2 months or more sitting in a jail cell, not working, and then be able to pay for a decent defense attorney? That shit's expensive, trust me, I know...


They are using_ the process as a punishment_ in order to coerce the rest of us into not defending ourselves and our communities






Stand your ground, do what's right, and never, _ever_ let them scare you.
We outnumber them and we have them surrounded; don't listen to their propaganda and bullshit.


----------



## Hang on Sloopy

Correll said:


> 1. The fact that this trail was not moved, AND the jury sequestered, was fucking retarded.
> 
> 2. The judge needs to declare a mistrial with prejudice immediately.
> 
> 3. Rittenhouse's actions were laudable. That he has been charged is a shame on our society.


I would sue that farting SOB for calling me a white supremacist.............lol.fucking retard

Whatever happens will  not stop..........................


----------



## freyasman

sealybobo said:


> All it takes is 1 holdout to let him go free.
> 
> I wish Kyle looked like this
> 
> View attachment 565223
> I'm sure everyone would feel much differently about everything that went down that night if Kyle's name instead was Mohammad.


I doubt it.

Most people aren't as racist as you are.


----------



## Resnic

Ray9 said:


> The Kyle Rittenhouse trial raises some interesting observations. Rittenhouse was seventeen when he decided to intervene in a riot that was burning the small town where his father lived less than 20 miles from where he and his mother made their home. As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home. There were calls on social media for people to protect the homes and businesses under attack and Rittenhouse responded.
> 
> Unfortunately, Rittenhouse answered the call with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, an AR-15-like rifle he legally owned despite false press reports echoing the prosecution saying the gun was illegally in his possession. For some reason no one in media bothered to check Wisconsin laws on firearms that made Rittenhouse’s gun legal for a seventeen-year-old instead just taking the word of the prosecution that was lying.
> 
> The judge threw out the charge of illegal possession of a firearm early on in what turned out to be a slew of criticism aimed at prosecutorial sloppiness and outright incompetence. It became evident as soon as video evidence was shown that the prosecution’s case was built on a house of cards, and it started falling apart almost immediately. The video clearly showed that Rittenhouse was being pursued by a mob and that he acted in self-defense.
> 
> At this writing the jury is still out likely because lynch mob influence is seen by the jury as a threat to them and their families. Incredibly, national press coverage was so poor that up until the trial started most African Americans thought Rittenhouse had used his rifle to shoot three blacks especially after Joe Biden had publicly accused the teenager of being a white supremacist. The lone black member of the jury is no doubt under tremendous pressure to vote guilty and ignore the obvious evidence that Rittenhouse discharged the rifle to save his life from imminent attacks of rioters that were out of control and out for blood.
> 
> Rittenhouse stuck his neck out when the rest of us just stood back and hoped Washington would come to its senses and put a stop to the destruction of communities under the banner of a concocted Black Lives Matter movement when no one in the country was saying black lives do not matter. Maybe Rittenhouse's actions were dumb or maybe they were what was needed.




Saying he should have stayed out of it is a bit short sighted. No one ever says "the rioters should have stayed home" they only say he should have stayed home.

Everyone says the kid who wanted to help and ended up having to defend himself should stay home, but no one tells the rioting pieces of shit that were the reason he was trying to help to stay home.

That's a fucked up point of view. And it's the reason rioters, arsonists and thieves run around unchecked because Americans only get upset when someone gets in their way.


----------



## Mindful




----------



## Mindful

Everything to do with it was white on white.

What are BLM doing there?


----------



## FA_Q2

freyasman said:


> I doubt it.
> 
> Most people aren't as racist as you are.


The news would not have been calling him a viscous racist for a year straight though.  The president himself would not have associated him with racists.  They would all have been crowing how we need to wait for the jury and how he was attacked by a mob of white people.

So, yes.  A lot of people would have a different opinion because the machines would not have been constantly lying to the them the entire time.


----------



## theHawk

Canon Shooter said:


> I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:
> 
> First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?
> 
> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.
> 
> He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.
> 
> He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid.
> 
> He provided first aid to no one.
> 
> He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.
> 
> Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...


He shot unarmed men attacking him.  If you don’t defend yourself against a ruthless mob, here is how you turn out:


----------



## JohnDB

What I'm having a difficult time with is that in such a clear cut case of self defense...

If this doesn't look like self defense....what does?

Where gender doesn't play a role here...what happens when a woman uses a gun to protect herself from attackers? 

It's identically the same. There was a lot more of them than him. Isolated and surrounded and chased at what point is it not self defense?  

But yet due to political pressure from the Mayor and Governor this case was brought forward anyway. The prosecution itself is more than ample punishment for whatever crime you might think Kyle committed.


----------



## miketx

Canon Shooter said:


> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.


Lol, A man kicking him in the head and the other hitting him with a skateboard twice in the head. IMO they will find him guilty for no other reason then to set a precedent against armed self defense.


----------



## JGalt

sealybobo said:


> All it takes is 1 holdout to let him go free.
> 
> I wish Kyle looked like this
> 
> View attachment 565223
> I'm sure everyone would feel much differently about everything that went down that night if Kyle's name instead was Mohammad.



If that were the case, President Biden would give him a new gun. Or maybe a tank.


----------



## maybelooking

Mindful said:


>


cant even attempt to watch that racist,  scum bag,  whore of a human being.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Rittenhouse left the safety of his fellow militia members and wandered off into a crowd of hostile protestors.

Of course there was going to be a confrontation.

It was a stupid thing to do and it got 2 people killed.

And his fellow militia members who didn't have his back aren't so hot either.


----------



## maybelooking

Otis Mayfield said:


> Rittenhouse left the safety of his fellow militia members and wandered off into a crowd of hostile protestors.
> 
> Of course there was going to be a confrontation.
> 
> It was a stupid thing to do and it got 2 people killed.
> 
> And his fellow militia members who didn't have his back aren't so hot either.


just start every post with 

"im Otis and I'm a fucking retard"

Thanks in advance.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

sealybobo said:


> All it takes is 1 holdout to let him go free.
> 
> I wish Kyle looked like this
> 
> View attachment 565223
> I'm sure everyone would feel much differently about everything that went down that night if Kyle's name instead was Mohammad.



Nope, if he was defending himself, he should go free. Doesn't matter what color or race or ethnicity. Obviously it does for you though.


----------



## JGalt

Otis Mayfield said:


> Rittenhouse left the safety of his fellow militia members and wandered off into a crowd of hostile protestors.
> 
> Of course there was going to be a confrontation.
> 
> It was a stupid thing to do and it got 2 people killed.
> 
> And his fellow militia members who didn't have his back aren't so hot either.



That only shows what cowards those antifags are. They wouldn't mess with a group of armed militia, but ganged up on one lone child.

Except that one lone child was armed, so they fucked around and found out.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Otis Mayfield said:


> Rittenhouse left the safety of his fellow militia members and wandered off into a crowd of hostile protestors.
> 
> Of course there was going to be a confrontation.
> 
> It was a stupid thing to do and it got 2 people killed.
> 
> And his fellow militia members who didn't have his back aren't so hot either.



These were rioters who were burning down buildings, looting, pillaging, while the city did nothing to protect the citizens.  The city council along with the police who failed their duty, need to be removed.


----------



## sealybobo

JGalt said:


> If that were the case, President Biden would give him a new gun. Or maybe a tank.


We all know Republicans wouldn't be defending Kyle if his name was Mohammad.


----------



## Opie

Will the 3.6% plazas raise your hands 🙌🏻 and give me ONE GOOD REASON.


----------



## sealybobo

LordBrownTrout said:


> Nope, if he was defending himself, he should go free. Doesn't matter what color or race or ethnicity. Obviously it does for you though.


If he was black or Muslim the cops or some white ccw dude would have taken him out and then you'd be defending them at their trial right now.

You just don't know it.  You guys always take the right wing side so I know where you would fall in that scenario.  It's like the vaccine.  If Trump were president you'd be down with vaccine mandates.  But because Biden is, you're against them.  

We see it every time a cop murders a black.  You are always on the right wing side.  This case is just like the Trevon Martin case.  Something wrong with our current laws if George and Kyle are innocent.


----------



## Polishprince

Otis Mayfield said:


> Rittenhouse left the safety of his fellow militia members and wandered off into a crowd of hostile protestors.
> 
> Of course there was going to be a confrontation.
> 
> It was a stupid thing to do and it got 2 people killed.
> 
> And his fellow militia members who didn't have his back aren't so hot either.



Mr. Rittenhouse had the right to be in the streets, regardless of how many BLM or NAMBLA protesters were out there burning and looting.

The Bidenistas like Mr. Grosskreutz and Mr. Rosenbaum don't own the streets


----------



## JGalt

sealybobo said:


> We all know Republicans wouldn't be defending Kyle if his name was Mohammad.



If he was a conservative, Republican, or Trump-supporter?

Sure. Why the hell not? You people seem to think everything is about race, when it's not. *It's about ideologies.* 

I have no problem with anyone who believes in the same things I do, whether they're black, white, brown, straight, gay, male, female, rich, poor, Christian, Jew, or Muslim.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

sealybobo said:


> If he was black or Muslim the cops or some white ccw dude would have taken him out and then you'd be defending them at their trial right now.
> 
> You just don't know it.  You guys always take the right wing side so I know where you would fall in that scenario.  It's like the vaccine.  If Trump were president you'd be down with vaccine mandates.  But because Biden is, you're against them.
> 
> We see it every time a cop murders a black.  You are always on the right wing side.  This case is just like the Trevon Martin case.  Something wrong with our current laws if George and Kyle are innocent.



Your compass is so screwed up that you don't know north from south.  From the trial, he is innocent.  Thats based on facts, not your feely emotions or divisive media narrative that rages and hates.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AZrailwhale said:


> Unless he enters a directed verdict of not guilty, something he may do if the jury falls for the prosecution’s rhetoric and games.


Nonsense.


----------



## bripat9643

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 565222


----------



## JohnDB

maybelooking said:


> just start every post with
> 
> "im Otis and I'm a fucking retard"
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Of that post I happen to agree with him about situational awareness...
His buddy Dominic isn't exactly a stellar Friend either.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

FA_Q2 said:


> The news would not have been calling him a viscous racist for a year straight though


That didn't happen. You are delusional.


----------



## maybelooking

sealybobo said:


> We all know Republicans wouldn't be defending Kyle if his name was Mohammad.


if his name was Mohammed he wouldn't have been there!!! He would have been too busy shooting up a gay night club!!


----------



## Oddball

Mindful said:


> Everything to do with it was white on white.
> 
> What are BLM doing there?


Being the jackbooted fascist goons that they are.


----------



## Polishprince

sealybobo said:


> We all know Republicans wouldn't be defending Kyle if his name was Mohammad.



I don't know about that at all.   Its the libs who attack the actions of Mohammad (Moe) B. Salman who is alleged to have clipped the fellow from the Washington Post.


----------



## maybelooking

JohnDB said:


> Of that post I happen to agree with him about situational awareness...
> His buddy Dominic isn't exactly a stellar Friend either.


the retarded part was "of course there was going to be a confrontation"

I agree.....but not because of Kyle.  Because of the communist pussies that attacked him.


----------



## Oddball

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 565222


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Doc7505 said:


> EXCLUSIVE: Prosecutors in Kenosha shooter trial WITHHELD high-definition video evidence from the defense that was 'at the center of their case' and initially shared a lower quality version of drone footage from the night of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecutors in Kenosha shooter trial WITHHELD evidence from defense
> 
> 
> Prosecutors in the Kenosha shooter trial withheld evidence from the defense that was 'at the center of their case,' DailyMail.com reveal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 Nov 2021 ~~ By Laura Collins 10:14 PM
> 
> *Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger initially shared low quality drone footage from the night of the shooting with the defense *
> *The defense claims Binger only shared the high-definition footage after evidence had closed on Saturday  *
> *According to a motion filed today by the defense,  'The problem is the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video'*
> *'What that means is the video provided to the defense was not as clear as the video kept by the state,' the motion states *
> *Lawyers for Rittenhouse filed their motion for mistrial with prejudice based on this and several other grounds *
> In the motion obtained by DailyMail.com, Rittenhouse's defense insist that the state only shared it with the defense after evidence had closed on Saturday November 13.
> ~Snip~
> 'The video footage has been at the center of this case. The idea that the state would provide lesser quality footage and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case is the very reason they requested and were granted the provocation instruction by the Court.'
> 
> 
> Comment:
> Binger was playing games from day one to provoke Hedge Schroeder into having no choice but declare a mistrial with prejudice. The biased MSM, PM/DSA Democrat politicians and Leftists in general have branded Schroeder as everything from. "biased" to actually suggesting he is a is. member of The Klan.  Imagine their reaction when judge Schroeder declares the mistrial with prejudice.
> If these PM/DSA Democrat Leftists are prepared to fix a murder trial, they're prepared to fix Presidential Elections.


MORE prosecutorial misconduct.

Somebody's going to jail, and it ain't Rittenhouse.


----------



## bripat9643

Canon Shooter said:


> I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:
> 
> First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?
> 
> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.
> 
> He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.
> 
> He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid.
> 
> He provided first aid to no one.
> 
> He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.
> 
> Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...


In WI you can own a gun when you are 17, but you can't buy it.  Normally you have to get your parents to buy it.

The rest of your posts is equally stupid and wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Canon Shooter said:


> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.



Which one?


----------



## bripat9643

sealybobo said:


> All it takes is 1 holdout to let him go free.
> 
> I wish Kyle looked like this
> 
> View attachment 565223
> I'm sure everyone would feel much differently about everything that went down that night if Kyle's name instead was Mohammad.


I wouldn't have a problem with it because no one would be trying to kill them, you fucking moron.


----------



## JohnDB

maybelooking said:


> the retarded part was "of course there was going to be a confrontation"
> 
> I agree.....but not because of Kyle.  Because of the communist pussies that attacked him.


Of course it never occurred to Kyle that they had baited a trap to isolate him. 

His "militia" buddies never trained or discussed how to move together as a group or anything...how to watch over each other and work together. 

That was the chink in their armor and it was a recipe for disaster. The Antifa guys used prison tactics on the open street and attacked the isolated person. 

And more of that is coming.


----------



## ColonelAngus

The media LIED for the past 18 months, yet you sheep will continue to believe the media.

1) Kyle crossed a state line with a gun......LIE.
2) Kyle was to young to possess the gun...LIE.

ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON CHARGES DROPPED.....AGREED TO BY THE ASSISTANT DA.

Will the indoctrinated communist sheep change the lie?


----------



## maybelooking

JohnDB said:


> Of course it never occurred to Kyle that they had baited a trap to isolate him.
> 
> His "militia" buddies never trained or discussed how to move together as a group or anything...how to watch over each other and work together.
> 
> That was the chink in their armor and it was a recipe for disaster. The Antifa guys used prison tactics on the open street and attacked the isolated person.
> 
> And more of that is coming.


absolutely true.

Their downfall was their lack of maturity and training to properly handle the situation.


----------



## Mindful




----------



## JohnDB

maybelooking said:


> absolutely true.
> 
> Their downfall was their lack of maturity and training to properly handle the situation.


Now the national guard actually does train for this...
Which the Mayor and Governor didn't want to call because they wanted the riots. To help Joe Biden get elected...blatant destructive politics. 

Which is the exact same reason that a perfect self defense case got prosecuted to begin with.


----------



## Mindful

As Kenosha, Wisconsin, braces for possible violence in response to an upcoming verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, Judge Bruce Schroeder is on alert for his personal safety and his children’s after receiving death threats for his effort to conduct a fair trial.

One message to the Kenosha County Circuit Court judge threatening his children vowed “pay back” and warned that the teen who is on trial for murder “won’t live long” if he is acquitted.









						'Pay Back': Rittenhouse Judge's Children Receive Death Threats ⋆ Conservative Firing Line
					

Children of the judge overseeing the Rittenhouse trial are now subject to death threats.



					conservativefiringline.com


----------



## maybelooking

Mindful said:


> As Kenosha, Wisconsin, braces for possible violence in response to an upcoming verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, Judge Bruce Schroeder is on alert for his personal safety and his children’s after receiving death threats for his effort to conduct a fair trial.
> 
> One message to the Kenosha County Circuit Court judge threatening his children vowed “pay back” and warned that the teen who is on trial for murder “won’t live long” if he is acquitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'Pay Back': Rittenhouse Judge's Children Receive Death Threats ⋆ Conservative Firing Line
> 
> 
> Children of the judge overseeing the Rittenhouse trial are now subject to death threats.
> 
> 
> 
> conservativefiringline.com


The FBI can't be bothered with this im sure.  They are much too busy spying on soccer moms.


----------



## freyasman

maybelooking said:


> absolutely true.
> 
> Their downfall was their lack of maturity and training to properly handle the situation.


No, it was the application of firepower; they outmaneuvered him, he was just able to shoot his way clear.
They had better tactics, he had more firepower..... sometimes it works like that, and sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## bripat9643

JohnDB said:


> Of course it never occurred to Kyle that they had baited a trap to isolate him.
> 
> His "militia" buddies never trained or discussed how to move together as a group or anything...how to watch over each other and work together.
> 
> That was the chink in their armor and it was a recipe for disaster. The Antifa guys used prison tactics on the open street and attacked the isolated person.
> 
> And more of that is coming.


Rittenhouse doesn't have any militia buddies, you fucking douchebag.  The "chink" in your armor is that you're stupid and a liar.


----------



## Cecilie1200

FA_Q2 said:


> I somewhat disagree with this in general.  It is only a poor decision in the context of Rittenhouse himself.  If all the founders had the same idea of what constituted a 'poor' decision there would be no US.



Cowardice is often misrepresented as "wisdom" in order to try to justify it.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> That didn't happen. You are delusional.


ROFLMAO.


----------



## Mindful

The media’s coverage of the Rittenhouse shootings has been disgracefully biased and dishonest.

Officially, it’s Kyle Rittenhouse who’s on trial in Kenosha County Courthouse. But to some of us it looks like the mainstream media are in the dock, too. We await the jury’s decision on whether Rittenhouse is guilty or not guilty of homicide. But we already have a pretty good sense of the culpability of the media in fashioning an almost entirely skewed narrative around the Rittenhouse shootings.

The more the trial has dug into the events of that fateful day of 25 August 2020, when a 17-year-old Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and injured another, the more we have seen just how cynical, partisan and outright deceptive so much of the media coverage of this tragic affair has been. 

There’s no doubting it: the media are guilty of pursuing a culture war against Mr Rittenhouse and against what he is seen to represent – problematic white men.









						The culture war against Kyle Rittenhouse
					

The media’s coverage of the Rittenhouse shootings has been disgracefully biased and dishonest.




					www.spiked-online.com


----------



## Cecilie1200

Otis Mayfield said:


> Rittenhouse left the safety of his fellow militia members and wandered off into a crowd of hostile protestors.
> 
> Of course there was going to be a confrontation.
> 
> It was a stupid thing to do and it got 2 people killed.
> 
> And his fellow militia members who didn't have his back aren't so hot either.



"Fellow militia members"?  And you're smoking what today?

You know what got those two people killed?  Their own actions.  Don't piss and moan at us about how they should have been able to riot and burn and destroy without opposition, and expect to convince anyone.


----------



## Cecilie1200

maybelooking said:


> just start every post with
> 
> "im Otis and I'm a fucking retard"
> 
> Thanks in advance.



Well, he kinda does.  Not explicitly, but it's still very clear.


----------



## candycorn

Thinker101 said:


> Considering crisis after crisis it's pretty safe to say the Biden administration is absolutely useless and incompetent.  Biden personally stoked the flames on Rittenhouse and the administration sits with their thumbs up their rear for each and every issue that has turned into a crisis.



Biden wasn't President when Pop and Fresh shot 3 people.


----------



## FA_Q2

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cowardice is often misrepresented as "wisdom" in order to try to justify it.


----------



## JohnDB

bripat9643 said:


> Rittenhouse doesn't have any militia buddies, you fucking douchebag.  The "chink" in your armor is that you're stupid and a liar.


Didn't you see the """" marks?  I was being facetious. 
And according to the constitution's 2nd amendment they are a militia. 

The only problem is they weren't well trained.


----------



## candycorn

Has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


----------



## Thinker101

candycorn said:


> Biden wasn't President when Pop and Fresh shot 3 people.






Well that certainly didn't stop him from saying stupid shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Biden wasn't President when Pop and Fresh shot 3 people.



Which has exactly what to do with what Thinker said, beyond your regular kneejerk reaction of, "No, my masters cannot ever be wrong, EVER!"?


----------



## freyasman

candycorn said:


> Has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


Has there ever been a shitbag the left won't defend, if it suits their purpose?


----------



## Flash

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Fellow militia members"?  And you're smoking what today?
> 
> You know what got those two people killed?  Their own actions.  Don't piss and moan at us about how they should have been able to riot and burn and destroy without opposition, and expect to convince anyone.


The Democrat leadership allowed the BLM filth to destroy anything they wanted.

The BLM filth felt they were entitled to attack anybody they wanted that opposed their destructive actions.

They picked on Kyle because he looked like a young kid that would run away.  In fact he did try to run away but they ran him down.  That was their big mistake.  He didn't let the vigilante mob beat him up.  He fought back and they paid for their stupidity.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Which has exactly what to do with what Thinker said, beyond your regular kneejerk reaction of, "No, my masters cannot ever be wrong, EVER!"?



Nothing... I was responding to someone else.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The judge may grant this motion because he has reached his limit on prosecutorial misconduct.


----------



## Cecilie1200

FA_Q2 said:


>



Makes sense.  Virtue requires courage, because it will inevitably require you to stand against those who are not virtuous.  If you are unwilling to stand up for what is right, then you are not virtuous, whatever you may think or believe about the situation at hand.  Having virtuous thoughts does no one any good unless you're willing to act on them.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Biden wasn't President when Pop and Fresh shot 3 people.


Ahhh....the good ol days!


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?



Has there ever been a lawless animal that the leftists haven't worshipped?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

It's pretty clear to me there is likely a verdict of guilty incoming.

The evidence of his innocence was clear so to not return right away with that verdict spells doom for the young man.


----------



## ColonelAngus

The ADA claims that no one who has a gun has a right to self defense against someone without a gun.

FUCKING LIE.

Binger needs to be disbarred.


----------



## maybelooking

I would think by this point the Judges patience has run completely out!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Nothing... I was responding to someone else.



Then you might want to actually respond to that person's post.  I wouldn't have thought that was too complicated, even for a fool like you.


----------



## JohnDB

Tipsycatlover said:


> The judge may grant this motion because he has reached his limit on prosecutorial misconduct.


Agreed...he was at his limit before. 
This is perfect grounds for appeal...the question is whether Kyle goes free now or later.


----------



## maybelooking

Grampa Murked U said:


> It's pretty clear to me there is likely a verdict of guilty incoming.
> 
> The evidence of his innocence was clear so to not return right away with that verdict spells doom for the young man.


I sure hope you are wrong.....but fear you may be correct.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Has there ever been a lawless animal that the leftists haven't worshipped?



Yes.  Kyle Rosenhouse


----------



## JohnDB

ColonelAngus said:


> The ADA claims that no one who has a gun has a right to self defense against someone without a gun.
> 
> FUCKING LIE.
> 
> Binger needs to be disbarred.


He needs more than that...
20yrs to life sounds better.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Then you might want to actually respond to that person's post.  I wouldn't have thought that was too complicated, even for a fool like you.


I did you grotesque bitch:




I wouldn't have thought it was too complicated for you.  Of course I was wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Yes.  Kyle Rosenhouse



Rosenhouse?  Who the hell is that?


----------



## ColonelAngus

JohnDB said:


> He needs more than that...
> 20yrs to life sounds better.



Nah, disbarred seems appropriate.


----------



## Mindful

KENOSHA, WI—Moments before reading the verdict, the twelve jurors in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse asked if the defendant would please step outside and defend the courthouse. 
“We, the jury will perform our constitutional duty and declare the verdict in this case,” said one sweating juror, “But we, the jury also don’t want to die.”

“Objection, your honor, Rittenhouse does not possess an AR-15 to defend the courthouse; I have the AR-15,” said the prosecutor, swinging the weapon wildly about as onlookers nervously ducked behind benches. “Besides, protestors are heroes, people of upstanding character, and victims.”
Judge Schroeder ruled the prosecutor a doofus and allowed Rittenhouse to disarm the blubbering liar, load his weapon, and position himself defensively on the steps of the courthouse while the verdict was read.









						Kyle Rittenhouse Asked To Step Outside And Defend The Courthouse While Verdict Is Being Read
					

KENOSHA, WI—Moments before reading the verdict, the twelve jurors in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse asked if the defendant would please step outside and defend the courthouse.




					babylonbee.com


----------



## JohnDB

ColonelAngus said:


> Nah, disbarred seems appropriate.


Old Biblical standard...you get the punishment that you tried to inflict on the person who you knew was innocent.


----------



## freyasman

candycorn said:


> Yes.  Kyle Rosenhouse


LOL..... who???


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JohnDB said:


> Agreed...he was at his limit before.
> This is perfect grounds for appeal...the question is whether Kyle goes free now or later.


Some judges don't want to be appealed.   If this judge doesn't want to be appealed this case is over.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> I did you grotesque bitch:
> View attachment 565268
> 
> I wouldn't have thought it was too complicated for you.  Of course I was wrong.



Let me see if I can understand the twisted chain of illogic spewing from the vacuum between your ears.

You respond to Thinker with a _non sequitur_.  I ask you what the hell your blithering has to do with what Thinker said.  You say, "Nothing, I was responding to someone else."  I tell you that you should probably try responding to that person, instead of to Thinker.  And then you "prove" to me that you did so . . . by posting a picture of you responding to Thinker.  And you somehow think you've been brilliant and incisive and shown me up?

Even taking into account the fact that you're you, that is just pathetic.  Thanks for doing my work for me and kicking your own ass.


----------



## ColonelAngus

JohnDB said:


> Old Biblical standard...you get the punishment that you tried to inflict on the person who you knew was innocent.



I know where you were going with it, and in a pure sense this would be just.

The law does not provide for this remedy.

The real problem is Binger redefining self defense.


----------



## progressive hunter

BREAKING: Rittenhouse defense team asks for a ‘mistrial with prejudice’ after prosecutors withheld evidence [UPDATED]
					

The Rittenhouse defense team is set to ask for a mistrial with prejudice this morning after it was revealed that the prosecution didn’t share a high def video with the defense until after arg…




					therightscoop.com


----------



## freyasman

ColonelAngus said:


> I know where you were going with it, and in a pure sense this would be just.
> 
> The law does not provide for this remedy.
> 
> The real problem is Binger redefining self defense.


There are a lot of people out there who don't believe anyone but the state can legitimately use force..... for any reason.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Rosenhouse?  Who the hell is that?


lol...auto correct. Rittenhouse.  the left doesn't worship him.  Like you do.


----------



## sartre play

What bothers me is he is just a kid, Who lets there kid out late at night at a protest that is known to have the potential for danger with a With a fire arm? if there is no lesson for him whos the next kid out some where looking for attention with a fire arm.


----------



## JohnDB

It's not looking good for the prosecutor...

They knew who blue hoodie guy was during the trial...
They had better high definition footage of the "provocation" moment which would have cleared up whether Kyle was aiming at protesters...but kept it away from the defense.

Refused to execute the warrant on Grosskreutz phone. 
All of these things are going to get the prosecutor in some very hot water.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Let me see if I can understand the twisted chain of illogic spewing from the vacuum between your ears.
> 
> You respond to Thinker with a _non sequitur_.
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I can understand the twisted chain of illogic spewing from the vacuum between your ears.
> 
> You respond to Thinker with a _non sequitur_.  I ask you what the hell your blithering has to do with what Thinker said.  You say, "Nothing, I was responding to someone else."  I tell you that you should probably try responding to that person, instead of to Thinker.  And then you "prove" to me that you did so . . . by posting a picture of you responding to Thinker.  And you somehow think you've been brilliant and incisive and shown me up?
> 
> Even taking into account the fact that you're you, that is just pathetic.  Thanks for doing my work for me and kicking your own ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ask you what the hell your blithering has to do with what Thinker said.  You say, "Nothing, I was responding to someone else."  I tell you that you should probably try responding to that person, instead of to Thinker.  And then you "prove" to me that you did so . . . by posting a picture of you responding to Thinker.  And you somehow think you've been brilliant and incisive and shown me up?
> 
> Even taking into account the fact that you're you, that is just pathetic.  Thanks for doing my work for me and kicking your own ass.
Click to expand...


Are you that lonely?  That you have to insert yourself into someone else's conversation? Of course you are. 

Its pretty clear why you're all alone in the world.  Do they make thanksgiving meals for one at Honey Bake Hams?


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## ColonelAngus

freyasman said:


> There are a lot of people out there who don't believe anyone but the state can legitimately use force..... for any reason.



The pussies who want “safety” over freedom, I suppose.

They exist, for sure…but when the government tells you to submit to someone robbing you, the state is not providing security.

Imagine what these commies would do if our citizenry had no weapons.

These sheep are gleefully marching to the slaughterhouse.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Rosenbaum TOLD Kyle he was going to kill Kyle.  Then Rosenbaum chases Kyle and tries to steal Kyle’s weapon.

It is such obvious self defense.

If this is not self defense, then nothing is.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

It is almost as if the prosecutor wants a mistrial with prejudice so everybody can throw a fit about racial injustice.

That's probably exactly what is happening here.

Are you ready to do all sorts of illegal things after seeing this leftist plot?

Don't fall for it. 

They are deliberately trying to agitate.  They know they will NEVER succeed.  It's desperation.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Are you that lonely?  That you have to insert yourself into someone else's conversation? Of course you are.
> 
> Its pretty clear why you're all alone in the world.  Do they make thanksgiving meals for one at Honey Bake Hams?


That was just too funny...I had a friend who posted pics of him and his family going to cracker barrel for Thanksgiving...
I refused to let him do it ever again. 

Friends don't let friends go to Cracker Barrel for Thanksgiving is what I told him.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> That was just too funny...I had a friend who posted pics of him and his family going to cracker barrel for Thanksgiving...
> I refused to let him do it ever again.
> 
> Friends don't let friends go to Cracker Barrel for Thanksgiving is what I told him.



Well, last year she was complaining that her love for Trump had ripped her family apart....


----------



## freyasman

ColonelAngus said:


> Rosenbaum TOLD Kyle he was going to kill Kyle.  Then Rosenbaum chases Kyle and tries to steal Kyle’s weapon.
> 
> It is such obvious self defense.
> 
> If this is not self defense, then nothing is.


And that's why statists feel it must be discouraged in the strongest possible manner.

Because if you acknowledge that individuals have a right to defend themselves, then what happens to statists?


----------



## DrLove

AZrailwhale said:


> If the DA gets a mistrial, he will thank god and quietly drop the case.  A mistrial is the only thing that might protect him from a wrongful prosecution lawsuit.  A mistrial would be a gross miscarriage of justice. There is no evidence at all of anything except self defense.


No, he'd be retried but murder one won't be on the table. With a decent judge and decent prosecutor (this dude was terrible) Baby Kyle can be convicted.


----------



## Flash

Grampa Murked U said:


> It's pretty clear to me there is likely a verdict of guilty incoming.
> 
> The evidence of his innocence was clear so to not return right away with that verdict spells doom for the young man.


At the end of the day this is a political trial, not a self defense case.

All it takes are a couple of stupid Moon Bats on the jury to prevent justice for Kyle.

The randomness of the way the jury was selected could very well allow one or more of the stupid hate filled Moon Bats to screw Kyle.

That is the way America is nowadays.  These stupid uneducated low information hate filled Moon Bats are fucking up everything that they can.

Hopefully there are Patriots on the Jury that will not allow the Moon Bat filth to destroy Kyle.

You are probably right.  They jury should have come to the decision this was a simple self defense case in 30 minutes of deliberation and found him innocent of all charges.  The fact it was not done does not bode well for Kyle. 

Our country is getting more and more fucked every day because of the greed, hatefulness and destruction of the Left Wingers and this may be just nail in the coffin of America.


----------



## DrLove

AZrailwhale said:


> And if the three guys hadn’t attacked Rittenhouse, NO ONE would have been shot or killed.  Rittenhouse was defensive and was attempting to retreat in the case of every attack.   Hell he was knocked to the ground by a rock to the head before the last two shootings.


LoL - No, some dude tossed an empty plastic bag at him. The others were trying to disarm him because they thought he was an active shooter (which he was).


----------



## ColonelAngus

candycorn said:


> Well, last year she was complaining that her love for Trump had ripped her family apart....



You lefties think Trump is on trial.

That is not how the legal system works.

If you were holding ANY weapon, and I told you I was going to KILL YOU…and then I chased you and attempted to steal your weapon…would you not use that weapon against me?

Would you allow me to gain use of the weapon and hope I was kidding when I threatened to kill you?


----------



## Flash

We were right.  Little Finger is a queer.

He is living with another guy. 














						One Of The Kyle Rittenhouse Prosecutors To Resign, The Other Has Been Living With A Kenosha Judge: Sources - Kenosha County Eye
					

Kyle Rittenhouse was 17 years old when he shot and killed a convicted pedophile and convicted woman-beater during the Kenosha Riots of 2020. He also shot and hurt a career criminal on the evening of Read more…




					kenoshacountyeye.com


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> No, he'd be retried but murder one won't be on the table. With a decent judge and decent prosecutor (this dude was terrible) Baby Kyle can be convicted.


...and a decent set of facts that don't currently exist.


----------



## ColonelAngus

freyasman said:


> And that's why statists feel it must be discouraged in the strongest possible manner.
> 
> Because if you acknowledge that individuals have a right to defend themselves, then what happens to statists?



You, as do I, clearly see this is all an attempt to remove the ability of the citizens to defend themselves in preparation for state subjagation.

We have all seen this movie before…dozens of times.  It always ends the same way.

I do not understand why the sheep do not get it.


----------



## FA_Q2

candycorn said:


> Are you that lonely?  That you have to insert yourself into someone else's conversation? Of course you are.
> 
> Its pretty clear why you're all alone in the world.  Do they make thanksgiving meals for one at Honey Bake Hams?


Is this what passes for oops I fucked up in your mind?


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> Are you that lonely?  That you have to insert yourself into someone else's conversation? Of course you are.
> 
> Its pretty clear why you're all alone in the world.  Do they make thanksgiving meals for one at Honey Bake Hams?


You don't understand how this forum works, do you?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> LoL - No, some dude tossed an empty plastic bag at him. The others were trying to disarm him because they thought he was an active shooter (which he was).


🤣 

Yeah, ignore that first gunshot into the air by commie Ziminski less than one second before Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse from behind.

If only the facts didn't shit all over your  ignorant, uninformed, ugly face, you could actually be right about something.


----------



## candycorn

ColonelAngus said:


> You lefties think Trump is on trial.


Try again.


ColonelAngus said:


> That is not how the legal system works.


Vigilanteism isn't how it works either.  At least it's not the way its supposed to work.  


ColonelAngus said:


> If you were holding ANY weapon, and I told you I was going to KILL YOU…and then I chased you and attempted to steal your weapon…would you not use that weapon against me?
> 
> Would you allow me to gain use of the weapon and hope I was kidding when I threatened to kill you?



I wouldn't have driven into a state looking for trouble with my gun in the first place.


----------



## candycorn

FA_Q2 said:


> Is this what passes for oops I fucked up in your mind?



alrighty then.


----------



## ColonelAngus

bripat9643 said:


> You don't understand how this forum works, do you?



These are all bilateral threads! How dare you post in a thread?!

Butt out!   

Wow.  See what these lefties are all about?

SILENCING DISSENT.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> lol...auto correct. Rittenhouse.  the left doesn't worship him.  Like you do.



"Auto correct" changed Rittenhouse to Rosenhouse?  Really?  That's what you're going with?

Of course the left doesn't worship Rittenhouse.  He's not nearly vile and evil enough for the likes of the left.  Actual decent people need not apply as leftist icons.

You might as well stop trying to turn this around.  You're always going to be a useless stain on humanity who defends other stains on humanity, and no amount of twisting and turning will change that.  The fact that you're also too stupid to string together a coherent sentence only makes it worse.

Did you actually think YOUR sad pretense of moral condemnation was going to make someone feel bad for recognizing that Rittenhouse is innocent?  That's hilarious.


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 🤣
> 
> Yeah, ignore that first gunshot into the air by commie Ziminski less than one second before Rosenbaum attacked Rittenhouse from behind.
> 
> If only the facts didn't shit all over your  ignorant, uninformed, ugly face, you could actually be right about something.


Rosenbaum did not attack him from behind. He never made it to within 5 feet.


----------



## Desperado

anything other than NOT GUILTY on all counts would prove this trial to be a sham.


----------



## ColonelAngus

candycorn said:


> Try again.
> 
> Vigilanteism isn't how it works either.  At least it's not the way its supposed to work.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have driven into a state looking for trouble with my gun in the first place.



Was Kyle legally in Kenosha?  Yes
Was Kyle legally in possession of a firearm? Yes
Did Rosenbaum threaten to murder Kyle? Yes
Did Rosenbaum chase Kyle? Yes
Did Rosenbaum attempt to steal Kyle’s firearm? Yes
Did Rosenbaum get some extra iron in his diet? Yes

Seems clear to me.  What bullshit lala land are you living in?


----------



## ColonelAngus

Desperado said:


> anything other than NOT GUILTY on all counts would prove this trial to be a sham.



The POS Ada Binger lied repeatedly.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Are you that lonely?  That you have to insert yourself into someone else's conversation? Of course you are.
> 
> Its pretty clear why you're all alone in the world.  Do they make thanksgiving meals for one at Honey Bake Hams?



Have someone explain the concept of "open message board on the Internet".  Again.

What's pretty clear is why you keep trying to project your own sad existence onto me.  Thanks for displaying your despair for my enjoyment again.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Cecilie1200 said:


> Have someone explain the concept of "open message board on the Internet".  Again.
> 
> What's pretty clear is why you keep trying to project your own sad existence onto me.  Thanks for displaying your despair for my enjoyment again.



For the record, please feel free to jump into any thread I create. 

Corn has issues.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ColonelAngus said:


> You lefties think Trump is on trial.
> 
> That is not how the legal system works.
> 
> If you were holding ANY weapon, and I told you I was going to KILL YOU…and then I chased you and attempted to steal your weapon…would you not use that weapon against me?
> 
> Would you allow me to gain use of the weapon and hope I was kidding when I threatened to kill you?



If Cornball was holding a weapon, she'd most likely injure herself before anything else could happen.  There's a reason why kindergartens and mental hospitals only have safety scissors.


----------



## Cecilie1200

ColonelAngus said:


> For the record, please feel free to jump into any thread I create.
> 
> Corn has issues.



Why, thank you.  Right back atcha.  I'd be disappointed if I started a conversation and you didn't participate.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> You don't understand how this forum works, do you?



When has she ever understood how anything works?


----------



## FA_Q2

candycorn said:


> Has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


 It is worth pointing out that no one on the right has erected any statues to Rittenhouse.  No one has idolized him in the least.

Not quite so true with Floyd.  The left is erecting statues to him.

I wonder who actually has the worship problem of vile people....


----------



## ColonelAngus

Cecilie1200 said:


> If Cornball was holding a weapon, she'd most likely injure herself before anything else could happen.  There's a reason why kindergartens and mental hospitals only have safety scissors.



How dare you?!

It seems very clear to me the lefties have banked on the media lies for the past year and a half, and their feebles minds are not equipped to process the truth.

This LIE that Kyle was illegally in possession of the firearm has persisted for a year and a half.

TOTAL FUCKING LIE…BUT THE LEFT WONT ADMIT IT.


----------



## FA_Q2

candycorn said:


> alrighty then.


Apparently it is.

Cecil is a 'grotesque bitch' for pointing out what you actually did whilst you claimed you did not.

The fact you posted a picture to prove her point is just fucking hilarious even if you are unable to admit it.


----------



## ColonelAngus

FA_Q2 said:


> It is worth pointing out that no one on the right has erected any statues to Rittenhouse.  No one has idolized him in the least.
> 
> Not quite so true with Floyd.  The left is erecting statues to him.
> 
> I wonder who actually has the worship problem of vile people....



Fuck yea. Great point!


----------



## Flash

*The defense filed a new motion for dismissal alleging that the prosecution withheld key video evidence. The defense was given a 3.6MB video while the prosecution used a 11.2MB. The larger file was not provided to the defense "until after the trial concluded."

...Given the continual complaints over the "grainy" quality of videos, the withholding of a high def version is astonishing. However this case has been continual train wreck of evidentiary and tactical failures.

Jonathan Turley  (@JonathanTurley)*


----------



## two_iron

The marxist shitstains hear that a chomo was blown away and their first thought is "Dayum, that could have been me!"


----------



## FA_Q2

ColonelAngus said:


> Fuck yea. Great point!


It is one of the core problems the left is facing today though they are unable to see it.  They are idolizing victimhood.  In reality, the idol worship of Floyd exists irrelevant to his life as it celebrates his victimhood.

Such a core value is corrosive as hell.  Don't get me wrong, there are equal problems on the right atm IMHO but this particular problem, the idolization victims, is on the left.  There is zero merit in this.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> Rosenbaum did not attack him from behind. He never made it to within 5 feet.


Are you just making shit up to troll?

Jesus.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Everybody take notice. 

Dr. Love does not know ANY of the facts, so if you discuss this with him, you are going to have to hand feed him everything, and even then, he still won't get it.


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Are you just making shit up to troll?
> 
> Jesus.


Nope,  I saw the video. The guy got to around 5 feet and Baby Kyle spun and filled him with lead.


----------



## progressive hunter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Everybody take notice.
> 
> Dr. Love does not know ANY of the facts, so if you discuss this with him, you are going to have to hand feed him everything, and even then, he still won't get it.


I found it easier to just put him on ignore,,


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> Well, last year she was complaining that her love for Trump had ripped her family apart....


That means all the Trump haters in the family couldn't set aside their politics and keep their damn mouths shut about politics.  The same thing happened in my family.  It's never the fault of Trump supporters.


----------



## Flash




----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> Nope,  I saw the video. The guy got to around 5 feet and Baby Kyle spun and filled him with lead.



And to think, Rosenbaum could have stayed home and still be alive.

Why was Rosenbaum acting as a vigilante?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

First shot on Rosenbaum was at very close range - NOT 5 FUCKING FEET, you idiot


----------



## Flash




----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> lol...auto correct. Rittenhouse.  the left doesn't worship him.  Like you do.


The police allowing convicted pedophiles to run loose doesn't bother you?


----------



## DrLove

Ray9 said:


> The Kyle Rittenhouse trial raises some interesting observations. Rittenhouse was seventeen when he decided to intervene in a riot that was burning the small town where his father lived less than 20 miles from where he and his mother made their home. As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home. There were calls on social media for people to protect the homes and businesses under attack and Rittenhouse responded.
> 
> Unfortunately, Rittenhouse answered the call with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, an AR-15-like rifle he legally owned despite false press reports echoing the prosecution saying the gun was illegally in his possession. For some reason no one in media bothered to check Wisconsin laws on firearms that made Rittenhouse’s gun legal for a seventeen-year-old instead just taking the word of the prosecution that was lying.
> 
> The judge threw out the charge of illegal possession of a firearm early on in what turned out to be a slew of criticism aimed at prosecutorial sloppiness and outright incompetence. It became evident as soon as video evidence was shown that the prosecution’s case was built on a house of cards, and it started falling apart almost immediately. The video clearly showed that Rittenhouse was being pursued by a mob and that he acted in self-defense.
> 
> At this writing the jury is still out likely because lynch mob influence is seen by the jury as a threat to them and their families. Incredibly, national press coverage was so poor that up until the trial started most African Americans thought Rittenhouse had used his rifle to shoot three blacks especially after Joe Biden had publicly accused the teenager of being a white supremacist. The lone black member of the jury is no doubt under tremendous pressure to vote guilty and ignore the obvious evidence that Rittenhouse discharged the rifle to save his life from imminent attacks of rioters that were out of control and out for blood.
> 
> Rittenhouse stuck his neck out when the rest of us just stood back and hoped Washington would come to its senses and put a stop to the destruction of communities under the banner of a concocted Black Lives Matter movement when no one in the country was saying black lives do not matter. Maybe Rittenhouse's actions were dumb or maybe they were what was needed.



The little punk got the open carry by a 17 year old charge tossed because the barrel of his gun was a couple inches too long. What BS.


----------



## Pete7469

Correll said:


> 1. The fact that this trail was not moved, AND the jury sequestered, was fucking retarded.
> 
> 2. The judge needs to declare a mistrial with prejudice immediately.
> 
> 3. Rittenhouse's actions were laudable. That he has been charged is a shame on our society.


*The fact he has been charged at all is IMO a criminal act of official oppression and an offense of litigious malpractice with malice on part of these sniveling parasites in the Kenosha DA's office.*
*
They should both be on trial right now.

The same for District Attorney José Garza who is persecuting SGT Daniel Perry for snuffing out another malignant commie piece of shit.
*
*This is all part of the sociopath leftist agenda to undermine the right of self defense. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "justice", in fact it's an effort to marginalize justice.



*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Soot injuries on Rosenbaum's hand confirm that he grabbed or attempted to grab the barrel of the rifle at close range (not 5 feet away)- and Dr. Love is a cluefuck


----------



## bodecea

Ray9 said:


> The Kyle Rittenhouse trial raises some interesting observations. Rittenhouse was seventeen when he decided to intervene in a riot that was burning the small town where his father lived less than 20 miles from where he and his mother made their home. As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home. There were calls on social media for people to protect the homes and businesses under attack and Rittenhouse responded.
> 
> Unfortunately, Rittenhouse answered the call with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, an AR-15-like rifle he legally owned despite false press reports echoing the prosecution saying the gun was illegally in his possession. For some reason no one in media bothered to check Wisconsin laws on firearms that made Rittenhouse’s gun legal for a seventeen-year-old instead just taking the word of the prosecution that was lying.
> 
> The judge threw out the charge of illegal possession of a firearm early on in what turned out to be a slew of criticism aimed at prosecutorial sloppiness and outright incompetence. It became evident as soon as video evidence was shown that the prosecution’s case was built on a house of cards, and it started falling apart almost immediately. The video clearly showed that Rittenhouse was being pursued by a mob and that he acted in self-defense.
> 
> At this writing the jury is still out likely because lynch mob influence is seen by the jury as a threat to them and their families. Incredibly, national press coverage was so poor that up until the trial started most African Americans thought Rittenhouse had used his rifle to shoot three blacks especially after Joe Biden had publicly accused the teenager of being a white supremacist. The lone black member of the jury is no doubt under tremendous pressure to vote guilty and ignore the obvious evidence that Rittenhouse discharged the rifle to save his life from imminent attacks of rioters that were out of control and out for blood.
> 
> Rittenhouse stuck his neck out when the rest of us just stood back and hoped Washington would come to its senses and put a stop to the destruction of communities under the banner of a concocted Black Lives Matter movement when no one in the country was saying black lives do not matter. Maybe Rittenhouse's actions were dumb or maybe they were what was needed.


----------



## DrLove

ColonelAngus said:


> And to think, Rosenbaum could have stayed home and still be alive.
> 
> Why was Rosenbaum acting as a vigilante?


Only one "vigilante" on the streets that night, and smart folk know his name.


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> Has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


BLM, antifa, virtually all of them.

I know you won't understand this, but defending them isn't synonymous with idolizing them.


----------



## FA_Q2

DrLove said:


> The little punk got the open carry by a 17 year old charge tossed because the barrel of his gun was a couple inches too long. What BS.


He got it tossed because that is the law.

Is actually applying the law BS to you now?


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> The little punk got the open carry by a 17 year old charge tossed because the barrel of his gun was a couple inches too long. What BS.



Laws are the worst, arent they?

What would be your firearm possession laws?


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Soot injuries on Rosenbaum's hand confirm that he grabbed or attempted to grab the barrel of the rifle at close range (not 5 feet away)- and Dr. Love is a cluefuck


HotAir?


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> The little punk got the open carry by a 17 year old charge tossed because the barrel of his gun was a couple inches too long. What BS.



Little, or fat?  You guys cant make up your minds.


----------



## DrLove

ColonelAngus said:


> Laws are the worst, arent they?
> 
> What would be your firearm possession laws?


NO open carry by a fucking 17 year old ... PERIOD


----------



## ColonelAngus

Gene Simmons would not like Dr Love


----------



## DrLove

FA_Q2 said:


> He got it tossed because that is the law.
> 
> Is actually applying the law BS to you now?


That law needs to be fixed.


----------



## DrLove

ColonelAngus said:


> Gene Simmons would not like Dr Love


Cool - I can't stand Gene Simmons


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> The little punk got the open carry by a 17 year old charge tossed because the barrel of his gun was a couple inches too long. What BS.


You are confused Moon Bat.

That is because the only law that prevented him from carrying the rifle was one that prevented him from carrying a firearm with a barrel less that 16 inches.  A 17 year is not allowed to carry a rifle that is otherwise restricted.

NOBODY, regardless of age, can carry a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches without having a NFA stamp.

That is a NFA law you idiot.  The Wisconsin law was referencing the NFA restrictions.

By the way Moon Bat, if you are concerned about anybody carrying an illegal weapon then why aren't you bitching about the shithead that threatened Kyle with a Glock that he was prevented from carrying?

Why are you such an asshole?  Are you are an asshole because you are a Moon Bat or are you a Moon Bat because you are an asshole?  Which one is it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> HotAir?


If you had ACTUALLY watched the trial you would know it was discussed and entered into evidence you stupid fuck


----------



## JWBooth




----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> That means all the Trump haters in the family couldn't set aside their politics and keep their damn mouths shut about politics.  The same thing happened in my family.  It's never the fault of Trump supporters.



Nor did I ever say it "tore my family apart".  That's just how a lonely cat lady like Cornball interprets it, because she has no real-life experience of relationships.  After all, melodrama is how things happen on her TV, so that MUST be how it works in the real world she's never been in, right?


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> 1. The fact that this trail was not moved, AND the jury sequestered, was fucking retarded.
> 
> 2. The judge needs to declare a mistrial with prejudice immediately.
> 
> 3. Rittenhouse's actions were laudable. That he has been charged is a shame on our society.


"Rittenhouse's actions are laudable"...................


----------



## bodecea

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 565222


Must have been the rightwing false flagger.


----------



## Cecilie1200

bripat9643 said:


> The police allowing convicted pedophiles to run loose doesn't bother you?



Why would it bother her?  She doesn't have any kids, and never will.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> If you had ACTUALLY watched the trial you would know it was discussed and entered into evidence you stupid fuck


LOL drlove disagreed with this he not only DOESNT know what was entered into evidence he doesnt want to learn about it.


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> Cool - I can't stand Gene Simmons



I want to put you on ignore, you SOB, but you are mildly amusing…like jerking off with sandpaper.


----------



## bodecea

Mindful said:


> Everything to do with it was white on white.
> 
> What are BLM doing there?


You mean the people who REALLY believe that all lives matter?


----------



## ColonelAngus

bodecea said:


> Must have been the rightwing false flagger.



Like the tiki torch Youngkin supporters?


----------



## PinktheFloyd88

struth said:


> yeah i mean geez why should anyone go help people…helping people just means you are a bad person
> 
> it’s really not the job of a group of people to loot, riot, assault and fire bomb…sounds to me that group of demafascist were looking to murder people…and they tried…


They didn't ask for his help


----------



## progressive hunter

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL drlove disagreed with this he not only DOESNT know what was entered into evidence he doesnt want to learn about it.


the truth is hes lying and knows exactly what happened,,

hes best to be put on ignore and save your sanity for those worthy,,


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> Only one "vigilante" on the streets that night, and smart folk know his name.
> 
> View attachment 565298



Rosenbaum tried to take the law into his own hands.

He was a vigilante.


----------



## bripat9643

bodecea said:


> You mean the people who REALLY believe that all lives matter?


No they don't.  They have said so many times.


----------



## DrLove

ColonelAngus said:


> Rosenbaum tried to take the law into his own hands.
> 
> He was a vigilante.


And how is Kyle less of a vigilante than Rosenbaum?


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> And how is Kyle less of a vigilante than Rosenbaum?



You labeled Kyle as a vigilante, then you have to label Rosenbaum as such.


----------



## Mindful

Why Brits should keep out of the Kyle Rittenhouse case​Where America’s issues with guns and race are concerned, we have no idea what we’re talking about.









						Why Brits should keep out of the Kyle Rittenhouse case
					

Where America’s issues with guns and race are concerned, we have no idea what we’re talking about.




					www.spiked-online.com


----------



## JWBooth

bodecea said:


> Must have been the rightwing false flagger.


Bwahahahahahahahaha


----------



## Mindful

bodecea said:


> You mean the people who REALLY believe that all lives matter?





bodecea said:


> No, I didn’t mean that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> Only one "vigilante" on the streets that night, and smart folk know his name.
> 
> View attachment 565298


Apples to Oranges Space Ships.  

This is all you have to make us believe that Rittenhouse is guilty of murder?

You're going with irrelevance?


----------



## maybelooking

progressive hunter said:


> I found it easier to just put him on ignore,,


been there,  done that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> And how is Kyle less of a vigilante than Rosenbaum?


He didn't start shit, and was not attempting to enforce any laws or dispense justice on his own.  He was simply trying to not get killed.

I know self-defense is a difficult concept for you, but do try to understand it.


----------



## candycorn

ColonelAngus said:


> Was Kyle legally in Kenosha?  Yes
> Was Kyle legally in possession of a firearm? Yes
> Did Rosenbaum threaten to murder Kyle? Yes
> Did Rosenbaum chase Kyle? Yes


There was a curfew in effect in Kenosha.  Nobody except the police were legally there.


ColonelAngus said:


> Did Rosenbaum attempt to steal Kyle’s firearm? Yes


Nope.


----------



## Papageorgio

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> They didn't ask for his help


Lots of people that didn't need to be there rioting however riots attract the wrong element and three people died by being in the wrong place by choice.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> Rosenbaum tried to take the law into his own hands.


Literally tried to take the gun from Rittenhouse.  There were powder burns on his hand.  That's pretty much point blank - NOT 5 FEET AWAY, Dr. Love.


----------



## jc456

FA_Q2 said:


> While the trial being moved and the jury sequestered should have happened, a mistrial with prejudice is not really the best outcome here for Rittenhouse.  He really does need a full exoneration.  The public lynching will be bad enough with that, if it were dismissed with prejudice I fear that there will be an even greater amount of hate targeted at Rittenhouse.


that's with prejudice means, no further trials.


----------



## 22lcidw

ColonelAngus said:


> And to think, Rosenbaum could have stayed home and still be alive.
> 
> Why was Rosenbaum acting as a vigilante?


Because he was a piece of shit that saw people getting away with this from the real criminals. The Prog Socialist politicians.


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> There was a curfew in effect in Kenosha.  Nobody except the police were legally there.
> 
> Nope.


yep, and no one has been charged for being there illegally.

In fact, that would have been the only charge they could have won. The problem there is that everyone would need to be charged.


----------



## Papageorgio

With the jury still out, is that better for the prosecution or the defense?


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> He didn't start shit, and was not attempting to enforce any laws or dispense justice on his own.  He was simply trying to not get killed.
> 
> I know self-defense is a difficult concept for you, but do try to understand it.


If he'd stayed home like a good little boy, or if he'd simply left his "cool gun" behind, he wouldn't have had to defend himself. Capische?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

*Recap of Dr. Love's demonstrative ignorance.

Dr. Love*:  "He didn't get within 5 feet of Rittenhouse"

*Me*:  Providing links showing powder burns on Rosenbaum's hand (meaning his hand was within inches of the muzzle when the first shot was fired)

*Dr. Love*:  "HotAir" LOL

*Retired Sargent*:  "The state's witness confirmed powder burns on Rosenbaum's hand and it was admitted into evidence"

*Dr. Love*:  "But, Rittenhouse was a vigilante...and.....FUCK ALL YOU..."


----------



## ColonelAngus

Papageorgio said:


> With the jury still out, is that better for the prosecution or the defense?



I kinda feel like it is bad for Kyle the longer it takes, but that is pure speculation.


----------



## jc456

JohnDB said:


> What I'm having a difficult time with is that in such a clear cut case of self defense...
> 
> If this doesn't look like self defense....what does?
> 
> Where gender doesn't play a role here...what happens when a woman uses a gun to protect herself from attackers?
> 
> It's identically the same. There was a lot more of them than him. Isolated and surrounded and chased at what point is it not self defense?
> 
> But yet due to political pressure from the Mayor and Governor this case was brought forward anyway. The prosecution itself is more than ample punishment for whatever crime you might think Kyle committed.


dude, they were calling the possession of the weapon their right to apprehend him. Even though, it was legal by WI law. Yeah..... knock him out and kill him, steal the gun and kill others. is what it was.


----------



## Hugo Furst

DrLove said:


> If he'd stayed home like a good little boy, or if he'd simply left his "cool gun" behind, he wouldn't have had to defend himself. Capische?





DrLove said:


> if he'd simply left his "cool gun" behind, he wouldn't have had to defend himself.



and he'd be dead, instead of the 2 that attacked him.


----------



## ColonelAngus

DrLove said:


> If he'd stayed home like a good little boy, or if he'd simply left his "cool gun" behind, he wouldn't have had to defend himself. Capische?



Rosenbaum would not have gotten the business end of a rifle if he stayed home like a good boy who anally raped 5 boys under the age of 11.


----------



## JohnDB

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> *Recap of Dr. Love's demonstrative ignorance.
> 
> Dr. Love*:  "He didn't get within 5 feet of Rittenhouse"
> 
> *Me*:  Providing links showing powder burns on Rosenbaum's hand (meaning his hand was within inches of the muzzle when the first shot was fired)
> 
> *Dr. Love*:  "HotAir" LOL
> 
> *Retired Sargent*:  "The state's witness confirmed powder burns on Rosenbaum's hand and it was admitted into evidence"
> 
> *Dr. Love*:  "But, Rittenhouse was a vigilante...and.....FUCK ALL YOU..."


If you quit feeding the trolls they stop showing up.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> If he'd stayed home like a good little boy, or if he'd simply left his "cool gun" behind, he wouldn't have had to defend himself. Capische?


And if thug rioters would not have tried to destroy Kenosha, he would have stayed home.

We can play this irrelevant game all day.  The point, and you already know the fucking point, you're just mad about it, is that Rittenhouse was lawfully in possession of a firearm and lawfully defended himself against attackers, and did so WITH AN AR15, the gun that makes you shit your pants.


----------



## FA_Q2

DrLove said:


> That law needs to be fixed.


Okay.

That is irrelevant to the statement you made.  It was not 'BS' and 'little punk' certainly implies he was 'getting off' when he was doing something illegal.  He was not.  He followed the law exactly.  Something that, consequently, cannot be said of the pedophile yelling n*****, threatening to kill him, setting things on fire and then trying to ambush Rittenhouse or the guy beating him.  You might make a case for the third guy.

But it is Rittenhouse that is the 'little punk.'


----------



## bripat9643

candycorn said:


> There was a curfew in effect in Kenosha.  Nobody except the police were legally there.


Which means Rosenbaum shouldn't have been there


candycorn said:


> Nope.


Yes.


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> Seriously, I don’t know how supposed law and order type conservatives can condone his conduct.  We should discourage this kind of stuff.


Simple:   We believe in the right to self-defense.
Why don't you?


----------



## ColonelAngus

candycorn said:


> There was a curfew in effect in Kenosha.  Nobody except the police were legally there.
> 
> Nope.



So everyone in the streets of Kenosha that night were criminals?

How does that bolster your lies?


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> The others were trying to disarm him because they thought he was an active shooter (which he was).


^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## candycorn

ColonelAngus said:


> So everyone in the streets of Kenosha that night were criminals?


They were violating curfew...


ColonelAngus said:


> How does that bolster your lies?


Since I haven't told any; none at all.


----------



## DrLove

FA_Q2 said:


> Okay.
> 
> That is irrelevant to the statement you made.  It was not 'BS' and 'little punk' certainly implies he was 'getting off' when he was doing something illegal.  He was not.  He followed the law exactly.  Something that, consequently, cannot be said of the pedophile yelling n*****, threatening to kill him, setting things on fire and then trying to ambush Rittenhouse or the guy beating him.  You might make a case for the third guy.
> 
> But it is Rittenhouse that is the 'little punk.'


Both of them are punks. See if you get a paywall on this. It's spot the hell on. 









						Kyle Rittenhouse’s Acquittal Does Not Make Him a Hero
					

The verdict is not a miscarriage of justice—but an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## jc456

jc456 said:


> dude, they were calling the possession of the weapon their right to apprehend him. Even though, it was legal by WI law. Yeah..... knock him out and kill him, steal the gun and kill others. is what it was.


the fact is, Kyle Rittenhouse outlasted a four on one assault with the intent to kill.  And demofks are mad at how weak their members are.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> I kinda feel like it is bad for Kyle the longer it takes, but that is pure speculation.


I know, even though reasonable minds cannot differ as to the facts.  Any guilty verdict should be seen as jury misconduct.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And if thug rioters would not have tried to destroy Kenosha, he would have stayed home.
> 
> We can play this irrelevant game all day.  The point, and you already know the fucking point, you're just mad about it, is that Rittenhouse was lawfully in possession of a firearm and lawfully defended himself against attackers, and did so WITH AN AR15, the gun that makes you shit your pants.


Pure speculation.  How many others died that night besides the ones Kyle killed?


----------



## 22lcidw

bodecea said:


> You mean the people who REALLY believe that all lives matter?


All ways of responsible civil ways of living means nothing though.


----------



## ColonelAngus

This all goes back to the media framing Kyle as a lone wolf WHITE SUPREMACIST who was triggered by Trumps rhetoric at went to Kenosha for a mass shooting, like Vegas or Columbine.

It is all lies.

Lefties cannot question their cult leaders.


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> ^^^^
> This is a lie.


Not to worry Shooter. I'm getting my affairs ready for a one month departure in case of no hung jury or less than a 20 year sentence.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I know, even though reasonable minds cannot differ as to the facts.  Any guilty verdict should be seen as jury misconduct.


Fortunately what you say doesnt matter, boy.  I think you're gonna be in for a shock when the jury comes back with its verdicts.......


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> The others were trying to disarm him because they thought he was an active shooter (which he was).


They were being.....wait for it......vigilantes?

It's fun chewing you up and spitting you out, but at least try to be consistent.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> There was a curfew in effect in Kenosha.  Nobody except the police were legally there.
> 
> Nope.



Oh, was there?  And now you're going to show us the proof that there was a curfew in effect, the proof that the prosecution couldn't find and didn't present, leading to the judge tossing that entire charge out the window.

Whoops.  Looks like, yet again, you've been ordered to "know" something that's complete shit.


----------



## EvMetro

The jury has a big problem that is making the decision take a VERY long time.  They know they are supposed to come up with a guilty verdict, but the evidence doesn't support it.  This could go on for awhile...


----------



## ColonelAngus

If Kyle was an active shooter, why didnt he shoot anyone other than those attacking him?

He certainly had the opportunity.

He could have mowed down the crowd like Jesse Ventura in Predator.

He did not.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I know, even though reasonable minds cannot differ as to the facts.  Any guilty verdict should be seen as jury misconduct.


You've shown time after time your unreasonable illogical mind at work.  So I guess that rules out your opinion on anything.


----------



## jc456

bodecea said:


> You mean the people who REALLY believe that all lives matter?


still awaiting one thing a BLM group has done to help blacks.  Post something, I've been waiting.  All I have seen is violence, looting and rioting in the name of, but nothing to help actual blacks.  Fk dude, they have jinormous buses to roll around in, and money out the ass, with nothing going to black neighborhoods, no business options, nothing. It's a fking political front for violence.


----------



## john doe 101

ColonelAngus said:


> If Kyle was an active shooter, why didnt he shoot anyone other than those attacking him?
> 
> He certainly had the opportunity.
> 
> He could have mowed down the crowd like Jesse Ventura in Predator.
> 
> He did not.


So we should be thankful he "only" shot 3 people and killed 2.  America 2021.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, was there?  And now you're going to show us the proof that there was a curfew in effect, the proof that the prosecution couldn't find and didn't present, leading to the judge tossing that entire charge out the window.
> 
> Whoops.  Looks like, yet again, you've been ordered to "know" something that's complete shit.



There was a curfew that evening in Kenosha.


----------



## Hugo Furst

john doe 101 said:


> So we should be thankful he "only" shot 3 people and killed 2.  America 2021.



Why did he shoot those particular 3 people?


----------



## john doe 101

WillHaftawaite said:


> Why did he shoot those particular 3 people?


Because he acted on a fantasy?


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> There was a curfew that evening in Kenosha.



Did you really think that simply repeating your statement would constitute evidence?  Or did you think ignoring the question of evidence entirely would somehow make it go away?


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> There was a curfew that evening in Kenosha.


Kyle is not charged with a curfew violation because he was at a location he was invited to abode. It has been removed from consideration because there is no evidence to support that he wasn't. 
In fact just the opposite. 

Kyle was where he was invited, carrying a legal firearm...
He wasn't in violation of any laws.


----------



## ColonelAngus

john doe 101 said:


> So we should be thankful he "only" shot 3 people and killed 2.  America 2021.



Strawman.

If one is to label him an active shooter, one needs to explain why he only shot those attacking him after he had ample opportunity to shoot NUMEROUS people.

I get it. You hate Trump. This is not the remedy.


----------



## Hugo Furst

john doe 101 said:


> Because he acted on a fantasy?




all the people in the area, why pick those 3?


----------



## Resnic

john doe 101 said:


> Because he acted on a fantasy?



You know why he shot them. Go ahead and say it.


----------



## john doe 101

JohnDB said:


> Kyle is not charged with a curfew violation because he was at a location he was invited to abode. It has been removed from consideration because there is no evidence to support that he wasn't.
> In fact just the opposite.
> 
> Kyle was where he was invited, carrying a legal firearm...
> He wasn't in violation of any laws.


Thats for the jury to decide.  Not you or me.


----------



## ColonelAngus

john doe 101 said:


> Because he acted on a fantasy?



I saw FBI drone footage, cell phone video footage, and eyewitness testimony.

What fantasy are you talking about?  The fantasy that Rosenbaum was not a threat to Kyle?


----------



## john doe 101

WillHaftawaite said:


> all the people in the area, why pick those 3?


That's for a jury to decide.  I think you're gonna be in for a big surprise......


----------



## FA_Q2

DrLove said:


> Both of them are punks. See if you get a paywall on this. It's spot the hell on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse’s Acquittal Does Not Make Him a Hero
> 
> 
> The verdict is not a miscarriage of justice—but an acquittal does not make a foolish man a hero.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com


It is an interesting read.  I do see it as a political take on the situation though and we likely disagree about those underlying values that derive it.  

I can see how it is not completely unreasonable position to take, that he is a 'little punk' though.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Pure speculation.  How many others died that night besides the ones Kyle killed?


That is completely irrelevant.  How many others that night attacked other guys holding a gun?

They chose Rittenhouse because he looked weak to them.

Next.


----------



## ColonelAngus

WillHaftawaite said:


> all the people in the area, why pick those 3?



That poster lnows he is full of shit.

Kyle could have peppered the crowd and killed dozens if he was an active shooter. He did not fire until he was in close range combat with Rosenbaum.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Fortunately what you say doesnt matter, boy.  I think you're gonna be in for a shock when the jury comes back with its verdicts.......


You are so mad that this kid killed your ilk, aren't you?

You're mad that he did so with an evil black rifle, aren't you?


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That is completely irrelevant.  How many others that night attacked other guys holding a gun?
> 
> They chose Rittenhouse because he looked weak to them.
> 
> Next.


I agree.  Pussies walking around with long rifles do look weak.


----------



## Resnic

john doe 101 said:


> That's for a jury to decide.  I think you're gonna be in for a big surprise......



Still doesn't answer the simple question, why did he shoot them?

Even the man who was shot said why when he was on the stand.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> That's for a jury to decide.  I think you're gonna be in for a big surprise......


Do you have some sort of inside information you're not sharing?


----------



## Hugo Furst

john doe 101 said:


> That's for a jury to decide.  I think you're gonna be in for a big surprise......



You don't have an opinion?

Why shoot those 3, and not the dozens of people he had already crossed paths with that night?


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> Only one "vigilante" on the streets that night, and smart folk know his name.
> 
> View attachment 565298


You are confused Moon Bat

Tamir Rice was a filthy ass Negro and the police did not know it was a toy.

Kyle is a great American Hero.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I agree.  Pussies walking around with long rifles do look weak.


And "pussies" make quick work of violent child molesters preying on the weak.

You mad?


----------



## JohnDB

john doe 101 said:


> Thats for the jury to decide.  Not you or me.


Nope...
Are you just trolling? 
The jury cannot consider those charges as they have been removed from consideration by the judge. There were no arguments for that violation and being at a location that he not only had permission but was invited negates any curfew violation. 

Otherwise anyone not in their own home but staying with friends at their place are needing to be fined... again a complete violation of the constitution of right to assemble.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Not to worry Shooter. I'm getting my affairs ready for a one month departure in case of no hung jury or less than a 20 year sentence.


Nothing here changes the fact your post was a lie.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You are so mad that this kid killed your ilk, aren't you?
> 
> You're mad that he did so with an evil black rifle, aren't you?


What gives you the impression I"m mad?  I'll tell you who is going to be mad though.  That would be you if Kyle isnt completely exonerated of all charges.  I've read your posts.  You expect him to be found innocent of all charges.  If not, I can see you going absolutely ballistic.  Seemingly you have your entire life invested in this verdict.  It's hilarious.


----------



## struth

PinktheFloyd88 said:


> They didn't ask for his help


and that has to do with anything how?  

Just fyi, if you want to be a good human being, trying helping people...even if they don't ask for it, be willing to do it. 

Don't chase after people with guns, throwing rocks at this, don't loot...don't riot....k?


----------



## ColonelAngus

Resnic said:


> Still doesn't answer the simple question, why did he shoot them?
> 
> Even the man who was shot said why when he was on the stand.



Dude with no bicep WAS ILLEGALY in possession of a firearm.

Kyle disarmed him. (Couldnt help the pun)


----------



## DrLove

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat
> 
> Tamir Rice was a filthy ass Negro and the police did not know it was a toy.
> 
> Kyle is a great American Hero.


Anyone who calls a cute 12 year old kid a "filthy ass Negro" should be ashamed.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> Kyle is not charged with a curfew violation because he was at a location he was invited to abode


Most likely nobody was charged with curfew violation that evening.  The same way something like .01% of all speeders ever get charged with speeding. 


JohnDB said:


> . It has been removed from consideration because there is no evidence to support that he wasn't.
> In fact just the opposite.


The video shows the police telling the crowds to disperse because of the curfew.


JohnDB said:


> Kyle was where he was invited, carrying a legal firearm...
> He wasn't in violation of any laws.


He violated curfew.  Sorry.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> What gives you the impression I"m mad?  I'll tell you who is going to be mad though.  That would be you if Kyle isnt completely exonerated of all charges.  I've read your posts.  You expect him to be found innocent of all charges.  If not, I can see you going absolutely ballistic.  Seemingly you have your entire life invested in this verdict.  It's hilarious.


What are you talking about?

You're the one in here making claims with ZERO factual support.  It sounds to me like YOU are the one heavily invested in the outcome.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Did you really think that simply repeating your statement would constitute evidence?  Or did you think ignoring the question of evidence entirely would somehow make it go away?



Do you really think being a grotesque bitch will cure your loneliness?


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Most likely nobody was charged with curfew violation that evening.  The same way something like .01% of all speeders ever get charged with speeding.
> 
> The video shows the police telling the crowds to disperse because of the curfew.
> 
> He violated curfew.  Sorry.


So if you are at a friend's house during curfew you should be incarcerated for the violation?

What about the constitutional right of assembly?


----------



## EvMetro

ColonelAngus said:


> Kyle disarmed him. (Couldnt help the pun)


This gives me the warm fuzzies.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> Dude with no bicep WAS ILLEGALY in possession of a firearm.
> 
> Kyle disarmed him. (Couldnt help the pun)


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> I agree.  Pussies walking around with long rifles do look weak.




You do know that many of the BLM/ANTIFA pussies were walking around with ARs and other weapons, including an illegal Glock, don't you?  Probably not because CNN and Rachael Maddow didn't tell you.


----------



## JohnDB

EvMetro said:


> This gives me the warm fuzzies.


Well he won't be beating his grandmother with that arm again.


----------



## EvMetro

Flash said:


> You do know that many of the BLM/ANTIFA pussies were walking around with ARs and other weapons, including an illegal Glock, don't you?  Probably not because CNN and Rachael Maddow didn't tell you.


I wonder if any of those thugs crossed state lines?


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> You do know that many of the BLM/ANTIFA pussies were walking around with ARs and other weapons, including an illegal Glock, don't you?  Probably not because CNN and Rachael Maddow didn't tell you.


I love your assumptions of what tv shows I watch.  I've watched more tucker carlson than I have rachael maddow..  But very little of either.  Rachael Maddow is soooooooo dramatic in her presentation.  It takes her an entire 20 minutes to get one simple point across.  She's unwatchable.  Tucker is just a different kind of unwatchable.  

But back on topic....I'd be interested to know what your plans are if Kyle isnt found innocent on all charges.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Flash said:


> You do know that many of the BLM/ANTIFA pussies were walking around with ARs and other weapons, including an illegal Glock, don't you?  Probably not because CNN and Rachael Maddow didn't tell you.



Isnt it interesting that the lying media glosses over the ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A GLOCK by the disarmed GG?

WHY?


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Do you really think being a grotesque bitch will cure your loneliness?



Do you really think saying, "Grotesque bitch, grotesque bitch!" will cure yours?

This just in:  I'm still everything you aren't and wish you were, and you still have to see yourself in the mirror.  Enjoy.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Correll said:


> Agreed. Any delay means that someone is not agreeing to a not guilty verdict. What should happen is a quick return of not guilty.



Well, no.

You don't allow for the very real possibility that someone on the jury will genuinely believe that the prosecution proved its case. If a person believes that, the single most important thing he can do is vote accordingly...


----------



## JohnDB

ColonelAngus said:


> Isnt it interesting that the lying media glosses over the ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A GLOCK by the disarmed GG?
> 
> WHY?


Because then they have to discuss that GG wasn't allowed to carry because of him beating up his grandmother...that won't sit well with people either.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Which one?



Rittenhouse admitted, on the stand and under oath, that Rosenbaum was unarmed when he killed him...


----------



## ColonelAngus

JohnDB said:


> Because then they have to discuss that GG wasn't allowed to carry because of him beating up his grandmother...that won't sit well with people either.



Maybe she liked Trump. Then it is ok.


----------



## Canon Shooter

miketex said:


> A man kicking him in the head



When did Rosenbaum close enough to Rittenhouse to kick him in the head?

You may go...


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> You're the one in here making claims with ZERO factual support.  It sounds to me like YOU are the one heavily invested in the outcome.


I dont care either way.  Doesnt affect my life one way or the other.  You, on the other hand, well we can tell you are all amped up for this verdict.  You are absolutely going to lose your mind if Kyle is found guilty on any of the charges or found guilty on a lesser charge.  Two of the 5 charges I believe have the possibility to go lower.  That's probably what is taking so long at this point.  You think about that?  What could be taking them so long if it's soooo cut and dried as you think it is.  You're gonna go ballistic and I"m gonna be here to see every minute of it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Most likely nobody was charged with curfew violation that evening.  The same way something like .01% of all speeders ever get charged with speeding.
> 
> The video shows the police telling the crowds to disperse because of the curfew.
> 
> He violated curfew.  Sorry.



Too bad for you that the judge already said that line of reasoning was crap and threw it out.  It's almost like your perception of the world is as irrelevant as you are.  Specifically, he said that a cop simply saying there was a curfew wasn't proof that there was one.  So by all means, do continue asserting, "It's true!  It is, it is, because look how many times I've said it is!  Just saying it makes it true!" Your impotence makes us laugh almost as much as your anguish at having no purpose whatsoever in existing.

Oh, and be sure to keep moving, so that your cats don't think you're dead and eat you.


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> I love your assumptions of what tv shows I watch.  I've watched more tucker carlson than I have rachael maddow..  But very little of either.  Rachael Maddow is soooooooo dramatic in her presentation.  It takes her an entire 20 minutes to get one simple point across.  She's unwatchable.  Tucker is just a different kind of unwatchable.
> 
> But back on topic....I'd be interested to know what your plans are if Kyle isnt found innocent on all charges.




Then you have no excuse for being a fucking dumbass, do you?  I was providing you with a face saving explanation of your stupidity and you were not even smart enough to take it.  LOL!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I dont care either way.  Doesnt affect my life one way or the other.  You, on the other hand, well we can tell you are all amped up for this verdict.  You are absolutely going to lose your mind if Kyle is found guilty on any of the charges or found guilty on a lesser charge.  Two of the 5 charges I believe have the possibility to go lower.  That's probably what is taking so long at this point.  You think about that?  What could be taking them so long if it's soooo cut and dried as you think it is.  You're gonna go ballistic and I"m gonna be here to see every minute of it.


Are you nostradumbass or something?  You can foresee the jury verdict AND my reaction?


----------



## Flash




----------



## ColonelAngus

It is so weird. Why do you lefties hang on to disproven lies to bolster your bullshit?


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> Then you have no excuse for being a fucking dumbass, do you?  I was providing you with a face saving explanation of your stupidity and you were not even smart enough to take it.  LOL!


You gonna lose your mind if Kyle is found guilty of any of the charges?  You and the other geriatrics you meet up with at mcdonalds once a week gonna get some master plan together?


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> There was a curfew that evening in Kenosha.


no one was charged.  Still don't understand your point.


----------



## ColonelAngus

john doe 101 said:


> I love your assumptions of what tv shows I watch.  I've watched more tucker carlson than I have rachael maddow..  But very little of either.  Rachael Maddow is soooooooo dramatic in her presentation.  It takes her an entire 20 minutes to get one simple point across.  She's unwatchable.  Tucker is just a different kind of unwatchable.
> 
> But back on topic....I'd be interested to know what your plans are if Kyle isnt found innocent on all charges.



If the dude without a bicep beat up his grandmother because she liked Trump, would you support him beating uo his racist Trumptard Nana?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

ColonelAngus said:


> It is so weird. Why do you lefties hang on to disproven lies to bolster your bullshit?


Because they have been mislead by the dishonest media to believe the falsehoods and have not been given the complete story.  Only parrot hacks who have seen nothing of the actual trial have made these stupid comments.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Are you nostradumbass or something?  You can foresee the jury verdict AND my reaction?


Actually I fully expect innocent on all charges.  BUT you never know what a jury is thinking.  And yes, I fully expect an absolute EXPLOSION by you on here if he isnt found innocent.  Maybe you'll tone in down now just so you dont give me any satisfaction.  But thats bad news for anyone around you.


----------



## miketx

Canon Shooter said:


> When did Rosenbaum close enough to Rittenhouse to kick him in the head?
> 
> You may go...


 I never mentioned anyone by name! I said a man. I saw it. He kicked him in the head! Now twist and spew some more leftist bullshit!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> You gonna lose your mind if Kyle is found guilty of any of the charges?  You and the other geriatrics you meet up with at mcdonalds once a week gonna get some master plan together?


Your pathetic passive-aggressive troll attempts are quite transparent.  You must not really expect a guilty verdict, and this is you lashing out.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Actually I fully expect innocent on all charges.  BUT you never know what a jury is thinking.  And yes, I fully expect an absolute EXPLOSION by you on here if he isnt found innocent.  Maybe you'll tone in down now just so you dont give me any satisfaction.  But thats bad news for anyone around you.


Why is that "bad news" for anyone around me?  Don't be cryptic.  What are you actually saying, you passive-aggressive twat?


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Your pathetic passive-aggressive troll attempts are quite transparent.  You must not really expect a guilty verdict, and this is you lashing out.


Wow two comments in a row that had nothing to do with you and yet you respond.  Actually I just responded to you of my verdict expectation.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why is that "bad news" for anyone around me?  Don't be cryptic.  What are you actually saying, you passive-aggressive twat?


Figure it out.  You consider yourself intelligent, right?


----------



## Opie

Jury taking questions is a good sign for Kyle they want to get this right. Remember they are not sequestered, so who knows what happened overnigt (let’s be real) the liberal media have drug a kid through the mud when clearly the defense is in his favor. Inexcusabl, justice is Not Guilty and Kyle never has to work a day in his life


----------



## Canon Shooter

miketex said:


> I never mentioned anyone by name! I said a man. I saw it. He kicked him in the head! Now twist and spew some more leftist bullshit!



You need to try to keep up.

A comment was made that every person that Rittenhouse and shot that night had previously pointed a gun at him.

That';s an absolutely false statement. Rosenbaum never had a gun. Huber never had a gun.

That's what I was referring to...


----------



## Opie

And a reminder to all you “vigilante“ putz can remember this you may be saved by a “vigilante“ some day. Or you may be killed by a shirtless Diaper Sniper. Either or that’s not what is on trial here, the fact of him defending himself is.


----------



## john doe 101

Patriot43 said:


> And a reminder to all you “vigilante“ putz can remember this you may be saved by a “vigilante“ some day. Or you may be killed by a shirtless Diaper Sniper. Either or that’s not what is on trial here, the fact of him defending himself is.


Can someone decipher this post for me?


----------



## jc456

Canon Shooter said:


> When did Rosenbaum close enough to Rittenhouse to kick him in the head?
> 
> You may go...


so you didn't follow the trial huh?  then leave the conversation.  cause you are merely trolling if you didn't.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Figure it out.  You consider yourself intelligent, right?


I want you to say it.


----------



## eagle1462010

progressive hunter said:


>


That is more than enough ti disbar tue prosecutor


----------



## miketx

Canon Shooter said:


> You need to try to keep up.
> 
> A comment was made that every person that Rittenhouse and shot that night had previously pointed a gun at him.
> 
> That';s an absolutely false statement. Rosenbaum never had a gun. Huber never had a gun.
> 
> That's what I was referring to...


Lather rinse repeat deny.


----------



## Canon Shooter

miketex said:


> Lather rinse repeat deny.



What the fuck are you blabbering about?


----------



## Ray9

The jury has requested that they can view some drone footage that was shown only once. This could suggest that there is a lone holdout on the fence that needs affirmation. Of course, based on juries, it may not suggest that at all. But the odds are in favor of one or two holdouts to a unanimous verdict of self-defense.

The drone footage is not clear at all and is subject to interpretation or confirmation bias. The judge has to allow it because to deny it would open the case up to the possibility of a mistrial or a hung jury.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> If he'd stayed home like a good little boy, or if he'd simply left his "cool gun" behind, he wouldn't have had to defend himself. Capische?


Had an idiot not chased a guy with a gun.  Then there wouldnt be a dead idiot.  Well the idiot is a scumbag so ......oh well


----------



## jc456

Canon Shooter said:


> What the fuck are you blabbering about?


Here,  lather, rinse, repeat


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Because he acted on a fantasy?


Talk about pure speculation.


----------



## john doe 101

WillHaftawaite said:


> You don't have an opinion?
> 
> Why shoot those 3, and not the dozens of people he had already crossed paths with that night?


Actually I have no opinion.  I havent been following the trial at all really just see a headline now and then.  I think there is a 70% chance he's innocent on all charges but I'll leave the door open to a 30% he's found guilty on 1 or more counts on a lesser charge.  I'm just here for when the verdicts drop.


----------



## john doe 101

eagle1462010 said:


> Had an idiot not chased a guy with a gun.  Then there wouldnt be a dead idiot.  Well the idiot is a scumbag so ......oh well


And if neither idiot had a gun, nobody would be dead.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I havent been following the trial at all really just see a headline now and then.


I believe you.


----------



## Hugo Furst

john doe 101 said:


> Actually I have no opinion.  I havent been following the trial at all really just see a headline now and then.  I think there is an 70% chance he's innocent on all charges but I'll leave the door open to a 30% he's found guilty on 1 or more counts on a lesser charge.  I'm just here for when the verdicts drop.





john doe 101 said:


> Actually I have no opinion.



so, you're only trolling this thread?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> And if neither idiot had a gun, nobody would be dead.


Unless the mob decided to beat Kyle to death.


----------



## eagle1462010

john doe 101 said:


> And if neither idiot had a gun, nobody would be dead.


Yawn.  Kyle would be dead and your sorry ass fitting symbol of the DNC....would be cheering.


----------



## john doe 101

WillHaftawaite said:


> so, you're only trolling this thread?


Just like anyone else, I"m allowed to state my opinions.  But because I havent really watched any of the trial and have only read a bit about whats happened, I think you'll agree I've been rather reserved in what opinions I have posted.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Unless the mob decided to beat Kyle to death.


Pure speculation.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Just like anyone else, I"m allowed to state my opinions.  But because I havent really watched any of the trial and have only read a bit about whats happened, I think you'll agree I've been rather reserved in what opinions I have posted.


Rather reserved, except for your stating definitively that the jury will convict and alluding to how I would react, right?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Pure speculation.


How is that speculative and your "no gun, no death" comment not?


----------



## ColonelAngus

john doe 101 said:


> Can someone decipher this post for me?



He means FREE KYLE


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Rather reserved, except for your stating definitively that the jury will convict and alluding to how I would react, right?


I guess you missed all the times I posted that i thought the jury will find him innocent of all charges.  I think I made one post that I leave open a 30% chance he's found guilty of lesser charges.  I never once said the jury will find him guilty.  You're lying per usual.  And yes I did comment on my expectations of your reaction if kyle is found guilty.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I guess you missed all the times I posted that i thought the jury will find him innocent of all charges.  I think I made one post that I leave open a 30% chance he's found guilty of lesser charges.  I never once said the jury will find him guilty.  You're lying per usual.  And yes I did comment on my expectations of your reaction if kyle is found guilty.


No, I didn't miss them.  That's why I said "except for" those times.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> How is that speculative and your "no gun, no death" comment not?


If I leave my home without a gun, there is 0% chance I will kill someone with a gun.  Now I will leave open the possibility that in America, I could die by a gunshot.  But IMO, that threat is lessened exactly because I"m NOT carrying a gun.  So you can call it speculation all you want I could care less.  Of course, you absolutely will not understand my logic but that is to be expected.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, I didn't miss them.  That's why I said "except for" those times.


Great thanks for admitting you lied.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Canon Shooter said:


> Rittenhouse admitted, on the stand and under oath, that Rosenbaum was unarmed when he killed him...



The guy who was chasing him and tried to take his rifle?
Yeah, that was awful!


----------



## Doc7505

Doc7505 said:


> EXCLUSIVE: Prosecutors in Kenosha shooter trial WITHHELD high-definition video evidence from the defense that was 'at the center of their case' and initially shared a lower quality version of drone footage from the night of Kyle Rittenhouse shooting​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prosecutors in Kenosha shooter trial WITHHELD evidence from defense
> 
> 
> Prosecutors in the Kenosha shooter trial withheld evidence from the defense that was 'at the center of their case,' DailyMail.com reveal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16 Nov 2021 ~~ By Laura Collins 10:14 PM
> 
> *Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger initially shared low quality drone footage from the night of the shooting with the defense *
> *The defense claims Binger only shared the high-definition footage after evidence had closed on Saturday  *
> *According to a motion filed today by the defense,  'The problem is the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video'*
> *'What that means is the video provided to the defense was not as clear as the video kept by the state,' the motion states *
> *Lawyers for Rittenhouse filed their motion for mistrial with prejudice based on this and several other grounds *
> In the motion obtained by DailyMail.com, Rittenhouse's defense insist that the state only shared it with the defense after evidence had closed on Saturday November 13.
> ~Snip~
> 'The video footage has been at the center of this case. The idea that the state would provide lesser quality footage and then use that footage as a linchpin in their case is the very reason they requested and were granted the provocation instruction by the Court.'
> 
> 
> Comment:
> Binger was playing games from day one to provoke Hedge Schroeder into having no choice but declare a mistrial with prejudice. The biased MSM, PM/DSA Democrat politicians and Leftists in general have branded Schroeder as everything from. "biased" to actually suggesting he is a is. member of The Klan.  Imagine their reaction when judge Schroeder declares the mistrial with prejudice.
> If these PM/DSA Democrat Leftists are prepared to fix a murder trial, they're prepared to fix Presidential Elections.



~~~~~~
​
Binger is the epitome as to why the general public hates lawyers. They are not passionately searching for the truth, which is what the Courts are supposed to do; they are simply trying to win. To do that, Binger has to turned to withholding evidence. One would expect that from a lawyer for hire, but Binger is a State prosecutor. But despite this, the State should be looking for justice for everyone involved in this – not just any perceived victims.
Unfortunately for Binger, he and the prosecution are not on the side of the truth. And Binger knows it. Now, he and his team are basically a laughingstock – a testimonial to legal failure.
Additionally, the prosecution knows the identity of 'Jump Kick Man' and never disclosed to defense and said in court, that they were unable to identify him, perjuring themselves in court and creating a Brady Violation.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

The paranoid right wing fantasies in this thread are hilariouus but embarrassing.


----------



## john doe 101

Doc7505 said:


> ~~~~~~
> ​
> Binger is the epitome as to why the general public hates lawyers. They are not passionately searching for the truth, which is what the Courts are supposed to do; they are simply trying to win. To do that, Binger has to turned to withholding evidence. One would expect that from a lawyer for hire, but Binger is a State prosecutor. But despite this, the State should be looking for justice for everyone involved in this – not just any perceived victims.
> Unfortunately for Binger, he and the prosecution are not on the side of the truth. And Binger knows it. Now, he and his team are basically a laughingstock – a testimonial to legal failure.


YOu already getting the excuses lined up from a guy hawking my pillows on his twitter feed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Papageorgio said:


> Lots of people that didn't need to be there rioting however riots attract the wrong element and three people died by being in the wrong place by choice.


Yep, Kyle's choice.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> If I leave my home without a gun, there is 0% chance I will kill someone with a gun.  Now I will leave open the possibility that in America, I could die by a gunshot.  But IMO, that threat is lessened exactly because I"m NOT carrying a gun.  So you can call it speculation all you want I could care less.  Of course, you absolutely will not understand my logic but that is to be expected.


I understand your "logic" just fine, but you said no guns, no one dies.   That's not necessarily true, is it?

You know that at least 2 of the people who were in close proximity to Rittenhouse were illegally armed, right? 

You know the first shot fired was by Ziminski, not Rittenhouse, right?

If Kyle left his house without a gun (he did) and showed up unarmed, you think those thugs would not have used their illegal guns to kill him?

What about all the attempted arson.  That CERTAINLY is something that can cause death.

I leave my house with a gun everyday.  If I am attacked, somebody is likely to die.  Solution: don't attack.


----------



## Resnic

Doc7505 said:


> ~~~~~~
> ​
> Binger is the epitome as to why the general public hates lawyers. They are not passionately searching for the truth, which is what the Courts are supposed to do; they are simply trying to win. To do that, Binger has to turned to withholding evidence. One would expect that from a lawyer for hire, but Binger is a State prosecutor. But despite this, the State should be looking for justice for everyone involved in this – not just any perceived victims.
> Unfortunately for Binger, he and the prosecution are not on the side of the truth. And Binger knows it. Now, he and his team are basically a laughingstock – a testimonial to legal failure.



If he did a line of coke off the judges wife's tits while jerking off and threatening to kill the jury with a loaded gun during the trial and the case was thrown out he would just start babbling about racism, unfair this, and blah blah blah there would still be a lot of ignorant fucking morons in this country that would eat it and praise him as a hero. That's the worst part.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> YOu already getting the excuses lined up from a guy hawking my pillows on his twitter feed.


That's exculpatory evidence the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense.  Do you know the gravity of that misconduct?

There were hours of testimony about the low-quality video being enhanced to show Rittenhouse pointing his gun left-handed at somebody prior to the shooting.  The HD video the prosecutor failed to disclose shows that entire line of testimony to be a complete fabrication.  It's very serious.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I understand your "logic" just fine, but you said no guns, no one dies.   That's not necessarily true, is it?
> 
> You know that at least 2 of the people who were in close proximity to Rittenhouse were illegally armed, right?
> 
> You know the first shot fired was by Ziminski, not Rittenhouse, right?
> 
> If Kyle left his house without a gun (he did) and showed up unarmed, you think those thugs would not have used their illegal guns to kill him?
> 
> What about all the attempted arson.  That CERTAINLY is something that can cause death.
> 
> I leave my house with a gun everyday.  If I am attacked, somebody is likely to die.  Solution: don't attack.


You're wasting your time relitigating the trial with me.  How many times do I have to tell you before it sinks in your thick skull that kyle will probably be found innocent?  

Just as I thought.  You make the assumption that YOU will be the one to survive, not the other guy with the gun.  I'll even bet the thought of you being on the other end of it has rarely, if ever, crossed your mind.  Because in your mind, YOU are the alpha with the gun, not the other guy who thinks HE is the alpha with the gun.  Good luck living out your wild west fantasies......


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> You gonna lose your mind if Kyle is found guilty of any of the charges?  You and the other geriatrics you meet up with at mcdonalds once a week gonna get some master plan together?




You are confused Moon Bat.

I have already written off this country.  It is going to turn into  Socialist Shithole and there is nothing I can do to stop it.  America is Kaput.  The stupid Moon Bats will win in the long run because it is turning into an Idiocracy.  Importing all the third world and Illegal welfare queens have turned our Democracy against us.    The inner  city dumbass Negroes breeding like rabbits have turned all our cities into idiotic shitholes with Idiocracy political influence.

It will be a great injustice if the four masked Karens on the jury are able to stop the Americans on the jury from doing the right thing but it won't affect me one way or another.  Every day the Liberals put another nail or two in the coffin of our Republic and this will just be another one.


----------



## Resnic

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I understand your "logic" just fine, but you said no guns, no one dies.   That's not necessarily true, is it?
> 
> You know that at least 2 of the people who were in close proximity to Rittenhouse were illegally armed, right?
> 
> You know the first shot fired was by Ziminski, not Rittenhouse, right?
> 
> If Kyle left his house without a gun (he did) and showed up unarmed, you think those thugs would not have used their illegal guns to kill him?
> 
> What about all the attempted arson.  That CERTAINLY is something that can cause death.
> 
> I leave my house with a gun everyday.  If I am attacked, somebody is likely to die.  Solution: don't attack.



I carry my gun with me everyday, I've never pulled it or shot someone. So my chances shooting someone do not go up because I have it, the only factor in me shooting someone is if they try to kill me first. The fact I do or do not have a gun doesn't effect that.

The only factors that change by carrying a gun is me not dying if someone tries to kill me.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> I have already written off this country.  It is going to turn into  Socialist Shithole and there is nothing I can do to stop it.  America is Kaput.  The stupid Moon Bats will win in the long run because it is turning into an Idiocracy.  Importing all the third world and Illegal welfare queens have turned our Democracy against us.    The inner  city dumbass Negroes breeding like rabbits have turned all our cities into idiotic shitholes with Idiocracy political influence.
> 
> It will be a great injustice if the four masked Karens on the jury are able to stop the Americans on the jury from doing the right thing but it won't affect me one way or another.  Every day the Liberals put another nail or two in the coffin of our Republic and this will just be another one.


Sounds like you've given up old man.  Well, you still have your racism to get your through the day.  That seems to perk yourself up when you start talking like a lunatic.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> You're wasting your time relitigating the trial with me. How many times do I have to tell you before it sinks in your thick skull that kyle will probably be found innocent?


Why are you talking about the verdict?  

I was addressing your "no guns, no death" comment.


john doe 101 said:


> Just as I thought. You make the assumption that YOU will be the one to survive, not the other guy with the gun. I'll even bet the thought of you being on the other end of it has rarely, if ever, crossed your mind.


Oh, you are quite mistaken.  I make no such assumption.  I said "somebody" is likely to die.  That would include me.  

The fact that I don't make that assumption should tell you and anyone else 2 things:  1.  I expect to die if I am attacked, so I will act with extreme violence to save my life.  2.  Assaulting me is a deadly proposition.  Don't do it.

It looks to me like YOU are the one making a whole bunch of assumptions.


john doe 101 said:


> Because in your mind, YOU are the alpha with the gun, not the other guy who thinks HE is the alpha with the gun. Good luck living out your wild west fantasies......


I have a family to take care of.  The last thing I need is to die or pay no less than a $10,000 retainer to my buddy, Todd Shapiro to defend me if I am forced to kill another person in self-defense.  

You have assumed all sorts of things about me, haven't you?


----------



## john doe 101

Resnic said:


> I carry my gun with me everyday, I've never pulled it or shot someone. So my chances shooting someone do not go up because I have it, the only factor in me shooting someone is if they try to kill me first. The fact I do or do not have a gun doesn't effect that.
> 
> The only factors that change by carrying a gun is me not dying if someone tries to kill me.


Interesting.  So you're saying having a gun on you does not make your chances higher of shooting someone than someone not carrying a gun.  Fascinating how your mind works.

If someone tries to kill you first, they probably will kill you.  Oh wait I didnt read your last sentence....yep another one who thinks they will always win the gun battle against another "alpha" with a gun.  Lots of optimistic people with guns in here.....


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Resnic said:


> I carry my gun with me everyday, I've never pulled it or shot someone. So my chances shooting someone do not go up because I have it, the only factor in me shooting someone is if they try to kill me first. The fact I do or do not have a gun doesn't effect that.
> 
> The only factors that change by carrying a gun is me not dying if someone tries to kill me.


Exactly.  The gun never leaves its holster unless I am defending my life.

Don't start nothing.  Won't be nothing.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why are you talking about the verdict?
> 
> I was addressing your "no guns, no death" comment.
> 
> Oh, you are quite mistaken.  I make no such assumption.  I said "somebody" is likely to die.  That would include me.
> 
> The fact that I don't make that assumption should tell you and anyone else 2 things:  1.  I expect to die if I am attacked, so I will act with extreme violence to save my life.  2.  Assaulting me is a deadly proposition.  Don't do it.
> 
> It looks to me like YOU are the one making a whole bunch of assumptions.
> 
> I have a family to take care of.  The last thing I need is to die or pay no less than a $10,000 retainer to my buddy, Todd Shapiro to defend me if I am forced to kill another person in self-defense.
> 
> You have assumed all sorts of things about me, haven't you?


So you've already killed somebody.  How did that make you feel?  Because judging by some of your comments on here, it would appear you're ready to do it again.


----------



## jc456

Canon Shooter said:


> Rittenhouse admitted, on the stand and under oath, that Rosenbaum was unarmed when he killed him...


can you tell us why rosenbaum was chasing rittenhouse?

And why rosenbaum threatened to kill rittenhouse if he got him alone?

What's funny, there is another thread about AG Garland going after parents of children supposedly threatened board members.  So threats are to be taken seriously I guess since our AG says so.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Interesting. So you're saying having a gun on you does not make your chances higher of shooting someone than someone not carrying a gun. Fascinating how your mind works.


He didn't say that at all.  He said that the only relevant factor is someone trying to kill him.

If no one tries to kill him, the chances of him shooting someone may still go up, by the mere impossibility of shooting someone with no gun, but the probability is so fucking miniscule that you are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.


john doe 101 said:


> If someone tries to kill you first, they probably will kill you.


You will need to explain that one.

If someone attacks me, I assume that they intend to do me serious bodily injury or cause my death.  Of course, if someone shoots or stabs me before I can draw my weapon, you are correct.  They will kill me.  That brings up the 21-foot rule.  A person within 21 feet of me who is holding a knife or club can close the distance and kill me before I can draw and fire.  Think about that.



john doe 101 said:


> Oh wait I didnt read your last sentence....yep another one who thinks they will always win the gun battle against another "alpha" with a gun. Lots of optimistic people with guns in here.....


I read no such optimism in his response.  You are assuming again.

The fact remains that I have a MUCH better chance of surviving an attack if I am armed.  And I have YEARS of martial arts training.  If you want to be a helpless meat target, that's your choice.  Don't shit on me for mine.


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> Sounds like you've given up old man.  Well, you still have your racism to get your through the day.  That seems to perk yourself up when you start talking like a lunatic.




America was great while it lasted.

I was born in the greatest country and earth and I had a good run but I will die in a shithole thanks to you stupid uneducated greedy Moon Bats.

Typical stupid Moon Bats like you fuck up a country with failed Libtard policies and then wonder why it failed.  We have seen it all over the world and America is going that way.


----------



## Papageorgio

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep, Kyle's choice.


And everyone else's choices as well. Lesson is do not go to riots, bad things can happen.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> So you've already killed somebody.


Where did you get that idea?  Assumptions just fly right out of your ass, don't they?



john doe 101 said:


> How did that make you feel?


Don't know.  I have never killed anyone and I hope I don't have to for MANY reasons.


john doe 101 said:


> Because judging by some of your comments on here, it would appear you're ready to do it again.


Being ready to do what is necessary does not mean that I want to do it.  Assumptions, assumptions.

Had I NOT had years of martial arts training and experience, I would have assumed that I could simply fight off an attacker.  What you don't know can get you killed.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> America was great while it lasted.
> 
> I was born in the greatest country and earth and I had a good run but I will die in a shithole thanks to you stupid uneducated greedy Moon Bats.
> 
> Typical stupid Moon Bats like you fuck up a country with failed Libtard policies and then wonder why it failed.  We have seen it all over the world and America is going that way.


What was your favorite decade?  I'll bet it was the 1950's.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Papageorgio said:


> And everyone else's choices as well. Lesson is do not go to riots, bad things can happen.


I agree with this.  

My weapons are for my defense only.  The only time I will be at a riot is if it comes to my neighborhood and I will NOT go out and protect others.  They can fuck off if they failed to prepare.  My guns are for me and my family only.


----------



## Flash

A talking head on an internet stream said that there seems to be four Karens on the jury.

He said that Konesha has a core old group of Yankees that settled in the area in the 1800s and they hold the real power in the county.  Four of the female jury members (Karens) seems to be in that group.  They are even sitting together wearing masks.

That group is Liberal and are Democrats and will probably be the ones that keep Kyle from getting justice.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The last thing I need is to die or pay no less than a $10,000 retainer to my buddy, Todd Shapiro to defend me if I am forced to kill *another* person in self-defense.





Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Where did you get that idea? Assumptions just fly right out of your ass, don't they?


I got it from what you said.  You said "if I am forced to kill ANOTHER person in self-defense.  So either you're lying, you forgot you killed someone, or you dont know how to write in English.  I'm not sure which one it is at this point.  Nor do I really care.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> A talking head on an internet stream said that there seems to be four Karens on the jury.
> 
> He said that Konesha has a core old group of Yankees that settled in the area in the 1800s and they hold the real power in the county.  Four of the female jury members (Karens) seems to be in that group.  They are even sitting together wearing masks.
> 
> That group is Liberal and are Democrats and will probably be the ones that keep Kyle from getting justice.


Just like that other guy who suffers from cognitive dissonance.  Gotta get all those lame excuses lined up because under no circumstances can you ever face reality.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I am forced to kill ANOTHER person


 

forced to kill another human being, as opposed to myself, not forced to kill yet another...

Is this normal for you?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Did anyone else in here get the impression that I have killed someone in the past?

Raise your hands.


----------



## hadit

Penelope said:


> Its not in  dispute he was a vigilante.


The mob that was chasing him "to stop an active shooter" was a vigilante mob, aka a lynch mob.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> forced to kill another human being, as opposed to myself, not forced to kill yet another...
> 
> Is this normal for you?


I guarantee you most people that read that think you killed someone in self-defense.  You, for some reason, chose to use the word "another", which means "used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further."    You could have simply left the word "another" out.  But for some unknown reason, you chose to include it.  I guess we'll never know the real reason.


----------



## Hugo Furst

more trolling


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I guarantee you most people that read that think you killed someone in self-defense.  You, for some reason, chose to use the word "another", which means "used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further."    You could have simply left the word "another" out.  But for some unknown reason, you chose to include it.  I guess we'll never know the real reason.


Have you ever heard the phrase "I hope I never have to kill another person" used in the context I used it?

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 3 movies where the same context is used.


----------



## DrLove

eagle1462010 said:


> Had an idiot not chased a guy with a gun.  Then there wouldnt be a dead idiot.  Well the idiot is a scumbag so ......oh well


Calling dead people "scumbags" is bad form. But you be you!


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Have you ever heard the phrase "I hope I never have to kill another person" used in the context I used it?
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 3 movies where the same context is used.


I've heard it in movies. From remorseful mafia types.


----------



## bodecea

Flash said:


> A talking head on an internet stream said that there seems to be four Karens on the jury.
> 
> He said that Konesha has a core old group of Yankees that settled in the area in the 1800s and they hold the real power in the county.  Four of the female jury members (Karens) seems to be in that group.  They are even sitting together wearing masks.
> 
> That group is Liberal and are Democrats and will probably be the ones that keep Kyle from getting justice.


It would be ironically funny if "Karens" found Rittenhouse guilty guilty guilty......maybe the Defense could then ask to see the manager.


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> What was your favorite decade?  I'll bet it was the 1950's.


I liked the 60s. We got to kill Communists.


----------



## JohnDB

Personally I would rather be Alexander Hamilton than have to live with killing someone...
But make no mistake...my family and friends vs a thug? The thug loses to four shots in ¾ of a second every time. I'd rather protect them and live with it than worry about losing them to a thug I could have killed. 

And Kyle shooting to keep others safe from his gun getting into the wrong hands qualifies as well.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> I liked the 60s. We got to kill Communists.


So you enjoyed killing people.  Either you are a psychopath or your cognitive dissonance is at work again, helping you deal with reality.  Or you're a liar and you didnt kill anybody.   Maybe that's where this all started with you.  You just adapt the only way you know how whether that be creating lies to keep your reality intact or creating a lie to help you deal with the fact you killed other humans.  Maybe you should consider some therapy.


----------



## john doe 101

bodecea said:


> It would be ironically funny if "Karens" found Rittenhouse guilty guilty guilty......maybe the Defense could then ask to see the manager.


If this is as cut and dried as the right wing nut jobs on here are seemingly making it, why are they into a 2nd day of deliberation.  You can already see some doubts sinking in as a couple wack jobs on here are already making excuses.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> If this is as cut and dried as the right wing nut jobs on here are seemingly making it, why are they into a 2nd day of deliberation.  You can already see some doubts sinking in as a couple wack jobs on here are already making excuses.


You’re quite brave not having rioters breathing down your neck.


----------



## JohnDB

Now when the judge requested the Prosecutor's best picture...and they gave the low quality vs the high definition footage...

That's perjury, obstruction of justice, lying about a material fact, and a gross miscarriage of justice which by oath the prosecutor has to uphold. 

He has no wiggle room here. 

Even Blue Hoodie man's identity falls under the same thing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I've heard it in movies. From remorseful mafia types.


Passive-Aggressive trolling.  par for the course


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> So you enjoyed killing people.  Either you are a psychopath or your cognitive dissonance is at work again, helping you deal with reality.  Or you're a liar and you didnt kill anybody.   Maybe that's where this all started with you.  You just adapt the only way you know how whether that be creating lies to keep your reality intact or creating a lie to help you deal with the fact you killed other humans.  Maybe you should consider some therapy.








​​In 1967, Polish mercenary Rafal Ganowicz was asked what it felt like to take human life, "I wouldn't know, I've only ever killed Communists."​​


 
​ 
​


----------



## bodecea

hadit said:


> The mob that was chasing him "to stop an active shooter" was a vigilante mob, aka a lynch mob.


How many other people were chased down by this "lynch mob"?


----------



## JohnDB

john doe 101 said:


> If this is as cut and dried as the right wing nut jobs on here are seemingly making it, why are they into a 2nd day of deliberation.  You can already see some doubts sinking in as a couple wack jobs on here are already making excuses.


The long deliberations are likely a result of a few liberals addicted to MSM coverage of the trial. 
Where they don't want to admit that they have defied the judge's orders...they can't hold out forever.


----------



## bodecea

Flash said:


> I liked the 60s. We got to kill Communists.


How many did YOU kill?


----------



## bodecea

Indeependent said:


> You’re quite brave not having rioters breathing down your neck.


How many other people had "rioters breathing down their necks" and didn't shoot anyone or get beat up?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

bodecea said:


> It would be ironically funny if "Karens" found Rittenhouse guilty guilty guilty......maybe the Defense could then ask to see the manager.


Look, we know you're not interested in any notion of justice other than "get whitey" so keep your fantasies of genocide to yourself.


----------



## john doe 101

JohnDB said:


> The long deliberations are likely a result of a few liberals addicted to MSM coverage of the trial.
> Where they don't want to admit that they have defied the judge's orders...they can't hold out forever.


Just what I like to hear.  More excuses from the right.


----------



## JohnDB

bodecea said:


> How many did YOU kill?


That's kinda rude...
If he has killed anyone before it's not something that people who have ever really like to talk about...it's personal when they do share. 
Not something for a political forum.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

bodecea said:


> How many other people had "rioters breathing down their necks" and didn't shoot anyone or get beat up?


None. That's why nobody else was shot.  They singled out a young-looking kid to murder.


----------



## john doe 101

JohnDB said:


> That's kinda rude...
> If he has killed anyone before it's not something that people who have ever really like to talk about...it's personal when they do share.
> Not something for a political forum.


Yeah exactly why I think that geriatric is lying.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> None. That's why nobody else was shot.  They singled out a young-looking kid to murder.


Yeah that was the first thing on their mind.  Lets find a young chubby kid to gun down.  I'm sure the darkness helped with their victim assessment.


----------



## JohnDB

john doe 101 said:


> Just what I like to hear.  More excuses from the right.


The liberals have a long standing tradition of behavior of "the rules apply to everyone else but me" mentality.  
Why should these ones be any different?

And a hung jury sets Kyle free anyway while not stopping the libel suits.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Yeah exactly why I think that geriatric is lying.


No, not exactly.  You assumed I had killed someone.


----------



## JohnDB

john doe 101 said:


> Yeah exactly why I think that geriatric is lying.


I don't. 
Lots of people still alive from Korea and Vietnam wars.


----------



## john doe 101

JohnDB said:


> I don't.
> Lots of people still alive from Korea and Vietnam wars.


That's not why I think he's possibly lying.


----------



## Flash

bodecea said:


> How many did YOU kill?




Not enough


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, not exactly.  You assumed I had killed someone.


Right, because of the words you used.  You cant admit you should have used a better word (or left the word "another" off) to describe what you meant.  If this old geriatric killed some people and enjoyed it, that makes him a psychopath.  My guess is he used the word "we" in the sense he was in the military during Vietnam, but he wasnt actually killing people.  But I could very well be wrong about that.  Either way he's a sick individual that needs therapy.


----------



## Indeependent

bodecea said:


> How many other people had "rioters breathing down their necks" and didn't shoot anyone or get beat up?


The USSC, the PA SC.
The 2 Liberal attorneys who became Conservatives after a mob approached their house.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> Right, because of the words you used.  You cant admit you should have used a better word (or left the word "another" off) to describe what you meant.  If this old geriatric killed some people and enjoyed it, that makes him a psychopath.  My guess is he used the word "we" in the sense he was in the military during Vietnam, but he wasnt actually killing people.  But I could very well be wrong about that.  Either way he's a sick individual that needs therapy.


My, we are sensitive, aren’t we?


----------



## Indeependent

bodecea said:


> How many other people had "rioters breathing down their necks" and didn't shoot anyone or get beat up?


It’s about time we started kicking ass when the police are afraid of being fired.


----------



## hadit

bodecea said:


> How many other people were chased down by this "lynch mob"?


A vigilante (lynch) mob usually has only one target, which means that they were focused on Rittenhouse, so none that we know of.


----------



## john doe 101

Indeependent said:


> My, we are sensitive, aren’t we?


Yeah, how dare I actually have some sort of feelings when talking about humans killing humans.  What are you, another psychopath on here?


----------



## Papageorgio

john doe 101 said:


> I guarantee you most people that read that think you killed someone in self-defense.  You, for some reason, chose to use the word "another", which means "used to refer to an additional person or thing of the same type as one already mentioned or known about; one more; a further."    You could have simply left the word "another" out.  But for some unknown reason, you chose to include it.  I guess we'll never know the real reason.


I didn't read that into his post. I read that if he is faced with the decision, he will be forced to kill. Never thought he had killed before.


----------



## john doe 101

Indeependent said:


> It’s about time we started kicking ass when the police are afraid of being fired.


YOu'll sit there and do nothing, coward.


----------



## john doe 101

Jury just asked a couple more questions.

Uh oh.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Jury just asked a couple more questions.
> 
> Uh oh.


Juries that do not ask questions and come back quickly are more likely to convict, so this is probably good news for Kyle.

Bad news for Kenosha.  It's finna burn.


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> Yeah, how dare I actually have some sort of feelings when talking about humans killing humans.  What are you, another psychopath on here?


How dare you to defend those shitheads that attacked Kyle.

You are one sick puppy.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Juries that do not ask questions and come back quickly are more likely to convict, so this is probably good news for Kyle.
> 
> Bad news for Kenosha.  It's finna burn.


So is this cut and dried or not?  I thought it was so obvious.  Oh wait somebody said there were some communist mask wearers on the jury and THAT is why this is taking so long.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> How dare you to defend those shitheads that attacked Kyle.
> 
> You are one sick puppy.


Says the guy who supposedly enjoys killing people.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> YOu'll sit there and do nothing, coward.


Will you make up your mind?  Are we all violent killers ready to get justice or are we a bunch of cowards who will do nothing?  Pick one.


----------



## M14 Shooter

hadit said:


> A vigilante (lynch) mob usually has only one target, which means that they were focused on Rittenhouse, so none that we know of.


If you believe the people screaming for Rittenhouses head...

-A black man rapes the white farmer's daughter.
-He is interrupted by her brothers, who grab a rope an a shotgun, and chase him.
-After a bit, they catch up to him.
-Having just raped the their sister, he has no right to shoot them to prevent his lynching.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> So is this cut and dried or not?  I thought it was so obvious.  Oh wait somebody said there were some communist mask wearers on the jury and THAT is why this is taking so long.


This article sheds some light on jury deliberation times and verdicts:

What a quick verdict can tell us about a jury.


----------



## hadit

M14 Shooter said:


> If you believe the people screaming for Rittenhouses head...
> 
> -A black man rapes the white farmer's daughter.
> -He is interrupted by her brothers, who grab a rope an a shotgun, and chase him.
> -After a bit, they catch up to him.
> -Having just raped the their sister, he has no right to shoot them to prevent his lynching.


And anyone who steps in to stop them is guilty of murder if any of them die.


----------



## BULLDOG

Daily surveys show that 93% of federal prisoners say Kyle has a pretty little mouth, and competition for a place on his dance card is quite vigorous.


----------



## M14 Shooter

hadit said:


> And anyone who steps in to stop them is guilty of murder if any of them die.


-If- you believe the people screaming for Rittenhouses head.


----------



## tahuyaman

M14 Shooter said:


> Simple:   We believe in the right to self-defense.
> Why don't you?


Who said I don’t?


----------



## WEATHER53

War is hell
Makes you crazy desperate and Glad to kill whomever is trying to kill you
Couch potato cucks and shemen would do well to abstain from comment
Thank the Lord I did not get drafted but I saw what Vietnam did to the three guys I knew who went there.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Will you make up your mind?  Are we all violent killers ready to get justice or are we a bunch of cowards who will do nothing?  Pick one.


Yes, you just gave us a great example of how your mind works.


----------



## tahuyaman

Let me get this straight.  If one believes Rittenhouse acted foolishly and  criminally to someone degree, that means one believes rioting is ok and no one has the right to defend them self.?


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> Yeah, how dare I actually have some sort of feelings when talking about humans killing humans.  What are you, another psychopath on here?


You seem to sympathize with thugs; I don’t.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Yes, you just gave us a great example of how your mind works.


You too, pal.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Let me get this straight.  If one believes Rittenhouse acted foolishly and  criminally to someone degree, that means one believes rioting is ok and no one has the right to defend them self.?


No.  The people saying that Rittenhouse acted foolishly....and THEREFORE COMMITTED A CRIME INCLUDING MURDER are the people who do not believe in self defense.

Is that clear?


----------



## john doe 101

tahuyaman said:


> Let me get this straight.  If one believes Rittenhouse acted foolishly and  criminally to someone degree, that means one believes rioting is ok and no one has the right to defend them self.?


That's pretty much it.  We're dealing with people incapable of having a nuanced discussion on the matter.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> That's pretty much it.  We're dealing with people incapable of having a nuanced discussion on the matter.


They are the people saying that Rittenhouse should not have been there, and is therefore guilty of MURDER.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You too, pal.


Thanks for showing you have absolutely no idea what I"m talking about.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> That's pretty much it.  We're dealing with people incapable of having a nuanced discussion on the matter.


What is nuanced about someone trying to band YOUR head into cement?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Thanks for showing you have absolutely no idea what I"m talking about.


Thanks for showing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> Says the guy who supposedly enjoys killing people.


Typical Moon Bat confusion.

Being assigned by the government to fight in a stupid war in a hell hole where there are hundreds of thousand Communists causalities has no joy in it.  

Defending the shitheads that attacked Kyle by running him down, kicking him in the head, beating him a skateboard, aimed a loaded Glock at him and tried to kill him pretty well makes you a pretty sick puppy.  I think we all know that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Here is nuance for you:

"Rittenhouse had a gun, therefore he is a murderer."


----------



## john doe 101

Indeependent said:


> What is nuanced about someone trying to band YOUR head into cement?


Let's get real here.  Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head.  Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> Let's get real here.  Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head.  Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.


He was walking with a medical kit asking people if they needed attention.
Why would that invite 3 ProgBots to try and kill him?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Let's get real here.  Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head.  Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.


Talks about nuance.

Paints the "right wing" with the broadest brush he can find.

Yep.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> Typical Moon Bat confusion.
> 
> Being assigned by the government to fight in a stupid war in a hell hole where there are hundreds of thousand Communists causalities has no joy in it.
> 
> Defending the shitheads that attacked Kyle by running him down, kicking him in the head, beating him a skateboard, aimed a loaded Glock at him and tried to kill him pretty well makes you a pretty sick puppy.  I think we all know that.


LOL please quote me where I defended anyone.  More lies.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Talks about nuance.
> 
> Paints the "right wing" with the broadest brush he can find.
> 
> Yep.


So you havent seen right wingers on here fantasize about killing people?  In fact, you are one of them.

And did you fail English class or something?  I said "a lot of right wingers", not all.   Which is a fact.  There are several right wingers on here that have made posts about gleefully either wishing people were dead or actually wanting to kill people.  In fact, I've got the goods on you, if you want me to dig up some of your shitty posts from the past.


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> LOL please quote me where I defended anyone.  More lies.


Don't do your denial.  It is typical for you Moon Bat shitheads to go into denial and it makes you look like a fool.

You are one of these internet pricks we see from time to time that have no convictions on anything but just want to shitpost to see if you get a rise out of somebody.

Just go fuck yourself Moon bat.


----------



## Mr Natural

^
Cranky motherfucker!


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> Don't do your denial.  It is typical for you Moon Bat shitheads to go into denial and it makes you look like a fool.
> 
> You are one of these internet pricks we see from time to time that have no convictions on anything but just want to shitpost to see if you get a rise out of somebody.
> 
> Just go fuck yourself Moon bat.


So you cant show me where I defended anyone.  I actually came in this thread saying Kyle would probably be found innocent.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> So you cant show me where I defended anyone.  I actually came in this thread saying Kyle would probably be found innocent.


And you expressed that you were not happy about it.


----------



## john doe 101

Indeependent said:


> And you expressed that you were not happy about it.


Quote me where I expressed my unhappiness with it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

john doe 101 said:


> Let's get real here.  Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head.  Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.


Ya? is that why when confronted by a mob instead of shooting them all he ran and ONLY fired on the 4 guys that DIRECTLY attacked him?


----------



## Flash

john doe 101 said:


> So you cant show me where I defended anyone.  I actually came in this thread saying Kyle would probably be found innocent.




You shitposters try (poorly) to play with words and most of the time don't give a shit about what you say.

Good bye shitposter.  You are going in the same bin as other shitposters like Golfing Gator.


----------



## DudleySmith

There were 7 counts, a dirty tactic by prosecutors used to get at least some blood out of innocent victims. One I know of was dismissed. My guess is they 'compromise' and feel some fake need to convict him on *something* in some need to fake being 'objective'.


----------



## AZrailwhale

DrLove said:


> No, he'd be retried but murder one won't be on the table. With a decent judge and decent prosecutor (this dude was terrible) Baby Kyle can be convicted.


Not hardly.  None of the actual evidence indicates anything except self defense.  Even the surviving assailant admitted Rittenhouse didn’t point the  rifle at him until Grosskreutz pointed the Glock at him under oath.


----------



## Flash

My god the Prosecution is a slimy piece of shit.   

*Mistrial with prejudice *.  Kyle goes home and get his AR back and the slimy Prosecution lawyers are disbarred.


----------



## WEATHER53

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> They are the people saying that Rittenhouse should not have been there, and is therefore guilty of MURDER.


Should rather than Is is a Huge Component of the liberal fact absent emotion driven agenda


----------



## WEATHER53

Libs feel that if you have a gun then  you are looking for trouble rather than having support if you need to prevent trouble from harming you.


----------



## jbrownson0831

WEATHER53 said:


> Libs feel that if you have a gun then  you are looking for trouble rather than having support if you need to prevent trouble from harming you.


I guess their only role model is Alec Baldwin.....


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> "Rittenhouse's actions are laudable"...................




Yep. Stepping forward, to help defend society from rioters and looters and arsonists, at great risk to himself.


Any society that punishes that, is a sick and dying society.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> You shitposters try (poorly) to play with words and most of the time don't give a shit about what you say.
> 
> Good bye shitposter.  You are going in the same bin as other shitposters like Golfing Gator.


So you admit you were lying about me defending anyone in that trial on either side.  Uh oh something doesnt fit into your narrative....abort abort abort.  LOL!  Sounds like the only person not paying attention to what they are saying is you.


----------



## DrLove

Flash said:


> My god the Prosecution is a slimy piece of shit.
> 
> *Mistrial with prejudice *.  Kyle goes home and get his AR back and the slimy Prosecution lawyers are disbarred.



If this redneck judge goes there - It will be SEVERE judicial misconduct. Can't do that legally or ethically after the case is handed to the jury for deliberation pal.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

john doe 101 said:


> So you admit you were lying about me defending anyone in that trial on either side.  Uh oh something doesnt fit into your narrative....abort abort abort.  LOL!  Sounds like the only person not paying attention to what they are saying is you.


Gonna explain how Kyle was living a fantasy when he ran and only fired on the 4 people that physically attacked him?


----------



## Correll

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, no.
> 
> You don't allow for the very real possibility that someone on the jury will genuinely believe that the prosecution proved its case. If a person believes that, the single most important thing he can do is vote accordingly...




Correct. I don't allow for that. It was as clear of a case of self defense imaginable. 


The ONLY shred of a leg the prosecution had to stand on, was teh idea that Rittenhouse was technically violating the law by possessing the gun and thus not allowed to claim self defense.


And that gun charge has been dropped.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> If this redneck judge goes there - It will be SEVERE judicial misconduct. Can't do that legally or ethically after the case is handed to the jury for deliberation pal.


Yes you can I already linked to the fact the Judge can in fact do that.


----------



## JohnDB

So...
Just finished watching the proceedings over the Mistrial...
It isn't looking good for the state at all...

Bald fat guy is an idiot. How does he not notice that 4MB file is not smaller than a 11MB file...he is lying and trying to make a deal (as the judge accused him of) 

And the judge is especially concerned because he did question them specifically about this footage that he felt iffy about to begin with. Meaning that their whole final arguments were based on lies. 

That's a problem...and a huge one for the prosecutor.


----------



## john doe 101

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gonna explain how Kyle was living a fantasy when he ran and only fired on the 4 people that physically attacked him?


All part of the fantasy.  I could very well be wrong.  We'll never know for sure.  I mean who would be dumb enough to admit to such a thing.  The only thing that matters here is what the jury decides.  My thoughts, and yours, are meaningless.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> If this redneck judge goes there - It will be SEVERE judicial misconduct. Can't do that legally or ethically after the case is handed to the jury for deliberation pal.


You are confused you idiot Moon Bat.

The judge suppose to insure justice, not kiss the ass of corrupt politically motivated lying dishonest Prosecutors that are filthy ass hate mongering Democrats.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> If this redneck judge goes there - It will be SEVERE judicial misconduct. Can't do that legally or ethically after the case is handed to the jury for deliberation pal.


Good to see you're not afraid to put your ignorance on display,


----------



## rightnow909

Correll said:


> Yep. Stepping forward, to help defend society from rioters and looters and arsonists, at great risk to himself.
> 
> 
> Any society that punishes that, is a sick and dying society.


it does  other stuff that  makes it that.. in spades


----------



## RetiredGySgt

M14 Shooter said:


> Good to see you're not afraid to put your ignorance on display,


He already disagreed with my post where I LINKED to the fact the Judge can do it.


----------



## john doe 101

JohnDB said:


> So...
> Just finished watching the proceedings over the Mistrial...
> It isn't looking good for the state at all...
> 
> Bald fat guy is an idiot. How does he not notice that 4MB file is not smaller than a 11MB file...he is lying and trying to make a deal (as the judge accused him of)
> 
> And the judge is especially concerned because he did question them specifically about this footage that he felt iffy about to begin with. Meaning that their whole final arguments were based on lies.
> 
> That's a problem...and a huge one for the prosecutor.


I would bet the prosecutor will be fired after all of this.  Seems pretty inept.  That cant be the best of the best in WI.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

So, here is a summary of the relevant facts as I have seen them:

1.  Rittenhouse, who was legally armed with a long rifle and a medical kit, was moving down the street, asking if anyone needed attention.
2.  Rittenhouse is encountered by Rosenbaum and the Ziminski couple, Joshua Ziminski is armed with and holding a handgun.
3.  Rittenhouse yell's "friendly, friendly, friendly"
4.  Ziminski yells "you won't do shit.  Get him."
5.  Rittenhouse runs away from Ziminski and Rosenbaum across a parking lot.
6.  Rosenbaum throws something at Rittenhouse, likely a plastic bag.
7.  On the other side of the parking lot, rioters who are bashing the shit out of cars are blocking Rittenhouse's retreat.
8.  Rittenhouse stops when he sees the mob of rioters bashing cars.
9.  Rosenbaum is quickly approaches Rittenhouse from the rear.
10. 1/4th of a second before Rosenbaum reaches Rittenhouse, Ziminski recklessly fires his handgun into the air (a felony).
11.  Rittenhouse turns when he hears the gunshot and sees Rosenbaum nearly upon him trying to grab the rifle.
12.  Rittenhouse fires 4 shots in less than 3/4ths of a second and runs away, around a group of parked cars.
13.  From the other side of the encounter, near the rioting car bashers, 3 more gunshots from an unidentified person are fired from what sounds like a handgun.
14.  Rittenhouse runs back around to where he was attacked by Rosenbaum and when he sees that he has shot Rosenbaum, he calls his friend who tells him to surrender to police.
15.  Rittenhouse immediately heads toward the police blockade to turn himself in.
16.  On his way, several people are yelling "he shot somebody, get him" and "cranium him."
17.  An unidentified rioter runs up to the fleeing Rittenhouse and hits him square in the head with a rock, knocking Rittenhouse to the street in the middle of what appears to be a hostile mob trying to "get him."
18.   Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street.  Huber's girlfriend later admitted that Huber never witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting and that Huber acted based solely on what others were yelling.
18.  Unidentified (identity withheld by prosecutors) Jump-Kick man kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street.
19.  Rittenhouse fires one defensive shot at Jump-Kick man but misses.
20.   Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head again with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street, then he tries to take the rifle from Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fires one shot, which kills Huber, stone cold dead on the street.
21.  Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted that he too had not witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, approached Rittenhouse with an illegal handgun.
22.  Grosskreutz admitted that when Rittenhouse saw Grosskreutz hold up his hands in a "surrender" type gesture, Rittenhouse did not fire, but when Grosskreutz then pointed his illegal gun at Rittenhouse, only then did Rittenhouse shoot him.
23.  Others were standing nearby holding various weapons.  Rittenhouse did not shoot any of them presumably because they did not attempt to hit or kill him.
24.  Rittenhouse got up and continued directly to police to surrender.

Now, nuance the fuck out of all that.  

GO.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I would bet the prosecutor will be fired after all of this.  Seems pretty inept.  That cant be the best of the best in WI.


Or, his cause just sucked 10,000 butt holes and should never have been tried in the first place.  One of those two.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> He already disagreed with my post where I LINKED to the fact the Judge can do it.


Yeah.  There's no reason to take him seriously.


----------



## JohnDB

The judge has decided that he is going to hold a complete hearing on the with-held evidence of drone footage. 

Because it's obvious...4MB is a lot different than a 11MB file... especially when it has a completely different file name. 

A completely new hearing on the matter...

And will give a mistrial verdict.


----------



## WEATHER53

RetiredGySgt said:


> He already disagreed with my post where I LINKED to the fact the Judge can do it.


He feels it should be a bad idea so you are Lib 101 outgunned.


----------



## WEATHER53

Bringing a skate board to a riot  is just so liberal candy ass 101


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> Good to see you're not afraid to put your ignorance on display,


Yes we have covered that. He can't do it lest he be disrobed. 
And that would be something none of us could unsee


----------



## JohnDB

john doe 101 said:


> I would bet the prosecutor will be fired after all of this.  Seems pretty inept.  That cant be the best of the best in WI.


This plus the other things in this case...it will likely end up with him in jail.


----------



## M14 Shooter

DrLove said:


> Yes we have covered that. He can't do it lest he be disrobed.


There you go, doubling down on your ignorance.
Well done.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Or, his cause just sucked 10,000 butt holes and should never have been tried in the first place.  One of those two.


Hmmm no trial for someone that killed 2 people during a riot.  I guess that is the America you want.  Works both ways, ya know.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> If this redneck judge goes there - It will be SEVERE judicial misconduct. Can't do that legally or ethically after the case is handed to the jury for deliberation pal.


WRONG


----------



## DrLove

RetiredGySgt said:


> He already disagreed with my post where I LINKED to the fact the Judge can do it.


You provided nothing of the sort. Usurping a hung jury and inserting his own opinion would be a gross miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Hmmm no trial for someone that killed 2 people during a riot.  I guess that is the America you want.  Works both ways, ya know.


Fine, but any prosecutor who cannot evaluate his case and see a clear matter of self-defense, then over-charges the fuck out of said case, should expect to look like he never even went to law school when that case goes to trial.


----------



## DrLove

M14 Shooter said:


> Yeah.  There's no reason to take him seriously.


Link me to a case where the judge usurped a hung jury with a dismissal with prejudice. Waiting


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> You provided nothing of the sort. Usurping a hung jury and inserting his own opinion would be a gross miscarriage of justice.


Ever heard of a directed verdict or a JNOV?

You're wrong.  Quit doubling down on it.


----------



## maybelooking

JohnDB said:


> So...
> Just finished watching the proceedings over the Mistrial...
> It isn't looking good for the state at all...
> 
> Bald fat guy is an idiot. How does he not notice that 4MB file is not smaller than a 11MB file...he is lying and trying to make a deal (as the judge accused him of)
> 
> And the judge is especially concerned because he did question them specifically about this footage that he felt iffy about to begin with. Meaning that their whole final arguments were based on lies.
> 
> That's a problem...and a huge one for the prosecutor.


where did you watch this?


----------



## JohnDB

maybelooking said:


> where did you watch this?


Fox local on YouTube...
And I think it's now posted on court tv too. 

But basically there's going to be a complete new hearing on the misconduct. Complete with witnesses and etc.


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, here is a summary of the relevant facts as I have seen them:
> 
> 1.  Rittenhouse, who was legally armed with a long rifle and a medical kit, was moving down the street, asking if anyone needed attention.
> 2.  Rittenhouse is encountered by Rosenbaum and the Ziminski couple, Joshua Ziminski is armed with and holding a handgun.
> 3.  Rittenhouse yell's "friendly, friendly, friendly"
> 4.  Ziminski yells "you won't do shit.  Get him."
> 5.  Rittenhouse runs away from Ziminski and Rosenbaum across a parking lot.
> 6.  Rosenbaum throws something at Rittenhouse, likely a plastic bag.
> 7.  On the other side of the parking lot, rioters who are bashing the shit out of cars are blocking Rittenhouse's retreat.
> 8.  Rittenhouse stops when he sees the mob of rioters bashing cars.
> 9.  Rosenbaum is quickly approaches Rittenhouse from the rear.
> 10. 1/4th of a second before Rosenbaum reaches Rittenhouse, Ziminski recklessly fires his handgun into the air (a felony).
> 11.  Rittenhouse turns when he hears the gunshot and sees Rosenbaum nearly upon him trying to grab the rifle.
> 12.  Rittenhouse fires 4 shots in less than 3/4ths of a second and runs away, around a group of parked cars.
> 13.  From the other side of the encounter, near the rioting car bashers, 3 more gunshots from an unidentified person are fired from what sounds like a handgun.
> 14.  Rittenhouse runs back around to where he was attacked by Rosenbaum and when he sees that he has shot Rosenbaum, he calls his friend who tells him to surrender to police.
> 15.  Rittenhouse immediately heads toward the police blockade to turn himself in.
> 16.  On his way, several people are yelling "he shot somebody, get him" and "cranium him."
> 17.  An unidentified rioter runs up to the fleeing Rittenhouse and hits him square in the head with a rock, knocking Rittenhouse to the street in the middle of what appears to be a hostile mob trying to "get him."
> 18.   Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street.  Huber's girlfriend later admitted that Huber never witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting and that Huber acted based solely on what others were yelling.
> 18.  Unidentified (identity withheld by prosecutors) Jump-Kick man kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street.
> 19.  Rittenhouse fires one defensive shot at Jump-Kick man but misses.
> 20.   Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head again with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street, then he tries to take the rifle from Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fires one shot, which kills Huber, stone cold dead on the street.
> 21.  Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted that he too had not witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, approached Rittenhouse with an illegal handgun.
> 22.  Grosskreutz admitted that when Rittenhouse saw Grosskreutz hold up his hands in a "surrender" type gesture, Rittenhouse did not fire, but when Grosskreutz then pointed his illegal gun at Rittenhouse, only then did Rittenhouse shoot him.
> 23.  Others were standing nearby holding various weapons.  Rittenhouse did not shoot any of them presumably because they did not attempt to hit or kill him.
> 24.  Rittenhouse got up and continued directly to police to surrender.
> 
> Now, nuance the fuck out of all that.
> 
> GO.



No link? Then you got butt-hunches and I doubt very much that you wrote that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> Link me to a case where the judge usurped a hung jury with a dismissal with prejudice. Waiting


Here's this old case that talks about such motions and an appellate court's review of sufficiency of evidence claims.

State v. Escobedo

As far as I know, that is still good law, but I will consider anything you have that is contrary and more recent.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

DrLove said:


> No link? Then you got butt-hunches and I doubt very much that you wrote that.


I wrote it.  But I will link it here if you want. 

Here:  Dr. Love is ill-informed about the Rittenhouse matter.

Did you have a comment on any of that, or are you just here to troll like always?


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Fine, but any prosecutor who cannot evaluate his case and see a clear matter of self-defense, then over-charges the fuck out of said case, should expect to look like he never even went to law school when that case goes to trial.


Like I said, he should probably be fired.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Like I said, he should probably be fired.


I will agree with you about that.  He should probably be fired, not because he is necessarily a shitty courtroom lawyer, but because he either sucks at case evaluation or he prosecuted maliciously.  I will accept either answer.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> They are the people saying that Rittenhouse should not have been there, and is therefore guilty of MURDER.


I have never said that.  I have said that he had no business getting involved and that arming oneself and engaging in a violent riot is indeed a provocative act.

When people are rioting and looting the best thing for people to do who are not in harms way is to stay out of harms way.


----------



## maybelooking

Being armed is not in itself a provocative act.  No matter what the situation.

If that's true then cops are provoking people all day,  every day.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Did anyone else in here get the impression that I have killed someone in the past?
> 
> Raise your hands.


Nope, but it a poor choice of words that could be misconstrued.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> Quote me where I expressed my unhappiness with it.


Are you admitting that someone else is typing for you?


----------



## Turtlesoup

So now thanks to the prosecutors many illegal games, if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict no matter how unlikely, the judge can easily toss the case for prosecutorial misconduct.   For all you hoping to get Rittenhouse and especially you jackasses hoping to see him raped in prison, you have a zero % chance now.   The judge isn't going to rule on the prosecutorial mistrial till after the jury comes back with their verdict----and the jury is likely to come back with non-guilty or at a very least a mistrial as it is.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> I have never said that. I have said that he had no business getting involved and that arming oneself and engaging in a violent riot is indeed a provocative act.


I disagree that anything Rittenhouse did prior to Ziminiski firing the first shot into the air was provocative.  The mere legal possession of a firearm by itself is not an act of provocation.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> If this redneck judge goes there - It will be SEVERE judicial misconduct. Can't do that legally or ethically after the case is handed to the jury for deliberation pal.




You haven't been watching the trial have you?  The judge has been giving away the store to the corrupt dishonest Prosecution.  Any other Judge would have dismissed the case long before now.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, here is a summary of the relevant facts as I have seen them:
> 
> 1.  Rittenhouse, who was legally armed with a long rifle and a medical kit, was moving down the street, asking if anyone needed attention.
> 2.  Rittenhouse is encountered by Rosenbaum and the Ziminski couple, Joshua Ziminski is armed with and holding a handgun.
> 3.  Rittenhouse yell's "friendly, friendly, friendly"
> 4.  Ziminski yells "you won't do shit.  Get him."
> 5.  Rittenhouse runs away from Ziminski and Rosenbaum across a parking lot.
> 6.  Rosenbaum throws something at Rittenhouse, likely a plastic bag.
> 7.  On the other side of the parking lot, rioters who are bashing the shit out of cars are blocking Rittenhouse's retreat.
> 8.  Rittenhouse stops when he sees the mob of rioters bashing cars.
> 9.  Rosenbaum is quickly approaches Rittenhouse from the rear.
> 10. 1/4th of a second before Rosenbaum reaches Rittenhouse, Ziminski recklessly fires his handgun into the air (a felony).
> 11.  Rittenhouse turns when he hears the gunshot and sees Rosenbaum nearly upon him trying to grab the rifle.
> 12.  Rittenhouse fires 4 shots in less than 3/4ths of a second and runs away, around a group of parked cars.
> 13.  From the other side of the encounter, near the rioting car bashers, 3 more gunshots from an unidentified person are fired from what sounds like a handgun.
> 14.  Rittenhouse runs back around to where he was attacked by Rosenbaum and when he sees that he has shot Rosenbaum, he calls his friend who tells him to surrender to police.
> 15.  Rittenhouse immediately heads toward the police blockade to turn himself in.
> 16.  On his way, several people are yelling "he shot somebody, get him" and "cranium him."
> 17.  An unidentified rioter runs up to the fleeing Rittenhouse and hits him square in the head with a rock, knocking Rittenhouse to the street in the middle of what appears to be a hostile mob trying to "get him."
> 18.   Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street.  Huber's girlfriend later admitted that Huber never witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting and that Huber acted based solely on what others were yelling.
> 18.  Unidentified (identity withheld by prosecutors) Jump-Kick man kicks Rittenhouse in the head while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street.
> 19.  Rittenhouse fires one defensive shot at Jump-Kick man but misses.
> 20.   Huber (skateboard man) hits Rittenhouse in the head again with his skateboard while Rittenhouse is on his butt in the street, then he tries to take the rifle from Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse fires one shot, which kills Huber, stone cold dead on the street.
> 21.  Gaige Grosskreutz, who admitted that he too had not witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting, approached Rittenhouse with an illegal handgun.
> 22.  Grosskreutz admitted that when Rittenhouse saw Grosskreutz hold up his hands in a "surrender" type gesture, Rittenhouse did not fire, but when Grosskreutz then pointed his illegal gun at Rittenhouse, only then did Rittenhouse shoot him.
> 23.  Others were standing nearby holding various weapons.  Rittenhouse did not shoot any of them presumably because they did not attempt to hit or kill him.
> 24.  Rittenhouse got up and continued directly to police to surrender.
> 
> Now, nuance the fuck out of all that.
> 
> GO.


Still waiting on a correction on the apparently UNDISPUTED facts I posted above.

Any takers?

Anyone?

Bueller?


----------



## Canon Shooter

Correll said:


> Correct. I don't allow for that. It was as clear of a case of self defense imaginable.
> 
> 
> The ONLY shred of a leg the prosecution had to stand on, was teh idea that Rittenhouse was technically violating the law by possessing the gun and thus not allowed to claim self defense.
> 
> 
> And that gun charge has been dropped.



Well, if it's such a clear cut case of self defense, why is the defense now demanding a mistrial over some video that's of a higher resolution but which wasn't shared with them? Surely the simple merits of the case should be enough to secure an acquittal, right?

The reality is that this is far from being a "clear case" of anything, and Rittenhouse's ass is still on the hot seat.

Aside from all of that, I have to say that I find Rittenhouse to be an impressive young man. He's poised as fuck when conversing with the judge...


----------



## jc456

Correll said:


> Yep. Stepping forward, to help defend society from rioters and looters and arsonists, at great risk to himself.
> 
> 
> Any society that punishes that, is a sick and dying society.


again, just more evidence demofks are kkkers by backing a criminal like rosenbaum saying the n-word at a supposed BLM rally.


----------



## JohnDB

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Still waiting on a correction on the apparently UNDISPUTED facts I posted above.
> 
> Any takers?
> 
> Anyone?
> 
> Bueller?


Well there were a couple of things but not that they matter much... Ziminski shot into the air a couple of seconds before Kyle started shooting. And it wasn't one shot at jump kick man but two...missed both times I thought...now I can be wrong on this but...not really relevant either.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

JohnDB said:


> Well there were a couple of things but not that they matter much... Ziminski shot into the air a couple of seconds before Kyle started shooting. And it wasn't one shot at jump kick man but two...missed both times I thought...now I can be wrong on this but...not really relevant either.


I am reviewing the video on the Ziminski shot and Jump-Kick man, and will correct accordingly.

Thank you for the response.


----------



## DrLove

Flash said:


> You haven't been watching the trial have you?  The judge has been giving away the store to the corrupt dishonest Prosecution.  Any other Judge would have dismissed the case long before now.


Dude, you live in a parallel universe aka Earth 2. Meanwhile here on Earth 1, you are FOS


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I wrote it.  But I will link it here if you want.
> 
> Here:  Dr. Love is ill-informed about the Rittenhouse matter.
> 
> Did you have a comment on any of that, or are you just here to troll like always?


Meh, you've never completed more than three sentences in your life.


----------



## JohnDB

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, if it's such a clear cut case of self defense, why is the defense now demanding a mistrial over some video that's of a higher resolution but which wasn't shared with them? Surely the simple merits of the case should be enough to secure an acquittal, right?
> 
> The reality is that this is far from being a "clear case" of anything, and Rittenhouse's ass is still on the hot seat.
> 
> Aside from all of that, I have to say that I find Rittenhouse to be an impressive young man. He's poised as fuck when conversing with the judge...


Because...
In closing arguments you can only comment on evidence brought out during the trial...say what you like about it but only evidence that was brought out. 

The whole final summation by the prosecutor was based on Kyle provoking what had happened based entirely on the drone footage that was murky at best... when they had a 3X better video they denied having given to the court until they mentioned it. (Because they were using the copy the defense had) 

(It's still not really super relevant because it was perfect self defense) 

And the defense could have actually had the HD drone footage blown up and stabilized and argued successfully against it...and the defense would have had none of the closing arguments 2X they made them in front of the jury. 

A prosecutor has taken an oath for the truth regardless of the outcome of the trials he participated in. And he denied the defense the truth and mischaracterized it the whole time. 

That's why. The prosecutor prejudiced the jury by his closing remarks on evidence never given or knew was completely wrong.


----------



## DrLove

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Here's this old case that talks about such motions and an appellate court's review of sufficiency of evidence claims.
> 
> State v. Escobedo
> 
> As far as I know, that is still good law, but I will consider anything you have that is contrary and more recent.


Apples to moonbeams ... Moonbeam


----------



## hadit

john doe 101 said:


> Let's get real here.  Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head.  Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.


I've been telling people, those mindreading helmets you buy at the Spy vs Spy store don't work.


----------



## john doe 101

Indeependent said:


> Are you admitting that someone else is typing for you?


So you cant provide the quotes.  Thanks for admitting that.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I will agree with you about that.  He should probably be fired, not because he is necessarily a shitty courtroom lawyer, but because he either sucks at case evaluation or he prosecuted maliciously.  I will accept either answer.


From the little I've seen, I'd even go as far to say he comes off as clownish.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I disagree that anything Rittenhouse did prior to Ziminiski firing the first shot into the air was provocative.  The mere legal possession of a firearm by itself is not an act of provocation.


I’m a reasonable person. Im a retired US Army infantryman. I also had a second career as a Deputy Sheriff. It’s my view that anyone injecting them self into a violent riot armed with a rifle and carrying this rifle in a ready position is a provocative act.

That said, if your own home or property is in harms way, you should be able to defend your property and yourself  

Rittenhouse needlessly place himself in harms way.  His father’s home was not in danger.   None of his family who lived near the area was at risk.    He made a bad choice.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

A correction to the relevant facts list:

in this video, at 0:33 you see an unidentified male threatening Rittenhouse with some sort of pole, which turns Rittenhouse back toward the parking lot where the first shooting occurred.  

Video of First Encounter

I am still reviewing, trying to correct some facts for accuracy.


----------



## tahuyaman

john doe 101 said:


> Let's get real here.  Kyle was living out a fantasy and he got in over his head.  Just like a lot of right wing clowns on here fantasize about killing people.


He did get in over his head and I agree that he had some kind of hero complex he was trying to fulfill.

However I’m probably one of the more right wing members here and I certainly do not fantasize about killing anyone.  That’s probably because of the two careers I worked during my adult life.

Some of the comments made by supposed conservatives here and in the media are unsupportable and very hypocritical in my view.  Some are even embarrassing.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> Calling dead people "scumbags" is bad form. But you be you!


They had rap sheets and were burning or looting.  You are just upset some of Mercs got what they deserved for being idiots.

Your side is always Violent when you dont get what you want.  Karma comes and  cry again.  Oh well

Stop your bs and maybe this wont happen


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> I’m a reasonable person. Im a retired US Army infantryman. I also had a second career as a Deputy Sheriff. It’s my view that anyone injecting them self into a violent riot armed with a rifle and carrying this rifle in a ready position is a provocative act.


It is legal in Wisconsin to open carry a rifle like Rittenhouse did.  A legal act cannot, by itself, be deemed provocative for purposes of self-defense privilege.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It is legal in Wisconsin to open carry a rifle like Rittenhouse did.  A legal act cannot, by itself, be deemed provocative for purposes of self-defense privilege.


Legal or illegal isn’t the issue.

 It is not prudent to arm yourself and leave the safe confines of your home and insert yourself into a violent riot.   Nothing good happens when one does something like that.

I have always asked myself one question before I do something and that is….  “would an idiot do this?”  If the answer is yes, I don’t do that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Here are the screenshots of the unidentified pole man:


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Legal or illegal isn’t the issue.
> 
> It is not prudent to arm yourself and leave the safe confines of your home and insert yourself into a violent riot.   Nothing good happens when one does something like that.


I don't disagree with you that it was a bad idea.  I never have.  It was a bad idea for any of that to have occurred.  My guns protect me only and I avoid any situation where I can foresee that they might be necessary. 

I was speaking directly to the legal terms of art used in the Wisconsin self-defense statute.  The mere possession of a firearm is not a "provocation" that removes the "self-defense privilege" under Wisconsin law.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> You provided nothing of the sort. Usurping a hung jury and inserting his own opinion would be a gross miscarriage of justice.


You MORON I most assuredly did and you disagreed with it cause you didn't check the link probably.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> It is legal in Wisconsin to open carry a rifle like Rittenhouse did.  A legal act cannot, by itself, be deemed provocative for purposes of self-defense privilege.


So in America you just think it should be a normal thing for people to sling rifles over their back while grocery shopping.  You sure do have some weird ideas what a civilized society should look like.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Here are the screenshots of the unidentified pole man:
> 
> View attachment 565406
> View attachment 565407
> View attachment 565409
> View attachment 565411


So now a pole is a weapon.  It wasnt on Jan 6th was it?

By the way, I am actually saying a pole can be used as a weapon, so dont get confused.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Here are the screenshots of the unidentified pole man:
> 
> View attachment 565406
> View attachment 565407
> View attachment 565409
> View attachment 565411


Pole man should have killed that guy with a rifle, out of self defense.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

*Corrections*:

10. 1/4th of a second about 2 seconds before Rosenbaum reaches Rittenhouse, Ziminski recklessly fires his handgun into the air (a felony).
11. Rittenhouse turns when he hears the gunshot and sees Rosenbaum nearly upon him and shoots when Rosenbaum trying tries to grab the rifle.
12. Rittenhouse fires 4 shots in less than 3/4ths of a second and runs away, around a group of parked cars.

Thank you, JohnDB


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> So now a pole is a weapon.  It wasnt on Jan 6th was it?
> 
> By the way, I am actually saying a pole can be used as a weapon, so dont get confused.


When did I ever say a pole is not a dangerous weapon?  

You don't have to make up arguments for me and shoot them down like a strawman.  I will make my arguments for myself.


----------



## WEATHER53

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I wrote it.  But I will link it here if you want.
> 
> Here:  Dr. Love is ill-informed about the Rittenhouse matter.
> 
> Did you have a comment on any of that, or are you just here to troll like always?


The dolt  would try to offer argument to a Stop sign.


----------



## DrLove

eagle1462010 said:


> They had rap sheets and were burning or looting.  You are just upset some of Mercs got what they deserved for being idiots.
> 
> Your side is always Violent when you dont get what you want.  Karma comes and  cry again.  Oh well
> 
> Stop your bs and maybe this wont happen



You nutbars have a history of this BS. Every time a LW protestor of any sort is killed, you celebrate. I don't celebrate the murder or death of anyone for any reason. 

And THAT is the difference between you and I. 

PS: Spare me the lecture on violence when my side doesn't get what they want. Got that Loon?


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I don't disagree with you that it was a bad idea.  I never have.  It was a bad idea for any of that to have occurred.  My guns protect me only and I avoid any situation where I can foresee that they might be necessary.
> 
> I was speaking directly to the legal terms of art used in the Wisconsin self-defense statute.  The mere possession of a firearm is not a "provocation" that removes the "self-defense privilege" under Wisconsin law.


I’ve seen several constitutionalist type attorney’s agree that displaying a rifle while engaged in a violent riot can legitimately be portrayed as a provocative act.


----------



## ClaireH

tahuyaman said:


> Legal or illegal isn’t the issue.
> 
> It is not prudent to arm yourself and leave the safe confines of your home and insert yourself into a violent riot.   Nothing good happens when one does something like that.
> 
> I have always asked myself one question before I do something and that is….  “would an idiot do this?”  If the answer is yes, I don’t do that.


The jury members will focus on Rittenhouse’s words and actions when he gave his vest to his friend instead of choosing to wear it. Rittenhouse stated that he wouldn’t need it because he was “going to help people”. He stated he was going to help defend the car lot. 

There will at least be 4 to 6 jury members very concerned about motive, as they should. Rittenhouse did not have any intention to engage in a gun fight or he would have kept and worn the vest.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> When did I ever say a pole is not a dangerous weapon?
> 
> You don't have to make up arguments for me and shoot them down like a strawman.  I will make my arguments for myself.


I'm glad we can agree then that weapons were used on Jan 6th by the right wing terrorist traitors against police officers.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> So in America you just think it should be a normal thing for people to sling rifles over their back while grocery shopping.


And your real issue is revealed.  

Yes, it should be normal for people to be armed.  Open carry is legal in most states.

Lots of funny business gets avoided when people are armed (except when they are trying to start shit, like while rioting in Kenosha).



john doe 101 said:


> You sure do have some weird ideas what a civilized society should look like.


An armed society is MUCH more civilized than the alternative.  People tend to mind their manners when everyone is armed.

It's legal in most states to open carry.  If you have a problem with it, move to a state that does not allow it, like what Reagan's racist ass did to California after the Black Panther's armed protest.  You have options.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> I’m a reasonable person. Im a retired US Army infantryman. I also had a second career as a Deputy Sheriff. It’s my view that anyone injecting them self into a violent riot armed with a rifle and carrying this rifle in a ready position is a provocative act.
> 
> That said, if your own home or property is in harms way, you should be able to defend your property and yourself
> 
> Rittenhouse needlessly place himself in harms way.  His father’s home was not in danger.   None of his family who lived near the area was at risk.    He made a bad choice.


No one goes into a lions den with raw meat 
The merit of going to this conflict is legitimately debatable.
Carrying something with you to potentially defend yourself is not provocative nor indicative of mal intent. Far more likely it’s legitimate and legally permitted protection in case something goes awry. Again, the merits of being there is the first  place has legitimate debatability.  Being armed when doing is wise snd indicative of zero preplanning of violence and far more likely properly indicative of potentially protecting yourself.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And your real issue is revealed.
> 
> Yes, it should be normal for people to be armed.  Open carry is legal in most states.
> 
> Lots of funny business gets avoided when people are armed (except when they are trying to start shit, like while rioting in Kenosha).
> 
> 
> An armed society is MUCH more civilized than the alternative.  People tend to mind their manners when everyone is armed.
> 
> It's legal in most states to open carry.  If you have a problem with it, move to a state that does not allow it, like what Reagan's racist ass did to California after the Black Panther's armed protest.  You have options.


So you think people carrying rifles in a grocery store should be an every day occurrence from what you are saying.  That is your version of a civilized society.

This is where we disagree.  And this is why I think your kind are a bunch of uncivilized animals.

And the rest of the world would disagree with you.  But before you tell me to move to another country, consider the possibility you might actually be wrong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I'm glad we can agree then that weapons were used on Jan 6th by the right wing terrorist traitors against police officers.


I have not seen what you are referring to, but if they did use poles or anything else as a deadly weapon against police officers, I would consider that assault with a deadly weapon.  I don't know why you assumed I would say otherwise.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> So you think people carrying rifles in a grocery store should be an every day occurrence from what you are saying.  That is your version of a civilized society.
> 
> This is where we disagree.  And this is why I think your kind are a bunch of uncivilized animals.


Cool.

Now, fuck off.  I don't give a rat fuck what you think about us.  Stay away or go live with your commie ilk.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

DrLove said:


> Meh, you've never completed more than three sentences in your life.


Try this dumb ass,










						What happens if there is a hung jury?
					

A hung jury results in a mistrial in which the defendant is neither convicted nor acquitted. Prosecutors are usually allowed to retry the case if they so choose.




					fija.org


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I have not seen what you are referring to, but if they did use poles or anything else as a deadly weapon against police officers, I would consider that assault with a deadly weapon.  I don't know why you assumed I would say otherwise.


You mean you have purposely not seen what I'm talking about.  I mean, if you dont see it, it didnt happen, right?

FYI it's all over the internet.  I challenge you to right now stop what you're doing and look up those pictures I am referring to.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

RetiredGySgt said:


> Try this dumb ass,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happens if there is a hung jury?
> 
> 
> A hung jury results in a mistrial in which the defendant is neither convicted nor acquitted. Prosecutors are usually allowed to retry the case if they so choose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fija.org


When Dr. Love gives you the winkie face emote, he's no longer really arguing.  He is just joking around from there on.  At least, that's how it appears to me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> You MORON I most assuredly did and you disagreed with it cause you didn't check the link probably.


Keep prove just how abjectly STUPID you are. I just linked again to an article about it from case law.


----------



## WEATHER53

Where’s the dummy who offered over and over that Kyle showing up armed meant that he was lawfully guilty of trying to “start something” and that since judged (by whom?) of starting something he cannot offer self defense (nor by fact connection be lawfully permitted to defend himself)


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Cool.
> 
> Now, fuck off.  I don't give a rat fuck what you think about us.  Stay away or go live with your commie ilk.


Is this the part where you start threatening to kill people like you have done before?


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> No one goes into a lions den with raw meat
> The merit of going to this conflict is legitimately debatable.
> Carrying something with you to potentially defend yourself is not provocative nor indicative of mal intent. Far more likely it’s legitimate and legally permitted protection in case something goes awry. Again, the merits of being there is the first  place has legitimate debatability.  Being armed when doing is wise snd indicative of zero preplanning of violence and far more likely properly indicative of potentially protecting yourself.


The solution is to not enter the lion’s den.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> You mean you have purposely not seen what I'm talking about. I mean, if you dont see it, it didnt happen, right?


No. I haven't....


....you mean like you have purposely NOT seen all the mountains of evidence in this case that should be completely exculpatory because you want to hang a kid for the sole reason that he dared to protect himself against your communist ilk?  

See how you sound?



john doe 101 said:


> FYI it's all over the internet. I challenge you to right now stop what you're doing and look up those pictures I am referring to.


Fine.  Why don't you do the same?

And, why does it matter?  I have NEVER claimed that no one used poles as deadly weapons on Jan 6.  You are making up bullshit arguments for me and blowing them over like strawmen.  You know....the "strawman" fallacy?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> Is this the part where you start threatening to kill people like you have done before?


And this is where you molest babies and fuck dogs.

See how ridiculous you sound.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> I’ve seen several constitutionalist type attorney’s agree that displaying a rifle while engaged in a violent riot can legitimately be portrayed as a provocative act.


The I’ve seen …..shit is for childten
We are adults. 
go away


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> The solution is to not enter the lion’s den.


Ture, but entering the lion's den is not a criminal act.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Cool.
> 
> Now, fuck off.  I don't give a rat fuck what you think about us.  Stay away or go live with your commie ilk.


That’s the type of response which discredits conservatives and supporters of our second amendment rights.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No. I haven't....
> 
> 
> ....you mean like you have purposely NOT seen all the mountains of evidence in this case that should be completely exculpatory because you want to hang a kid for the sole reason that he dared to protect himself against your communist ilk?
> 
> See how you sound?
> 
> 
> Fine.  Why don't you do the same?
> 
> And, why does it matter?  I have NEVER claimed that no one used poles as deadly weapons on Jan 6.  You are making up bullshit arguments for me and blowing them over like strawmen.  You know....the "strawman" fallacy?


I"ve said all along Kyle will probably be found innocent.  For the 5th time.   I even said the prosecutor should probably be fired and was clownish.   You must be slow.


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> The I’ve seen …..shit is for childten
> We are adults.
> go away


It’s called having a discussion dumb-ass.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> That’s the type of response which discredits conservatives and supporters of our second amendment rights.


Did you happen to see his comment?



> And this is why I think your kind are a bunch of uncivilized animals.


He is a passive-aggressive twat who is begging for hostility.  He is angry as fuck that Rittenhouse will walk.


----------



## tahuyaman

john doe 101 said:


> I"ve said all along Kyle will probably be found innocent.  For the 5th time.   I even said the prosecutor should probably be fired and was clownish.   You must be slow.


I didn’t watch the entire trial like some, but what I did see was a completely unprepared and incompetent prosecutor.

I won’t predict the outcome because a jury often does the unexpected.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> It’s called having a discussion dumb-ass.


You can get a couple lawyers to agree with anything. The law is clear on this the simple act of open carry is NOT a provocation in Wisconsin


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And this is where you molest babies and fuck dogs.
> 
> See how ridiculous you sound.


But I have the receipts.  You dont.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> I"ve said all along Kyle will probably be found innocent.  For the 5th time.   I even said the prosecutor should probably be fired and was clownish.   You must be slow.


And you completely missed the point of my responding in that fashion, didn't you?

 

You accused me of purposefully not looking at some random photographs on the internet JUST so I could deny that it happened, EVEN WHEN I HAVE NEVER DENIED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Did you happen to see his comment?
> 
> 
> He is a passive-aggressive twat who is begging for hostility.  He is angry as fuck that Rittenhouse will


No. I saw yours.


RetiredGySgt said:


> You can get a couple lawyers to agree with anything. The law is clear on this the simple act of open carry is NOT a provocation in Wisconsin


The  law doesn’t say they.  

Open carry doesn’t necessarily mean openly carrying a rifle in any situation is never a provocative act.


----------



## WEATHER53

john doe 101 said:


> So you think people carrying rifles in a grocery store should be an every day occurrence from what you are saying.  That is your version of a civilized society.
> 
> This is where we disagree.  And this is why I think your kind are a bunch of uncivilized animals.
> 
> And the rest of the world would disagree with you.  But before you tell me to move to another country, consider the possibility you might actually be wrong.


Your position is far easier to identify than your mischaracterization above
You want no one to have guns. Period. 
They scare you and you are unfamiliar with them
Since they frighten you then no one else should have them and then, you offer, you will feel secure.
You will Never feel secure!  You don’t know how to, and it’s not up to all of us to make that “right” for you.


----------



## john doe 101

tahuyaman said:


> I didn’t watch the entire trial like some, but what I did see was a completely unprepared and incompetent prosecutor.
> 
> I won’t predict the outcome because a jury often does the unexpected.


Similar to you, I've seen very little.  But I completely agree with your assessment of the prosecutor.  It was amateur hour.  And you are correct on juries.  In fact I think the longer this takes, the greater the chance Kyle will be found guilty of something.  My prediction was 70% chance he's found innocent, 30% chance he is found guilty on reduced charge(s).


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Yeah, I am going to go ahead and dust off the "Ignore" function for this John Doe 101 twat.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> No. I saw yours.
> 
> The  law doesn’t say they.
> 
> Open carry doesn’t necessarily mean openly carrying a rifle in any situation is never a provocative act.


And yet the COPS did not arrest anyone at the riot for open carry. Go figure.


----------



## tahuyaman

I w


john doe 101 said:


> Similar to you, I've seen very little.  But I completely agree with your assessment of the prosecutor.  It was amateur hour.  And you are correct on juries.  In fact I think the longer this takes, the greater the chance Kyle will be found guilty of something.  My prediction was 70% chance he's found innocent, 30% chance he is found guilty on reduced charge(s).


i would tend to agree that a lengthy deliberation is not what the defense thinks is a good thing, but you never know.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> It’s called having a discussion dumb-ass.


It’s fact that what we discuss is fact and not some made up baloney about you “have seen”your imaginary comfort sources state.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet the COPS did not arrest anyone at the riot for open carry. Go figure.


They didn't really arrest anyone that night apparently. They went derelict of duty and gave their jobs to the princesses that were cosplaying militia.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet the COPS did not arrest anyone at the riot for open carry. Go figure.


They were overwhelmed. They didn’t do much of anything.   The police didn’t do their job.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> They were overwhelmed. They didn’t do much of anything.   The police didn’t do their job.


Also the prosecution did not claim him having a rifle was a provocation.


----------



## theHawk

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They didn't really arrest anyone that night apparently. They went derelict of duty and gave their jobs to the princesses that were cosplaying militia.


They were ordered by Democrats to stand down and let BLM destroy the city.  So citizens had to take matters into their own hands.


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> It’s fact that what we discuss is fact and not some made up baloney about you “have seen”your imaginary comfort sources state.


I’m guessing that you really don’t want to discuss anything.  You just want to post comments and have everyone agree with you.


----------



## miketx

If he's acquitted, how long until Garland files federal charges on him?


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Also the prosecution did not claim him having a rifle was a provocation.


Yes he did.  He did it in a stupid way, but he did.


----------



## jc456

miketex said:


> If he's acquitted, how long until Garland files federal charges on him?


for what?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

miketex said:


> If he's acquitted, how long until Garland files federal charges on him?


Won't happen. DOJ needs to investigate the Kenosha police instead.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> Yes he did.  He did it in a stupid way, but he did.


No he did not at no time did the prosecution claim that the mere act of carrying a rifle was illegal.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> They were overwhelmed. They didn’t do much of anything.   The police didn’t do their job.


Overwhelmed?
They did not do what you feel was their “job” to do Because There  Was No Job TO Do. 
shooting emotive ducks in a barrel is boring.


----------



## john doe 101

WEATHER53 said:


> Your position is far easier to identify than your mischaracterization above
> You want no one to have guns. Period.
> They scare you and you are unfamiliar with them
> Since they frighten you then no one else should have them and then, you offer, you will feel secure.
> You will Never feel secure!  You don’t know how to, and it’s not up to all of us to make that “right” for you.


Never said any of that.  I just think anyone who thinks it should be a normal, every day occurrence to walk around in a grocery store with people having rifles slung over their shoulder is uncivilized in this day and age.  Evidently, I am always going to disagree with people like you about that.

As far as me being scared, I've been held up at gunpoint by two gunmen before.  And I didnt have a gun.  Nor did I feel the need to buy a gun after that incident. And to this day  I walk around all hours of the day and night in neighborhoods you wouldnt even step foot in with your gun while inside a car.  So dont talk to me about being scared, pussy. As long as you follow the gun laws, I guess feel free to carry your rifle around wherever you want in public if you feel the need.  But that doesnt prevent me from thinking you are a bunch of uncivilized animals.  Eventually things will change and history will simply laugh at people like you and be shocked you even existed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Also the prosecution did not claim him having a rifle was a provocation.


Right, they claimed that him pointing it at people was a provocation.


----------



## JWBooth

jc456 said:


> for what?


tearin the tag off a mattress, whatever the bastards can dream up to give this kid a record


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> No. I saw yours.
> 
> The  law doesn’t say they.
> 
> Open carry doesn’t necessarily mean openly carrying a rifle in any situation is never a provocative act.


Does that include the rioters that were armed?  Because there were a shitload of them including that dipshit that fired the first shots.

How come none of them were arrested for "provocation"?  How come GG wasn't even arrested for concealed carry without a valid permit?  You know who GG is, don't you? He is the sonofabitch who got his arm almost blown off for pointing his Glock at Kyle.  

Was it because the Democrat leadership of Kenosha let the rioters get away with anything they wanted to do?


----------



## DBA

BULLDOG said:


> Daily surveys show that 93% of federal prisoners say Kyle has a pretty little mouth, and competition for a place on his dance card is quite vigorous.


Typical Democratic scum-type comment. You really are an immoral bunch of losers.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

RetiredGySgt said:


> Also the prosecution did not claim him having a rifle was a provocation.


Because it's not.


----------



## ClaireH

theHawk said:


> They were ordered by Democrats to stand down and let BLM destroy the city.  So citizens had to take matters into their own hands.


This needs to be fully exposed by an investigative reporter, an actual journalist of which is a rare breed these days. If any federal, state, or city level command was given for the police to stand down, this needs to be known and records released to the public.


----------



## initforme

The jury will get it right


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> Dude, you live in a parallel universe aka Earth 2. Meanwhile here on Earth 1, you are FOS




Calling it Asian food is not being a redneck you idiot.


----------



## john doe 101

ClaireH said:


> This needs to be fully exposed by an investigative reporter, an actual journalist of which is a rare breed these days. If any federal, state, or city level command was given for the police to stand down, this needs to be known and records released to the public.


You can look up the records of the 250 people arrested just as well as anyone else can.  But instead, you'll continue to lie about how the police were ordered to stand down.  I'd be interested to see who said that.  Was it Tucker?  Laura?  Which one of those clowns started that lie because I see all you animals spouting it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Right, they claimed that him pointing it at people was a provocation.


Yeah, which didn't happen until after Ziminski fired the first shot.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> So you cant provide the quotes.  Thanks for admitting that.


Post 731 and every post wheee you condemn anyone defending themselves from thugs is disgusting.


----------



## WEATHER53

tahuyaman said:


> I’m guessing that you really don’t want to discuss anything.  You just want to post comments and have everyone agree with you.


Improbable make pretend about what you saw on TV from “accredited sources” which happen to match  your  feelings is not discussion material


----------



## john doe 101

john doe 101 said:


> Hmmm no trial for someone that killed 2 people during a riot. I guess that is the America you want. Works both ways, ya know.





Indeependent said:


> Post 731 and every post wheee you condemn anyone defending themselves from thugs is disgusting.


You mean that one?  Where I was responding to someone talking about 10,000 buttholes?  I have no idea what you are even talking about.  Cmon I know you dont actually want to say "thugs".  What is the word you really want to use?


----------



## Flash

initforme said:


> The jury will get it right


Unless there are some stupid Moon Bat idiots on the jury.

The report of jury watchers is that there are four mask wearing "Karens" that are sitting together.  They can fuck up justice for Kyle.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flash said:


> Calling it Asian food is not being a redneck you idiot.


The ever-shifting standard of PC language is a weapon developed as part of Critical Theory by the Marxist twats from the Frankfurt School (precursor to CRT). 

You saw one of the dumber leftists whip it out on Amy Coney Barrett about "sexual preference" in the confirmation hearings.


----------



## WEATHER53

john doe 101 said:


> Never said any of that.  I just think anyone who thinks it should be a normal, every day occurrence to walk around in a grocery store with people having rifles slung over their shoulder is uncivilized in this day and age.  Evidently, I am always going to disagree with people like you about that.
> 
> As far as me being scared, I've been held up at gunpoint by two gunmen before.  And I didnt have a gun.  Nor did I feel the need to buy a gun after that incident. And to this day  I walk around all hours of the day and night in neighborhoods you wouldnt even step foot in with your gun while inside a car.  So dont talk to me about being scared, pussy. As long as you follow the gun laws, I guess feel free to carry your rifle around wherever you want in public if you feel the need.  But that doesnt prevent me from thinking you are a bunch of uncivilized animals.  Eventually things will change and history will simply laugh at people like you and be shocked you even existed.


Well we know you hope history does condemn us and your safe space can be confirmed . Libs always  in the past or future. Never present.
Quite improbable but keep on carrying the feelings torch


----------



## john doe 101

WEATHER53 said:


> Well we know you hope history does condemn us and your safe space can be confirmed . Libs always  in the past or future. Never present.
> Quite improbable but keep on carrying the feelings torch


Yeah we have to think about the future because you animals have us living in this current nightmare.  Who wants to keep thinking about that?


----------



## WEATHER53

ClaireH said:


> This needs to be fully exposed by an investigative reporter, an actual journalist of which is a rare breed these days. If any federal, state, or city level command was given for the police to stand down, this needs to be known and records released to the public.


Proud mayors already stood at podiums  snd declared “stand down to let them vent”
No investigation is needed. The evidence already occurred and is on record


----------



## basquebromance

Name one “active shooter” in history who strolled about with a gun for hours, not shooting anyone — until he was chased, cornered and assaulted. Rittenhouse had a gun not because he was violent, but because the “protesters” were, as the evidence abundantly demonstrated.


----------



## basquebromance

Kyle Rittenhouse is on trial so that no one will dare stand in the way of the left’s shock troops ever again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Yeah, which didn't happen until after Ziminski fired the first shot.


And Huber didn't swing a skateboard at rittenhouse until Kyle had killed somebody.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

basquebromance said:


> Name one “active shooter” in history who strolled about with a gun for hours, not shooting anyone — until he was chased, cornered and assaulted. Rittenhouse had a gun not because he was violent, but because the “protesters” were, as the evidence abundantly demonstrated.


The kid who beats on little girls isn't violent? Okay. Seems like being violent to people weaker than him is his thing.


----------



## Leo123

Canon Shooter said:


> I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:
> 
> First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?
> 
> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.
> 
> He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.
> 
> He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid.
> 
> He provided first aid to no one.
> 
> He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.
> 
> Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...


None of your post aligns with the facts presented in the trial.  The gun charge was dropped, he did give first aid, he did give his gun to someone while performing first aid, he gave his armor and did not say he would’nt be performing first aid.  Your post reads like a one sided presentation of the prosecution.


----------



## Indeependent

john doe 101 said:


> You mean that one?  Where I was responding to someone talking about 10,000 buttholes?  I have no idea what you are even talking about.  Cmon I know you dont actually want to say "thugs".  What is the word you really want to use?


I saw 2 videos; they were thugs.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Does that include the rioters that were armed?  Because there were a shitload of them including that dipshit that fired the first shots.
> 
> How come none of them were arrested for "provocation"?  How come GG wasn't even arrested for concealed carry without a valid permit?  You know who GG is, don't you? He is the sonofabitch who got his arm almost blown off for pointing his Glock at Kyle.
> 
> Was it because the Democrat leadership of Kenosha let the rioters get away with anything they wanted to do?


Yes. It applies to the rioters too.   

They weren’t arrested for the same reason Rittenhouse wasn’t arrested.   The police stood down.  Don’t ask me to explain the actions or lack of actions taken by the police


----------



## miketx

jc456 said:


> for what?


Civil rights violations.


----------



## tahuyaman

WEATHER53 said:


> Improbable make pretend about what you saw on TV from “accredited sources” which happen to match  your  feelings is not discussion material


Good bye dumb-ass.


----------



## skye

I wonder how many cars BLM is going to f****up when the verdict is given!


----------



## jc456

miketex said:


> Civil rights violations.


I’d sue garland for violating rittenhouse’s rights


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> No he did not at no time did the prosecution claim that the mere act of carrying a rifle was illegal.


You moved the goal posts.  First you said that the prosecutor never argued that taking the rifle to the riot was a pro active act.  He did argue that.  

Now you’ve changed that to say he didn’t argue that it was illegal.    On that I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but seeing that he went trial with a charge of illegal possession, that says he did argue that at some point.

Seeing that it’s your position that Wisconsin being an open carry state means that displaying a weapon can’t ever be an act of provocation, does that also apply to the rioters?


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> So if you are at a friend's house during curfew you should be incarcerated for the violation?
> 
> What about the constitutional right of assembly?



If you're running up and down the street...you're not a a friend's house.


----------



## candycorn

Cecilie1200 said:


> Do you really think saying, "Grotesque bitch, grotesque bitch!" will cure yours?
> 
> This just in:  I'm still everything you aren't



Yes you are... you're a lonely bitter woman who hangs out on message boards to get the attention she can't garner in real life.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Also the prosecution did not claim him having a rifle was a provocation.


Yes he did.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> You moved the goal posts.  First you said that the prosecutor never argued that taking the rifle to the riot was a pro active act.  He did argue that.
> 
> Now you’ve changed that to say he didn’t argue that it was illegal.    On that I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but seeing that he went trial with a charge of illegal possession, that says he did argue that at some point.
> 
> Seeing that it’s your position that Wisconsin being an open carry state means that displaying a weapon can’t ever be an act of provocation, does that also apply to the rioters?


Again the charge was he pointed it at people not that he had it.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Yep. Stepping forward, to help defend society from rioters and looters and arsonists, at great risk to himself.
> 
> 
> Any society that punishes that, is a sick and dying society.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Because it's not.


The prosecutor did argue that and the judge said that the jury could decide / consider  that during their deliberations on one of the murder counts, but not on both.  

Any reasonable person would consider that it’s a very provocative act to arm yourself then willfully engage in a violent riot situation.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> You moved the goal posts.  First you said that the prosecutor never argued that taking the rifle to the riot was a pro active act.  He did argue that.
> 
> Now you’ve changed that to say he didn’t argue that it was illegal.    On that I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but seeing that he went trial with a charge of illegal possession, that says he did argue that at some point.
> 
> Seeing that it’s your position that Wisconsin being an open carry state means that displaying a weapon can’t ever be an act of provocation, does that also apply to the rioters?


The word *argue* infers illegality.


----------



## jc456

skye said:


> I wonder how many cars BLM is going to f****up when the verdict is given!


For what reason would they riot?


----------



## skye

jc456 said:


> For what reason would they riot?



Just because!

To riot is in their DNA!


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Again the charge was he pointed it at people not that he had it.


Wouldn’t you consider it a provocative act to point a rifle at people? 

How can you point a rifle at someone if you dont have one?    Now, stop moving the goal posts.

 Initially the kid was charged with illegal possession.  The judge dropped that charge.  Obviously at some point the prosecutor argued that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession of the rifle.   The prosecutor lost that one.

Ne also has argued the charge that he provoked a confrontation with at least one of the guys he killed. That one has yet to be decided.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> View attachment 565435



He avenged a crime?


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> The word *argue* infers illegality.


Huh?  This was a criminal trial.  You know.   A trial about someone accused of illegal conduct. Duh.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Wouldn’t you consider it a provocative act to point a rifle at people?


You are carrying a rifle in one hand and a medical kit in the other hand.
In what position do you maintain the rifle?


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Huh?  This was a criminal trial.  You know.   A trial about someone accused of illegal conduct. Duh.


Exactly...the prosecutor was *arguing* something he knew wasn't illegal.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> Wouldn’t you consider it a provocative act to point a rifle at people?


Not  in in defense of self NO and that's what he did.


----------



## ClaireH

john doe 101 said:


> You can look up the records of the 250 people arrested just as well as anyone else can.  But instead, you'll continue to lie about how the police were ordered to stand down.  I'd be interested to see who said that.  Was it Tucker?  Laura?  Which one of those clowns started that lie because I see all you animals spouting it.


“If any federal, state, or city level command was given for the police to stand down, this needs to be known and records released to the public.” Where exactly is there need for revision John Doe?

I was quite clear that if any type of communication did occur, if a verbal command to stand down happened, the public needs full disclosure. Nothing over the top about calling for communication records be reviewed JD. Are you of the mindset that governmental communication should be kept private regarding hostile situations and chaos?  The choice to keep intel  protected only involves protecting lives and in this case it certainly did not.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Exactly...the prosecutor was *arguing* something he knew wasn't illegal.


Evidently he thought it was while making the argument.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, no.
> 
> You don't allow for the very real possibility that someone on the jury will genuinely believe that the prosecution proved its case. If a person believes that, the single most important thing he can do is vote accordingly...


If a juror actually feels that way, he or she has a duty to vote that way.  Now I believe that only a moron could believe that, but in my experience morons like that sometimes manage to get on juries.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Evidently he thought it was while making the argument.


Evidently, the judge enjoys smacking him down.
I don't blame the prosecutor; he doesn't want to be murdered by a mob of thugs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ClaireH said:


> “If any federal, state, or city level command was given for the police to stand down, this needs to be known and records released to the public.” Where exactly is there need for revision John Doe?
> 
> I was quite clear that if any type of communication did occur, if a verbal command to stand down happened, the public needs full disclosure. Nothing over the top about calling for communication records be reviewed JD. Are you of the mindset that governmental communication should be kept private regarding hostile situations and chaos?  The choice to keep intel  protected only involves protecting lives and in this case it certainly did not.


A full DOJ investigation should do it.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not  in in defense of self NO and that's what he did.


That’s your opinion and you’re entitled to hold that view. 


Indeependent said:


> You are carrying a rifle in one hand and a medical kit in the other hand.
> In what position do you maintain the rifle?


The aid bag was a back pack. He had two hands on the rifle.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Evidently, the judge enjoys smacking him down.
> I don't blame the prosecutor; he doesn't want to be murdered by a mob of thugs.


Brilliant response.


----------



## theHawk

ClaireH said:


> This needs to be fully exposed by an investigative reporter, an actual journalist of which is a rare breed these days. If any federal, state, or city level command was given for the police to stand down, this needs to be known and records released to the public.


What needs to be investigated? The Dem leaders declared these things openly.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> View attachment 565435




Sure. Whatever.  Far better than supporting mob rule by people like Rosenbaum and you.

What part of that, are you not getting? My point stands. Any society that would punish someone for defending it from feral barbarians, is a dying society.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Brilliant response.


You are truly a LibBot wimp and not very intelligent, at least when it comes to a situation like this one.


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> Yes. It applies to the rioters too.
> 
> They weren’t arrested for the same reason Rittenhouse wasn’t arrested.   The police stood down.  Don’t ask me to explain the actions or lack of actions taken by the police


The Democrat leadership told the police not to protect property giving the rioters the green light to do anything they wanted to do.

The Democrat leadership did not do much of anything to punish the rioters that did tremendous damage.

Remember that in those days many well known Democrats were kneeling with BLM and even bailing BLM out of jail.

Here in the county were I live BLM started to do some of that destruction shit and were quickly stopped by the Sheriff's Department.

 The 200 cities that BLM did so much destruction for six months all of the were run by Democrats that let them get away with it.


----------



## ClaireH

tahuyaman said:


> Wouldn’t you consider it a provocative act to point a rifle at people?
> 
> How can you point a rifle at someone if you dont have one?    Now, stop moving the goal posts.
> 
> Initially the kid was charged with illegal possession.  The judge dropped that charge.  Obviously at some point the prosecutor argued that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession of the rifle.   The prosecutor lost that one.
> 
> Ne also has argued the charge that he provoked a confrontation with at least one of the guys he killed. That one has yet to be decided.


It is my understanding that it’s the way the Wisconsin gun law was written regarding 17 year olds. The laws on the books were not “altered” to allow for a pass, but prevailed due to the wording and particularly with respect to hunting laws and open carry for under 16 to be supervised and 17 no mention of supervision. Almost like a loophole but that is the WI gun as well as Rittenhouse didn’t qualify under any of the legal exceptions about minors. What this means is when you read a post that claims that the judge was biased on the side of Rittenhouse it is bogus because all the judge did was examine the Wisconsin gun laws and the gun charge was dismissed.


----------



## Indeependent

Flash said:


> The Democrat leadership told the police not to protect property giving the rioters the green light to do anything they wanted to do.
> 
> The Democrat leadership did not do much of anything to punish the rioters that did tremendous damage.
> 
> Remember that in those days many well known Democrats were kneeling with BLM and even bailing BLM out of jail.
> 
> Here in the county were I live BLM started to do some of that destruction shit and were quickly stopped by the Sheriff's Department.
> 
> The 200 cities that BLM did so much destruction for six months all of the were run by Democrats that let them get away with it.


BLM tried to start in Nassau County and the Police told them to expect to receive bullet holes as a consequence.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> You nutbars have a history of this BS. Every time a LW protestor of any sort is killed, you celebrate. I don't celebrate the murder or death of anyone for any reason.
> 
> And THAT is the difference between you and I.
> 
> PS: Spare me the lecture on violence when my side doesn't get what they want. Got that Loon?


I'm not going to spare you.  Your side goes out and BURNS LOOTS AND MURDERS and you expect me to CARE  when some of them doing it gets what they deserve.

Nope.  It's not going to happen.  They CHOSE TO RIOT AND BURN.  Then they CHOSE TO CHASE SOMEONE WITH A GUN.

So.  THEY CHOSE TO DIE.

No sympathy for that whatsoever ......NONE........Your side NEEDS TO STFU and stop gaslighting the country.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Evidently he thought it was while making the argument.


That prosecutor made all sorts of ridiculous arguments.  I would take anything from Little Binger (finger) with a grain of salt.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> You are truly a LibBot wimp and not very intelligent, at least when it comes to a situation like this one.


I’m far more conservative than you.  You bring discredit upon conservatives.  You have no idea how to make your case substantively.


----------



## initforme

Any good jury takes at least a week to cover everything.   I commend them.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That prosecutor made all sorts of ridiculous arguments.  I would take anything from Little Binger (finger) with a grain of salt.


I agree in that he was completely incompetent and had no idea how to make his case.    He should be unemployed as soon as this case is over.


----------



## tahuyaman

ClaireH said:


> It is my understanding that it’s the way the Wisconsin gun law was written regarding 17 year olds. The laws on the books were not “altered” to allow for a pass, but prevailed due to the wording and particularly with respect to hunting laws and open carry for under 16 to be supervised and 17 no mention of supervision. Almost like a loophole but that is the WI gun as well as Rittenhouse didn’t qualify under any of the legal exceptions about minors. What this means is when you read a post that claims that the judge was biased on the side of Rittenhouse it is bogus because all the judge did was examine the Wisconsin gun laws and the gun charge was dismissed.


I Was not discussing the illegal possession charge.   I Couldn’t care less about that.  Someone else brought that up in an attempt to claim I was saying something I didn’t say.


----------



## ClaireH

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> A full DOJ investigation should do it.


Considering the way Biden’s administration oozes with corruption and has penetrated most governmental agencies, not likely. It will probably take a foreign entity to disclose the info and then LSM will suddenly race to catch up to speed.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> If you're running up and down the street...you're not a a friend's house.


Not relevant...
Sam's properties were 3. And he was invited to all three. 

A curfew does not negate your constitutional rights no matter how much you want them to be violated. 

Try a different tactic because this one is flushed. 

Kyle was not in curfew violation.
Kyle was not in violation of the gun laws. 

He is charged with 1st degree homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide. 

The 5counts are worthy of capital punishment.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> I’m far more conservative than you.  You bring discredit upon conservatives.  You have no idea how to make your case substantively.


If you are a Conservative, you must be a neo-Con because no Conservative would take this constant BLM shit laying down.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ClaireH said:


> Considering the way Biden’s administration oozes with corruption and has penetrated most governmental agencies, not likely. It will probably take a foreign entity to disclose the info and then LSM will suddenly race to catch up to speed.


Your weird Biden fetishes aside...how would a foreign entity pry info from the Kenosha police? Wat?


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> If you are a Conservative, you must be a neo-Con because no Conservative would take this constant BLM shit laying down.


You have no idea what you’re talking about.   You have no idea what I think  about the BLM movement.   You’re a clown.


----------



## tahuyaman

ClaireH said:


> Considering the way Biden’s administration oozes with corruption and has penetrated most governmental agencies, not likely. It will probably take a foreign entity to disclose the info and then LSM will suddenly race to catch up to speed.


The Biden administration supports the police standing down while cities burn.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> You have no idea what you’re talking about.   You have no idea what I think  about the BLM movement.   You’re a clown.


You are a ProgBot pussy.
If you lived in a Blue city, such as NYC, how would you feel if you were caught walking down the street and hit on the head with a brick and your mayor laughed it off?


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> You are a ProgBot pussy.
> If you lived in a Blue city, such as NYC, how would you feel if you were caught walking down the street and hit on the head with a brick and your mayor laughed it off?


If you were not sperm gurgling Twink I’d take offense to that.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> You are a ProgBot pussy.
> If you lived in a Blue city, such as NYC, how would you feel if you were caught walking down the street and hit on the head with a brick and your mayor laughed it off?


I do live in a blue city you moron.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> You are a ProgBot pussy.
> If you lived in a Blue city, such as NYC, how would you feel if you were caught walking down the street and hit on the head with a brick and your mayor laughed it off?


Oh boy...fantasy....


----------



## BULLDOG

DBA said:


> Typical Democratic scum-type comment. You really are an immoral bunch of losers.


----------



## ClaireH

theHawk said:


> What needs to be investigated? The Dem leaders declared these things openly.


I an not familiar with Kenosha history, but catching up now. I kept up with the Portland information and stand down policies, not with the Wisconsin chaos.

As you indicated….In 2020, “Governor Evers incited the Kenosha rioters when he issued a grossly irresponsible press release before he knew the facts stating, ‘While we do not have all of the details yet, what we know for certain is that he is not the first black man or person to have been shot or injured or mercilessly killed at the hands of individuals in law enforcement in our state or our country.”

How was this guy even elected? Such a well-planned statement to keep the peace! Evidently, there are more idiots who are elected to office than I can even begin to fathom.









						'Kenosha Pleading for Help,' Email to Governor Warned Amid Riots
					

When Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers finally did act, the help he sent was too little and much too late.




					www.dailysignal.com
				




Thanks for cluing me in Hawk, without saying, “read up”. For some reason, somebody telling me to “read up” is totally rude, but when said in a polite manner I will totally accept it and do so lol


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> I do live in a blue city you moron.


Which city?  Chicago, LA, Detroit, or somewhere in a nice Red State?
I live near NYC and *no one* wants to visit the city.
People are cut and murdered and DeBlasio doesn't give a shit and neither do you.


----------



## JohnDB

tahuyaman said:


> You have no idea what you’re talking about.   You have no idea what I think  about the BLM movement.   You’re a clown.


No true scottsman arguments are not valid.


----------



## BULLDOG

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He avenged a crime?


No. Get a grownup to explain it to you.


----------



## eagle1462010

THIS IS BLM









						Woman attacked outside Rochester business
					

(WHAM) - Disturbing video recorded by a person in Rochester shows a group of people attacking a woman outside a business amid widespread looting and rioting in downtown Rochester Saturday evening. In the video, a woman pleads with the people smashing the exterior of Rochester Fire Equipment...




					13wham.com
				




Try to find it on youtube they buried it somewhere.

If I'd have been driving by that I'd have road raged them SCUMBAGS.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> View attachment 565455




So, feral mobs are destroying your society and you think that young men should just sit at home and let it happen?


People like you, are what is wrong with this world.


----------



## ClaireH

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your weird Biden fetishes aside...how would a foreign entity pry info from the Kenosha police? Wat?


I’m not believing that you’re not familiar with global news. Wake yourself up and get out of your self-imposed insulated bubble.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Sure. Whatever.  Far better than supporting mob rule by people like Rosenbaum and you.
> 
> What part of that, are you not getting? My point stands. Any society that would punish someone for defending it from feral barbarians, is a dying society.


You said the same thing about Zimmerman too, didn't you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> So, feral mobs are destroying your society and you think that young men should just sit at home and let it happen?
> 
> 
> People like you, are what is wrong with this world.


No, you violent un-American pile of crap., we have police for that. We don't need your cosplay militia princess heroes.


----------



## initforme

The longer the verdict takes the better for all.  That means they are taking their time.  BI predict at least another week as it should be.


----------



## Indeependent

ClaireH said:


> I’m not believing that you’re not familiar with global news. Wake yourself up and get out of your self-imposed insulated bubble.


There's a reason I have that asshole FFI on Ignore.


----------



## struth

theHawk said:


> He shot unarmed men attacking him.  If you don’t defend yourself against a ruthless mob, here is how you turn out:
> View attachment 565225


they weren’t unarmed.  The state’s star witness that was shot in the arm, admitted he pointed his handgun at kyle first


----------



## ClaireH

Indeependent said:


> There's a reason I have that asshole FFI on Ignore.


I understand. He’s one of 3 posters on the short list…lol I’ll leave “short” alone for readers to define for themselves lol


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> You said the same thing about Zimmerman too, didn't you?




Not really. But from your perspective, I did not support the desire to railroad him into prison, so yes. 


What part of this are you not getting? Your side, sides with the thugs and the rioters and the child molesters.


My side sides with the people defending themselves or others, from the feral mobs of your side.

Any crime, where you feel that hte criminal is justified in his crime, you can generally assume that I am on teh side of the criminal's victims.


----------



## tahuyaman

One of my biggest criticisms of liberalism is that they require complete agreement on all issues.  Evidently there are some conservative who are just like that.  

I suspect that they are not really conservatives. They are just malcontents who are against anything they don’t understand or challenges their views.  A true conservative loves to have their views and ideas challenged.


----------



## Indeependent

ClaireH said:


> I understand. He’s one of 3 posters on the short list…lol I’ll leave “short” alone for readers to define for themselves lol


Moonglow *used* to be funny.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Not really. But from your perspective, I did not support the desire to railroad him into prison, so yes.
> 
> 
> What part of this are you not getting? Your side, sides with the thugs and the rioters and the child molesters.
> 
> 
> My side sides with the people defending themselves or others, from the feral mobs of your side.
> 
> Any crime, where you feel that hte criminal is justified in his crime, you can generally assume that I am on teh side of the criminal's victims.


Vigilantes are criminals.


----------



## Dirk the Daring

BULLDOG said:


> View attachment 565435



This defines the rioters just as much as it defines Rittenhouse...?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ClaireH said:


> I’m not believing that you’re not familiar with global news. Wake yourself up and get out of your self-imposed insulated bubble.


I am familiar with all of your embarrassing delusions, because you repeat them a thousand times a day. 

Now answer the question instead of being a sissy.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Indeependent said:


> Moonglow *used* to be funny.


Until you joined your cult. Maybe it's you.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you violent un-American pile of crap., we have police for that. We don't need your cosplay militia princess heroes.




If the police had it under control, as you are pretending, then Rittenhouse would not have been attacked by a mob so bloodthirsty, that he had to shot three people before they were stopped. 


My point stands. You view of the world, were young men just sit on their hands, while the barbarians pillage and burn and rape, is a dying society. 

A society where they young men stand and fight to protect their people, that is a healthy society.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

ClaireH said:


> I understand. He’s one of 3 posters on the short list…lol I’ll leave “short” alone for readers to define for themselves lol


The reason is because I have embarrassed him thoroughly. Ask him about his 10,000 imaginary friends that he talks to every day and who all agree with everything he says.


----------



## eagle1462010

tahuyaman said:


> One of my biggest criticisms of liberalism is that they require complete agreement on all issues.  Evidently there are some conservative who are just like that.
> 
> I suspect that they are not really conservatives. They are just malcontents who are against anything they don’t understand or challenges their views.  A true conservative loves to have their views and ideas challenged.


LOL

Challenged.....lmao

Go take a skate board and have a buddy smack you in the head twice with it as hard as they can.  Then get him to run at you gull speed as you fall down and get him to kick you in the head on the way down into the pavement. 

See how it feels and see if you wouldn't have shot their asses.........FITTING SYMBOL of the DNC


----------



## Dirk the Daring

BULLDOG said:


> Vigilantes are criminals.



Were the rioters not out causing the destruction of Kenosha because of they 'crime' they felt had been committed against Jacob Blake?  So you admit that ALL of the destructive rioters were criminals?


----------



## eagle1462010

Indeependent said:


> Moonglow *used* to be funny.


He's evolved into a true asshole troll.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> One of my biggest criticisms of liberalism is that they require complete agreement on all issues.  Evidently there are some conservative who are just like that.
> 
> I suspect that they are not really conservatives. They are just malcontents who are against anything they don’t understand or challenges their views.  A true conservative loves to have their views and ideas challenged.


What city do you live in?


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Vigilantes are criminals.



Really?  Cause Rittenhouse was clearly defending himself. If that is "illegal" in this society now, then there is no actual law, just ink on paper that people like you use to justify your shit. 



My point stands.  You view of the world, were young men just sit on their hands, while the barbarians pillage and burn and rape, is a dying society.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> If the police had it under control, as you are pretending, then Rittenhouse would not have been attacked by a mob so bloodthirsty, that he had to shot three people before they were stopped.
> 
> 
> My point stands. You view of the world, were young men just sit on their hands, while the barbarians pillage and burn and rape, is a dying society.
> 
> A society where they young men stand and fight to protect their people, that is a healthy society.


Can you point to who he was protecting?  The car lot he said he was there to protect already said they never asked him for help in any way.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Which city?  Chicago, LA, Detroit, or somewhere in a nice Red State?
> I live near NYC and *no one* wants to visit the city.
> People are cut and murdered and DeBlasio doesn't give a shit and neither do you.


Seattle.  

 I don’t have any problems.  You know why?  I don’t needlessly put myself in a situation where I know nothing good will happen.    Sometimes I might be carrying a concealed weapon, but not often.  

During the Seattle riots, I stayed at home and watched then unfold on TV.  

Despite the temptations, I stayed away from the CHOP zone.   I didn’t see the possibility of anything good happening by satisfying my curiosity and visiting the are. 


Again, before you do something you should ask yourself… would an idiot do that?    If the answer is yes, don’t do that.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Can you point to who he was protecting?  The car lot he said he was there to protect already said they never asked him for help in any way.



My argument does not rest on having a specific individual on hand, to point to. My point stands.


 You view of the world, were young men just sit on their hands, while the barbarians pillage and burn and rape, is a dying society.


----------



## BULLDOG

Dirk the Daring said:


> Were the rioters not out causing the destruction of Kenosha because of they 'crime' they felt had been committed against Jacob Blake?  So you admit that ALL of the destructive rioters were criminals?


I suppose some of them could be criminals. How many of the people there that night killed someone?


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Seattle.
> 
> I don’t have any problems.  You know why?  I don’t needlessly put myself in a situation where I know nothing good will happen.    Sometimes I might be carrying a concealed weapon, but not often.
> 
> During the Seattle riots, I stayed at home and watched then unfold on TV.
> 
> Despite the temptations, I stayed away from the CHOP zone.   I didn’t see the possibility of anything good happening by satisfying my curiosity and visiting the are.
> 
> 
> Again, before you do something you should ask yourself… would an idiot do that?    If the answer is yes, don’t do that.


I have friends who worked in Seattle; they said it's s ProgBot's wet dream, no to mention dreary.
The problem sets in when Democrat politicians stop law enforcement from performing their duties.
I suggest you walk through the next riot to see how it actually feels to be helpless.
I know lots of guys who can handle themselves quite well in such a situation and who also want to help the helpless.


----------



## eagle1462010

tahuyaman said:


> Seattle.
> 
> I don’t have any problems.  You know why?  I don’t needlessly put myself in a situation where I know nothing good will happen.    Sometimes I might be carrying a concealed weapon, but not often.
> 
> During the Seattle riots, I stayed at home and watched then unfold on TV.
> 
> Despite the temptations, I stayed away from the CHOP zone.   I didn’t see the possibility of anything good happening by satisfying my curiosity and visiting the are.
> 
> 
> Again, before you do something you should ask yourself… would an idiot do that?    If the answer is yes, don’t do that.


Doesn't matter .  Everyone there was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Doesn't change the law.  They attacked.  He defended.  They died.  Self defense period.  And now they are getting ready to Burn loot and murder again.

LUNACY.


----------



## Indeependent

eagle1462010 said:


> Doesn't matter .  Everyone there was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
> 
> Doesn't change the law.  They attacked.  He defended.  They died.  Self defense period.  And now they are getting ready to Burn loot and murder again.
> 
> LUNACY.


*Doesn't matter . Everyone there was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

BINGO!*


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> My argument does not rest on having a specific individual on hand, to point to. My point stands.
> 
> 
> You view of the world, were young men just sit on their hands, while the barbarians pillage and burn and rape, is a dying society.


Your point stands. You encourage all vigilantes who agree with you.


----------



## JohnDB

Correll said:


> If the police had it under control, as you are pretending, then Rittenhouse would not have been attacked by a mob so bloodthirsty, that he had to shot three people before they were stopped.
> 
> 
> My point stands. You view of the world, were young men just sit on their hands, while the barbarians pillage and burn and rape, is a dying society.
> 
> A society where they young men stand and fight to protect their people, that is a healthy society.


There was a vacuum of power created by the liberals in office to promote the agenda for Biden getting elected. 

There lies the Crux of the issue. 

Because young idealistic men take up the responsibility when the state becomes willfully inadequate.  We help policemen who get knocked down in the line of duty...why not ordinary citizens whom the state acts like they can't help. 

There's the true guilty party...

The Mayor and Governor have placed undue pressure on the prosecutor to punish Kyle. Making him do whatever it takes just so they can spin a better narrative. 

That's what it's all about...it isn't about Kyle being innocent because even the prosecutor knows that. He knows that it was a case of perfect self defense... meaning self defense in every jurisdiction in America.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> I suppose some of them could be criminals. How many of the people there that night killed someone?




Rosenbaum said he would kill the members of the armed group, if he caught any of them alone. 


Then he caught one of them alone. ANd he and at least two others, attacked him. 


THe guy that lived, he pretended to surrender, then pulled a gun and tried to shot Rittenhouse. He has talked shit about wishing he had killed Rittenhouse.


----------



## the other mike

tahuyaman said:


> ....Again, before you do something you should ask yourself… would an idiot do that?    If the answer is yes, don’t do that.


This kid is no idiot. He was a lifeguard with CPR training who worked at the YMCA . He went to help protect the town where his dad lives, and the only way to where he was heading , since violent rioters had all the streets blocked, was to walk, and the only way he felt safe was armed since police were told to let Kenosha burn.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Your point stands. You encourage all vigilantes who agree with you.




I said nothing about agreeing with me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> If the police had it under control, as you are pretending, then Rittenhouse would not have been attacked by a mob so bloodthirsty, that he had to shot three people before they were stopped.


Not his choice to make. Sorry. Maybe you are new to America. All we learned is that protestors and rioters should bring rifles too.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not his choice to make. Sorry. Maybe you are new to America. All we learned is that protestors and rioters should bring rifles too.


And now the police should bring the old fashioned water cannon to a riot...used around the world for over 100 years....it's still effective.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not his choice to make. Sorry. Maybe you are new to America. All we learned is that protestors and rioters should bring rifles too.




Americans stepping forward to help their fellow Americans in times of trouble, such as civil unrest, is a choice for ALL Americans to make. 

Your desire for them to all cower in their homes as your side's brown shirt thugs rule the streets, is you being a very, very, very bad person.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> I said nothing about agreeing with me.


Ok, so how about naming other vigilantes, other than Rittenhouse and Zimmerman  you supported.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Ok, so how about naming other vigilantes, other than Rittenhouse and Zimmerman  you supported.




Why?


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Why?


You've made it clear that you think vigilantism is acceptable, and claim you don't have to agree with them. I'm just asking for an example of your claim. Don't worry. I don't really expect you to respond to that.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> You've made it clear that you think vigilantism is acceptable, and claim you don't have to agree with them. I'm just asking for an example of your claim. Don't worry. I don't really expect you to respond to that.




I don't know the politics of any of these "vigilantes".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> And now the police should bring the old fashioned water cannon to a riot...used around the world for over 100 years....it's still effective.


Maybe they will. Unfortunately for them, they put themselves in a precarious position by going too far with brutality at peaceful protests.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> Americans stepping forward to help their fellow Americans in times of trouble, such as civil unrest, is a choice for ALL Americans to make


Not when it is vigilantism. Sorry. Maybe that's how they do things in your shithole country. But not in the USA.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> I agree in that he was completely incompetent and had no idea how to make his case.    He should be unemployed as soon as this case is over.


Mainly for taking this case to trial.  It should never have seen the inside of a courtroom.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not when it is vigilantism. Sorry. Maybe that's how they do things in your shithole country. But not in the USA.



Call it what you want.


You want young men to cower in their homes while lefty mobs rule the streets. 


I hope the Kenosha Jury manages to gather up the balls to tell you and your mob, "no".


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> I don't know the politics of any of these "vigilantes".


So you believe vigilantism is fine for political purposes. That's disgusting, but not surprising.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not when it is vigilantism. Sorry. Maybe that's how they do things in your shithole country. But not in the USA.



Peaceful my ass.


----------



## JohnDB

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Maybe they will. Unfortunately for them, they put themselves in a precarious position by going too far with brutality at peaceful protests.


Water cannons can break bones...huge bruises and etc. Even kill in the right circumstances. 

But bringing prison tactics to brutally beat people just trying to save private property has caused this... especially when the DA currently charging Kyle with crimes is exactly the person who caused most of the criminal's discontent.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> Call it what you want.


Or what the law calls it. In my country.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> So you believe vigilantism is fine for political purposes. That's disgusting, but not surprising.




Oh, I think I see what you are doing. You realize that you have lost the debate, so you are trying to get control of the language aspect, by making the discussion about semantics.


Here is what you support.







Here is what I support.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Or what the law calls it. In my country.




Funny. I don't recall that on the list of charges against Rittenhouse. Or Zimmerman. So, you are wrong.


----------



## Dirk the Daring

BULLDOG said:


> I suppose some of them could be criminals. How many of the people there that night killed someone?



As far as I know only the one being maliciously attacked.  By vigilantes who decided to take the law into their own hands.  Which you appear to be against.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Canon Shooter said:


> I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:
> 
> First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?
> 
> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.
> 
> He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.
> 
> He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid.
> 
> He provided first aid to no one.
> 
> He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.
> 
> Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...


He can it, he just can't buy it.  Like underage car buying---a kid can own a car, but can't get registered and insured.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> But bringing prison tactics to brutally beat people just trying to save private property has caused this..


No idea what you are babbling about. Sorry.

What brought this on was a derelict police department and Militia LARPers who endorsed a gun toting child to patrol the streets. And couple that with being  emboldened by carrying a rifle, and Kyle was in situations he would not otherwise have been in and should not have been in. When the crazy person charged him,he would have just run to someone to help, had he not been armed. I blame the cops and the militia pussies more than I do the child.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No idea what you are babbling about. Sorry.
> 
> What brought this on was a derelict police department and Militia LARPers who endorsed a gun toting child to patrol the streets. And couple that with being  emboldened by carrying a rifle, and Kyle was in situations he would not otherwise have been in and should not have been in. When the crazy person charged him,he would have just run to someone to help, had he not been armed. I blame the cops and the militia pussies more than I do the child.




No mention of the actual rioters.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> Funny. I don't recall that on the list of charges against Rittenhouse.


But that's not what we were talking g about. You want armed vigilantes to patrol the streets. Which is transparent, childish behavior on your part, as all you actually want is to see  your perceived political enemies-- that you have dehumanized-- get hurt. So you spend something timeon these time wasting red herring rants,without actually fooling anyone.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> No mention of the actual rioters.


Correct. Rioters bring on cops. Not vigilantes and fat fucks in Combat vests with little weenies. That's the law really, and it should be enforced.


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> I’m far more conservative than you.  You bring discredit upon conservatives.  You have no idea how to make your case substantively.


You finally know the degree of kookery in this forum. These are NOT normal conservatives. Good on ya


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Oh, I think I see what you are doing. You realize that you have lost the debate, so you are trying to get control of the language aspect, by making the discussion about semantics.
> 
> 
> Here is what you support.
> 
> 
> View attachment 565478
> 
> Here is what I support.
> 
> 
> View attachment 565479


Control of the language aspect? WTH is that supposed to mean? Quit trying to blame me because I point out the stupid shit, you say,  dumb ass. Your claim that I support burning is absurd, but I know your arsenal is almost empty, and all you had left was either that or a 'BUT HILLARY" claim.


----------



## Opie

Papageorgio said:


> With the jury still out, is that better for the prosecution or the defense?


The defense has the upper hand in this trial in about 3 different ways. They are not holding out because they don’t know they are holding out because someone won’t budge that’s GREAT for Kyle


----------



## Rigby5

Ray9 said:


> The Kyle Rittenhouse trial raises some interesting observations. Rittenhouse was seventeen when he decided to intervene in a riot that was burning the small town where his father lived less than 20 miles from where he and his mother made their home. As a seventeen-year-old, it was a poor decision, and it probably would have better if he had just avoided the mayhem and stayed home. There were calls on social media for people to protect the homes and businesses under attack and Rittenhouse responded.
> 
> Unfortunately, Rittenhouse answered the call with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15, an AR-15-like rifle he legally owned despite false press reports echoing the prosecution saying the gun was illegally in his possession. For some reason no one in media bothered to check Wisconsin laws on firearms that made Rittenhouse’s gun legal for a seventeen-year-old instead just taking the word of the prosecution that was lying.
> 
> The judge threw out the charge of illegal possession of a firearm early on in what turned out to be a slew of criticism aimed at prosecutorial sloppiness and outright incompetence. It became evident as soon as video evidence was shown that the prosecution’s case was built on a house of cards, and it started falling apart almost immediately. The video clearly showed that Rittenhouse was being pursued by a mob and that he acted in self-defense.
> 
> At this writing the jury is still out likely because lynch mob influence is seen by the jury as a threat to them and their families. Incredibly, national press coverage was so poor that up until the trial started most African Americans thought Rittenhouse had used his rifle to shoot three blacks especially after Joe Biden had publicly accused the teenager of being a white supremacist. The lone black member of the jury is no doubt under tremendous pressure to vote guilty and ignore the obvious evidence that Rittenhouse discharged the rifle to save his life from imminent attacks of rioters that were out of control and out for blood.
> 
> Rittenhouse stuck his neck out when the rest of us just stood back and hoped Washington would come to its senses and put a stop to the destruction of communities under the banner of a concocted Black Lives Matter movement when no one in the country was saying black lives do not matter. Maybe Rittenhouse's actions were dumb or maybe they were what was needed.



It appears to me that the judge was wrong to throw out the illegal weapons possession charge.?

{...
2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations
948. Crimes against children.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​*Universal Citation: *WI Stat § 948.60 (2015)
*948.60* * Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.*

948.60(1)(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

948.60(2) (2)

948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

948.60(2)(b) (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

948.60(2)(c) (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

948.60(2)(d) (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

948.60(3) (3)

948.60(3)(a)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

948.60(3)(b) (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.

Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
...}








						2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
					






					law.justia.com
				




What I read says the judge said the charge only applied with short barreled weapons, and that is false.
I see nothing in this statute about barrel length at all.
And it appears to clearly state that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession, since he was not at a range or fit any of the exceptions.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> You finally know the degree of kookery in this forum. These are NOT normal conservatives. Good on ya


Tell your party to stop provoking violence in this country and then you can stop whining about it when someone tells you to go to hell.  

Don't like it.  DON'T PROVOKE IT.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> But that's not what we were talking g about. You want armed vigilantes to patrol the streets. Which is transparent, childish behavior on your part, as all you actually want is to see  your perceived political enemies-- that you have dehumanized-- get hurt. So you spend something timeon these time wasting red herring rants,without actually fooling anyone.




Actually, what I want is for the FUCKING police to be ordered to clear the fucking streets.

BUT, baring that, I would be fine with armed citizens protecting themselves and their property and communities.


I would PREFER, if the presence of armed Citizens, would deter the barbarian mobs, into submission.

Also, i have not dehumanized my enemies. Your own actions and behavior has done that. 


You know, like when you reflexively side with the insane child rapist trying to kill the teenager, instead of the young man being attacked by the violent mob. 


When, you do shit like that, that is when YOU dehumanize yourself.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Correct. Rioters bring on cops. Not vigilantes and fat fucks in Combat vests with little weenies. That's the law really, and it should be enforced.




You were talking about who is responsible. THe rioters are teh ones that decided to initiate violence. They are the ones most directly responsible for what happened. 


Yet, you make no mention of them. 


You know, one of the three guys shot, was talking shit about Rittenhouse, like you are right now.


He was proven, very, very wrong.


----------



## JohnDB

Rigby5 said:


> It appears to me that the judge was wrong to throw out the illegal weapons possession charge.?
> 
> {...
> 2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations​948. Crimes against children.​948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​*Universal Citation: *WI Stat § 948.60 (2015)
> *948.60* * Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.*
> 
> 948.60(1)(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
> 
> 948.60(2) (2)
> 
> 948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
> 
> 948.60(2)(b) (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
> 
> 948.60(2)(c) (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
> 
> 948.60(2)(d) (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
> 
> 948.60(3) (3)
> 
> 948.60(3)(a)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
> 
> 948.60(3)(b) (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
> 
> 948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
> 
> History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
> 
> Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I read says the judge said the charge only applied with short barreled weapons, and that is false.
> I see nothing in this statute about barrel length at all.
> And it appears to clearly state that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession, since he was not at a range or fit any of the exceptions.


You didn't include the infamous hunting laws which also apply and have more laws.


----------



## Rigby5

Resnic said:


> Saying he should have stayed out of it is a bit short sighted. No one ever says "the rioters should have stayed home" they only say he should have stayed home.
> 
> Everyone says the kid who wanted to help and ended up having to defend himself should stay home, but no one tells the rioting pieces of shit that were the reason he was trying to help to stay home.
> 
> That's a fucked up point of view. And it's the reason rioters, arsonists and thieves run around unchecked because Americans only get upset when someone gets in their way.



The rioters were at home and not from another state like Rittenhouse.
You are also wrong because the rioting was not only warranted, but an absolute necessity.
Just like the Boston Tea Party was in 1776.
When authoritarian police states murder or shoot innocent people with impunity, then you MUST riot or you are one of those complicit with murder.


----------



## DrLove

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Your weird Biden fetishes aside...how would a foreign entity pry info from the Kenosha police? Wat?


Right? That sounded like a goofy Rudy & Sid argument. You know, the German server flipping votes from Trump to Biden and how Gina Haspel was being held hostage


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Control of the language aspect? WTH is that supposed to mean? Quit trying to blame me because I point out the stupid shit, you say,  dumb ass. Your claim that I support burning is absurd, but I know your arsenal is almost empty, and all you had left was either that or a 'BUT HILLARY" claim.




I was just steering the discussion back to the reality of the situation, and away from your word games.


You do support the rioters and the riots. You singularly and you plural as in your side.


That is why Rittenhouse is being charged, when his case is clearly one of pure self defense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> Actually, what I want is for the FUCKING police to be ordered to clear the fucking streets.


Hey, I get that. Don't really disagree. But it isn't so simple. Sometimes not escalating it is the correct situation.  I am not suggesting anyone get away with arson on a building, for example. Arrest them. If there are people in the building, charge the arsonist with attempted murder.

But police do have to make decisions sometimes about whether escalation is the correct solution. The sun always comes up the next day. Sure, we could have sent militarized police into LA to murder everyone in the streets during the King riots. But would that have been smart? What about the next day? War with the populace?

Anyhow, the Kenosha police were pretty much in control that night. They moved the protestors where they wanted them. Unfortunately, it turns out that it was into the arms of waiting militia cosplayers. And that was intentional, and we both know it was. That is a example of escalation. And it escalated. Which should have surprised nobody. Really poor job by the cops, coordinating with those freaks.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> You were talking about who is responsible. THe rioters are teh ones that decided to initiate violence. They are the ones most directly responsible for what happened.
> 
> 
> Yet, you make no mention of them.
> 
> 
> You know, one of the three guys shot, was talking shit about Rittenhouse, like you are right now.
> 
> 
> He was proven, very, very wrong.



Wrong.
In a democratic republic, rioting is require social responsibility when police shoot innocent people.
It is those who do not riot who are the guilty and they encourage an authoritarian police state.

For example, clearly the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, sentence mandates, etc. are completely and entirely illegal and should not be tolerated in a democratic republic.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> I was just steering the discussion back to the reality of the situation, and away from your word games.
> 
> 
> You do support the rioters and the riots. You singularly and you plural as in your side.
> 
> 
> That is why Rittenhouse is being charged, when his case is clearly one of pure self defense.


You were tapdancing to try to cover the stupid remarks you already made. Check with Tucker to see if he has anything to add, dumb ass.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Hey, I get that. Don't really disagree. But it isn't so simple. Sometimes not escalating it is the correct situation.  I am not suggesting anyone get away with arson, for example. Arrest them. If there are people in the building, charge the arsonist with attempted murder.
> 
> But police do have to make decisions sometimes about whether escalation is the correct solution. The sun always comes up the next day. Sure, we could have sent militarized police into LA to murder everyone in the streets during the King riots. But would that have been smart? What about the next day? War with the populace?
> 
> Anyhow, the Kenosha pice were pretty much 8n contr that night. They moved the protestors where they wanted them. Unfortunately, it turns out that it was into the arms of waiting militia csplayers. And that was intentional, and we both know it was. That is a example of escalation. And it escalated. Which should have surprised nobody.




The correct response for hte last 6 years would have been to arrest ANYONE showing up to a "protest" wearing a fucking mask, or blocking traffic. 


That would have settled shit right down.

Also, the FBI should have been infiltrating Antifa as aggressively as they did the militias post Oklahoma City. With an eye to finding out who is funding them, and/or organizing and directing them. And arresting them with heavy charges brought. 


Instead, dems supported them, with varying degrees of openness.


----------



## Rigby5

JohnDB said:


> You didn't include the infamous hunting laws which also apply and have more laws.



There likely are other exceptions, like in a self defense emergency, where a juvenile could grab a shotgun over the mantle.
But this had no aspect of self defense because Rittenhouse was going 20 miles out of his way to put himself into this potentially dangerous situation.
Clearly that prevents any self defense claim or any rational that would allow for him to carry a rifle as a minor.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> In a democratic republic, rioting is require social responsibility when police shoot innocent people.
> It is those who do not riot who are the guilty and they encourage an authoritarian police state.
> 
> For example, clearly the War on Drugs, asset forfeiture, sentence mandates, etc. are completely and entirely illegal and should not be tolerated in a democratic republic.




The vast majority of the supposed "innocents" shot, were anything but. 

These have been anti-white race riots led by marxists with an eye to co-opting the racist hate for political purposes.


----------



## DrLove

Indeependent said:


> I have friends who worked in Seattle; they said it's s ProgBot's wet dream, no to mention dreary.
> The problem sets in when Democrat politicians stop law enforcement from performing their duties.
> I suggest you walk through the next riot to see how it actually feels to be helpless.
> I know lots of guys who can handle themselves quite well in such a situation and who also want to help the helpless.



Sorry nope dope. Rational people don’t grab their AK’s & wander into obvious conflict zones. They stay the fuck home.

PS: Both Seattle and Portland are beautiful cities, but you’d never know that peering in from your Gooberville bubble.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> Sorry nope dope. Rational people don’t grab their AK’s & wander into obvious conflict zones. They stay the fuck home.


Sorry nope dope.  Rational people don't grab gas cans and matches and wander into neighborhoods setting places on fire.  They stay the fuck home.

There.  Fixed it for you.


----------



## jc456

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No, you violent un-American pile of crap., we have police for that. We don't need your cosplay militia princess heroes.


Why didn’t they then? 2.5 million in damages at one location and you make that comment! He’s right it’s fkwads like you ruining everything American!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> You were talking about who is responsible.


Yep! Riots and protests will always happen. If we can't do better than what happened in Kenosha, that is the fault of the police first, iMO. And ultimately our fault. All of us.

I blame the rioters for rioting. And the firebugs for the dumpster fires. In Kenosha, I blame the police for how it turned out.

I don't even need anyone's head. A simple: "We fucked up. We won't coordinate with the vigilantes and militia next time (but I repeat myself). And don't bring guns. " would mean a lot.


----------



## DrLove

eagle1462010 said:


> Sorry nope dope.  Rational people don't grab gas cans and matches and wander into neighborhoods setting places on fire.  They stay the fuck home.
> 
> There.  Fixed it for you.


Fix yourself prior to a vain attempt to fix anyone else.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> The correct response for hte last 6 years would have been to arrest ANYONE showing up to a "protest" wearing a fucking mask, or blocking traffic.
> 
> 
> That would have settled shit right down.
> 
> Also, the FBI should have been infiltrating Antifa as aggressively as they did the militias post Oklahoma City. With an eye to finding out who is funding them, and/or organizing and directing them. And arresting them with heavy charges brought.
> 
> 
> Instead, dems supported them, with varying degrees of openness.



Wrong.
Protests and even rioting is protected political expression when the grievance against the government is sufficient.
And when the government commits murder, than any and all actions by the population are warranted.
It then becomes legal to burn the police stations to the ground and killed every single police officer, if necessary.
You clearly do not understand law.
Law applies against police as well, and when police commit crimes and resist arrest, they must be killed and it is legal.
What you seem to fail to understand, is that when police violate the law by murdering someone, then it is the police who are the illegal rioters.
Then those protesting become the legal vigilantes carrying out justice.
Police are not the law, only our agents when they follow what we say.
When they do not, then they must be arrested or killed.


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> Sorry nope dope. Rational people don’t grab their AK’s & wander into obvious conflict zones. They stay the fuck home.
> 
> PS: Both Seattle and Portland are beautiful cities, but you’d never know that peering in from your Gooberville bubble.


Because your way has worked out real well, hasn't it?
I already realized you live in a beautiful, protected area...snob.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> You were tapdancing to try to cover the stupid remarks you already made. Check with Tucker to see if he has anything to add, dumb ass.




Just keeping it real.  You side with the rioters, and I side with those that fight them, in defense of my society.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> There likely are other exceptions, like in a self defense emergency, where a juvenile could grab a shotgun over the mantle.
> But this had no aspect of self defense because Rittenhouse was going 20 miles out of his way to put himself into this potentially dangerous situation.
> Clearly that prevents any self defense claim or any rational that would allow for him to carry a rifle as a minor.




Travelling twenty miles, or a thousand, before you are attacked, does not mean you lose the right to self defense.


----------



## Rigby5

Turtlesoup said:


> He can it, he just can't buy it.  Like underage car buying---a kid can own a car, but can't get registered and insured.



According to WI law. he also can not possess a firearm without being under the supervision of an adult, at a range or hunting ground.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep! Riots and protests will always happen. If we can't do better than what happened in Kenosha, that is the fault of the police first, iMO. And ultimately our fault. All of us.
> 
> I blame the rioters for rioting. And the firebugs for the dumpster fires. In Kenosha, I blame the police for how it turned out.
> 
> I don't even need anyone's head. A simple: "We fucked up. We won't coordinate with the vigilantes and militia next time (but I repeat myself). And don't bring guns. " would mean a lot.




Riots will not always happen. And while blaming those who professional responsibility is to deal with them is called for, 

not at the cost of letting the actual rioters off the hook for their actions.


----------



## JohnDB

Rigby5 said:


> There likely are other exceptions, like in a self defense emergency, where a juvenile could grab a shotgun over the mantle.
> But this had no aspect of self defense because Rittenhouse was going 20 miles out of his way to put himself into this potentially dangerous situation.
> Clearly that prevents any self defense claim or any rational that would allow for him to carry a rifle as a minor.


Nope...
Because the header over which a law is written is not the law unless it is written into the law itself. That's why Kyle was legally allowed to possess the rifle.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Protests and even rioting is protected political expression when the grievance against the government is sufficient.
> And when the government commits murder, than any and all actions by the population are warranted.
> It then becomes legal to burn the police stations to the ground and killed every single police officer, if necessary.
> You clearly do not understand law.
> Law applies against police as well, and when police commit crimes and resist arrest, they must be killed and it is legal.
> What you seem to fail to understand, is that when police violate the law by murdering someone, then it is the police who are the illegal rioters.
> Then those protesting become the legal vigilantes carrying out justice.
> Police are not the law, only our agents when they follow what we say.
> When they do not, then they must be arrested or killed.




1. YOu are wrong.

2. Even if you were not wrong, these rioters were not attacking cops, or even groups of armed citizens, but targeting what they though was a lone, weak target. 

3. And of course, private property of private citizens.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Travelling twenty miles, or a thousand, before you are attacked, does not mean you lose the right to self defense.



Yes it does.
When you deliberately go to a place where you know there is danger but have no valid reason for going there, then you are deliberately looking for trouble and lose any self defense plea.
Even worse if openly armed because then you are deliberately trying to intimidate and threaten everyone else.
That normally is never tolerated by police even.
The fact the police did not confiscate the rifle or arrest him, shows the entirely police force needs to be fired.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> Riots will not always happen.


Well, I hate to break to you: yes they will. And always have. I don't mean at every protest.




Correll said:


> And while blaming those who professional responsibility is to deal with them is called for,
> 
> not at the cost of letting the actual rioters off the hook for their actions.


But you insult the police as much as the rioters or their sympathizers. The police will make decisions not to escalate and to sit back while some property damage occurs. So they are just letting them off the hook. And sometimes that IS the correct decision, so that it doesn't escalate to large scale police on citizen (and vice versa) violence.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Just keeping it real.  You side with the rioters, and I side with those that fight them, in defense of my society.



The rioters are against murder by corrupt police, so if you are against the rioters, you are in league with corrupt murderers.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

I'm pretty much a police supporter. But dang did they do some stupid things over the last two years. Kenosha is a prime example. Gassing peaceful protests for blocking streets (then blocking off the streets a week later for any "Pretzel Fest" carney train that comes to town) also comes to mind. Geez guys.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Yes it does.
> When you deliberately go to a place where you know there is danger but have no valid reason for going there, then you are deliberately looking for trouble and lose any self defense plea.
> Even worse if openly armed because then you are deliberately trying to intimidate and threaten everyone else.
> That normally is never tolerated by police even.
> The fact the police did not confiscate the rifle or arrest him, shows the entirely police force needs to be fired.




Except he did have a valid reason to be there. And more importantly he had the RIGHT to be there. 


Bulldog, we got a lib here, who thinks Rittenhouse did not have the right to be in Kenosha on that night. Join me in setting him straight.


----------



## Flash

Rigby5 said:


> It appears to me that the judge was wrong to throw out the illegal weapons possession charge.?
> 
> {...
> 2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations​948. Crimes against children.​948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.​*Universal Citation: *WI Stat § 948.60 (2015)
> *948.60* * Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.*
> 
> 948.60(1)(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
> 
> 948.60(2) (2)
> 
> 948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
> 
> 948.60(2)(b) (b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
> 
> 948.60(2)(c) (c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
> 
> 948.60(2)(d) (d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
> 
> 948.60(3) (3)
> 
> 948.60(3)(a)(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
> 
> 948.60(3)(b) (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
> 
> 948.60(3)(c) (c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
> 
> History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
> 
> Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2015 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations :: 948. Crimes against children. :: 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> law.justia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I read says the judge said the charge only applied with short barreled weapons, and that is false.
> I see nothing in this statute about barrel length at all.
> And it appears to clearly state that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession, since he was not at a range or fit any of the exceptions.


It is more complicated than just quoting that law because there are referenced exemptions you have to look at.

The Prosecution conceded that the law did not apply to Kyle during the trial when asked to measure the gun and that is why the Judge dropped it.

Here is a better explanation


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> 1. YOu are wrong.
> 
> 2. Even if you were not wrong, these rioters were not attacking cops, or even groups of armed citizens, but targeting what they though was a lone, weak target.
> 
> 3. And of course, private property of private citizens.



The way it works is that the police are controlled by the wealthy elite.
If you want to change how the police conduct themselves, you have to get the wealthy elite to tell then to act differently.
And the only way to do that is to cause monetary damages to the wealthy elite.

It is identical to the Boston Tea Party, if you still do not get it.


----------



## DrLove

Indeependent said:


> Because your way has worked out real well, hasn't it?
> I already realized you live in a beautiful, protected area...snob.


I’ll take my snobbery over your idiocy every day and twice on Sunday!


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> The rioters are against murder by corrupt police, so if you are against the rioters, you are in league with corrupt murderers.




The riots are anti-white race riots.


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> I’ll take my snobbery over your idiocy every day and twice on Sunday!


O My!  How shall I make it through the night!?
Thanks for admitting you hide behind gates as you laugh at the peasants.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Except he did have a valid reason to be there. And more importantly he had the RIGHT to be there.
> 
> 
> Bulldog, we got a lib here, who thinks Rittenhouse did not have the right to be in Kenosha on that night. Join me in setting him straight.



What was that valid reason or right for Rittenhouse to be someone that has no knowledge of the situation or right to say how the police should function for that community?


----------



## jc456

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Yep! Riots and protests will always happen. If we can't do better than what happened in Kenosha, that is the fault of the police first, iMO. And ultimately our fault. All of us.
> 
> I blame the rioters for rioting. And the firebugs for the dumpster fires. In Kenosha, I blame the police for how it turned out.
> 
> I don't even need anyone's head. A simple: "We fucked up. We won't coordinate with the vigilantes and militia next time (but I repeat myself). And don't bring guns. " would mean a lot.


So threatening us, terrorists all of you


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> Fix yourself prior to a vain attempt to fix anyone else.


Your side has a lot of nerve considering what you have done for decades.  This isn't new.  You are just mad that we have had enough of it.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, I hate to break to you: yes they will. And always have. I don't mean at every protest.
> 
> 
> 
> But you insult the police as much as the rioters or their sympathizers. The police will make decisions not to escalate and to sit back while some property damage occurs. So they are just letting them off the hook. And sometimes that IS the correct decision, so that it doesn't escalate to large scale police on citizen (and vice versa) violence.




The people who's lives are being ruined, by the property destruction might strongly disagree.


What happens when they decide to defend their property, with a pump shotgun? Will the police arrest them for defending their property? Or let the mob and the owners fight it out, trial by combat style?

And the line between riot causing property damage and killing someone is seconds thick. THose cops could be hanging back, while people are dying, and not realize it, till it is too late.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Just keeping it real.  You side with the rioters, and I side with those that fight them, in defense of my society.


You have made it clear that you side with those who ignore the law and dispense their own version of vigilante justice. How is that different from the rioters? Just so you can't pretend you missed that question, I'll ask again. How is that different from the rioters?


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> The way it works is that the police are controlled by the wealthy elite.
> If you want to change how the police conduct themselves, you have to get the wealthy elite to tell then to act differently.
> And the only way to do that is to cause monetary damages to the wealthy elite.
> 
> It is identical to the Boston Tea Party, if you still do not get it.




The Boston Tea Party was NOT the template for our Revolution. Armed militias more like Rittenhouse and his group, were.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Travelling twenty miles, or a thousand, before you are attacked, does not mean you lose the right to self defense.


Causing the confrontation does mean you lose the right to claim self defense.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> You have made it clear that you side with those who ignore the law and dispense their own version of vigilante justice. How is that different from the rioters? Just so you can't pretend you missed that question, I'll ask again. How is that different from the rioters?




Rittenhouse was standing there, protecting property from violent rioters. That is a legal act. And moral. And hurts no one. Helps people even. 


The rioters, wanted to burn down other people's property causing great harm to them. That is an illegal act. ANd immoral. ANd hurts people. 


How is it different? It is different in every way.


----------



## JohnDB

Rigby5 said:


> There likely are other exceptions, like in a self defense emergency, where a juvenile could grab a shotgun over the mantle.
> But this had no aspect of self defense because Rittenhouse was going 20 miles out of his way to put himself into this potentially dangerous situation.
> Clearly that prevents any self defense claim or any rational that would allow for him to carry a rifle as a minor.


Legal technicalities aside...

This is a travesty. 

The citizens either have our constitutional rights or we don't...
Either EVERYONE has them or no one has them. 

Kyle himself isn't as relevant as the constitutional rights he has that they are destroying by going after him...

Because it's him today but it's you tomorrow.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> The people who's lives are being ruined, by the property destruction might strongly disagree.


Tough shit. Lives...ruined? Not compared to a war between citizens and police. Andwe agree they have a grievance. Not enough to put out a hit on anyone, though.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Causing the confrontation does mean you lose the right to claim self defense.




Just being there, with a rifle, is not "causing" a confrontation.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Correll said:


> The riots are anti-white race riots.
> 
> View attachment 565489



If we cut all the bullshit, this is not false.


----------



## DrLove

eagle1462010 said:


> Your side has a lot of nerve considering what you have done for decades.  This isn't new.  You are just mad that we have had enough of it.


We’ve had plenty enough of your ilk also Loony Bird. 
Go fix yourself - Chop Chop!


----------



## JohnDB

BULLDOG said:


> Causing the confrontation does mean you lose the right to claim self defense.


Unless you withdraw. 
Meaning run away...just like Kyle did. 

That's why everyone (including the judge and prosecutor) is talking about perfect self defense because they recognize it as such.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> Just being there, with a rifle, is not "causing" a confrontation.


Still it is escalation, and an implied threat. You are basically just going to a place where Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz, and Huber also all had rifles and Kyle's brain is a stain on a street in Kenosha. That isn't what we want.

Furthermore, none of them had "the right" to be there, by the special curfew. And even without the special curfew, Kyle would have been violating the curfew for his age, I believe. So no, he really did not have "the right" to be there.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> I have friends who worked in Seattle; they said it's s ProgBot's wet dream, no to mention dreary.
> The problem sets in when Democrat politicians stop law enforcement from performing their duties.
> I suggest you walk through the next riot to see how it actually feels to be helpless.
> I know lots of guys who can handle themselves quite well in such a situation and who also want to help the helpless.


Ok.   Whatever. Don’t move here

Why in the world would it be smart to walk through a violent riot to prove a point?    That’s something an idiot would do.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Tough shit. Lives...ruined? Not compared to a war between citizens and police. Andwe agree they have a grievance. Not enough to put out a hit on anyone, though.




Yes, compared to a war between citizens and police. If all it takes for a civil war, is that a mob is not allowed to rampage and destroy, then we have a population of "citizens" that are going to be a problem, sooner rather than later. Sac-ing people lives, is not thee answer.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> We’ve had plenty enough of your ilk also Loony Bird.
> Go fix yourself - Chop Chop!


Really.  You have.  Whats the matter you don't like it when people call your pathetic tactics and party out.

Too dang bad.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> If all it takes for a civil war


You overstate my.meaning. I mean even just 50 protestors and 10 cops. Or 100cops and 1 thousand protestors. A local event. Please reread with that considered.

This is why police should and do use restraint, in some of these situations.

And I really shouldn't have to explain that anyway, right?


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Still it is escalation, and an implied threat. You are basically just going to a place where Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz, and Huber also all had rifles and Kyle's brain is a stain on a street in Kenosha. That isn't what we want.
> 
> Furthermore, none of them had "the right" to be there, by the special curfew. And even without the special curfew, Kyle would have been violating the curfew for his age. So no, he really did not have "the right" to be there.




THe curfew is irrelevant. It was not being enforced. Expecting law abiding citizens to follow the letter of the law, while letting barbarians rampage though the streets AND NEVER CALLING THEM ON IT, is not a society that can last.


If the choice is escalation or allowing the dems brown shirt mobs to rule the streets, escalation is the obviously better choice.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> Not relevant...
> Sam's properties were 3. And he was invited to all three.


Except it blows the whole "inviting a friend to the house" nonsense out of the water.


JohnDB said:


> A curfew does not negate your constitutional rights no matter how much you want them to be violated.


A curfew does prohibit people from being in curfew areas


JohnDB said:


> Try a different tactic because this one is flushed.
> 
> Kyle was not in curfew violation.


Yes he was.


JohnDB said:


> Kyle was not in violation of the gun laws.


That was thrown out


JohnDB said:


> He is charged with 1st degree homicide and 1st degree reckless homicide.
> 
> The 5counts are worthy of capital punishment.


Lets hope it not come to that.  But a lengthy stay in prison is warranted for pop and fresh.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Ok.   Whatever. Don’t move here
> 
> Why in the world would it be smart to walk through a violent riot to prove a point?    That’s something an idiot would do.


Different strokes for different folks.
People in NYC are terrified because they are not in a suburb behind a gate.
Just admit you're a neo-Con.


----------



## JohnDB

Correll said:


> THe curfew is irrelevant. It was not being enforced. Expecting law abiding citizens to follow the letter of the law, while letting barbarians rampage though the streets AND NEVER CALLING THEM ON IT, is not a society that can last.
> 
> 
> If the choice is escalation or allowing the dems brown shirt mobs to rule the streets, escalation is the obviously better choice.


Curfew is not relevant because Kyle was invited and staying on the property he was invited to protect.  

Basic assembly rights are not negated by a curfew. Ever!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> THe curfew is irrelevant.


To someone's right to be there? Uh, no. Like plenty of minors before him, Kyle could have been picked up for curfew at one minute past time. Buuut he wasn't. Not the same as having "the right" to do it.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> You finally know the degree of kookery in this forum. These are NOT normal conservatives. Good on ya


This forum is basically a troll farm.  I’ve seen two or three members who can actually engage in a discussion and present opposing views.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You overstate my.meaning. I mean even just 50 protestors and 10 cops. Or 100cops and 1 thousand protestors. A local event. Please reread with that considered.



You said "war" and you are not the first to use such language. Considering that we have elected officials siding with violent mobs rioting in teh streets and arresting people for defending themselves...


I think your statement was fine as it was. Yes, this is a dark path. Not one I choose. Not one I support.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

JohnDB said:


> because Kyle was invited and staying on the property he was invited to protect.


Apparently he was not. And he also was not only on that property, so that's a very weak try.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> This forum is basically a troll farm.  I’ve seen two or three members who can actually engage in a discussion and present opposing views.


Drlove isnt one of them.


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> You finally know the degree of kookery in this forum. These are NOT normal conservatives. Good on ya


What is a normal Conservative?
A neo-Con?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> You said "war"


Yep. Shooting to kill. And I have clarified. So now we understand each other.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Except it blows the whole "inviting a friend to the house" nonsense out of the water.
> 
> A curfew does prohibit people from being in curfew areas
> 
> Yes he was.
> 
> That was thrown out
> 
> Lets hope it not come to that.  But a lengthy stay in prison is warranted for pop and fresh.


So in your world your right to assemble is negated by anyone with authority to declare a curfew?

Your voting rights can be negated by that same person as well then....same as your free speech rights and....


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> To someone's right to be there? Uh, no. Like plenty of minors before him, Kyle could have been picked up for curfew at one minute past time. Buuut he wasn't. Not the same as having "the right" to do it.




Selective enforcement would have been a violation of his rights.  


Or do you imagine that the police should be ordered to arrest all people resisting the rioters, while the rioters are allowed to stay and then continue their riot once the cops clear out those with the will to resist?


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Different strokes for different folks.
> People in NYC are terrified because they are not in a suburb behind a gate.
> Just admit you're a neo-Con.


Do you even know what a neo con is?   You are continually proving to me that you are not worth wasting time on.   You can’t express your views without name calling I’d and baseless accusations.    

I don’t care about NYC.   I don’t live there.  I don’t vote there.  I have no plans to visit.


----------



## eagle1462010

tahuyaman said:


> Do you even know what a neo con is?   You are continually proving to me that you are not worth wasting time on.   You can’t express your views without name calling I’d and baseless accusations.
> 
> I don’t care about NYC.   I don’t live there.  I don’t vote there.  I have no plans to visit.


They are easy to see.  They are hunched over when they walk around from carrying the bribe money back from their latest Money Laundering vote.  And they never have a War they weren't for.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Do you even know what a neo con is?   You are continually proving to me that you are not worth wasting time on.   You can’t express your views without name calling I’d and baseless accusations.
> 
> I don’t care about NYC.   I don’t live there.  I don’t vote there.  I have no plans to visit.


A neo-Con is a globalist who loves slave labor, is greedy and suffers from avarice and doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
A neo-Con sends other people to fight their fights.
A neo-Con does not consider events in context, but reacts emotionally and intellectually to every event that effects their assets, realized and unrealized,

Yes, I know many neo-Cons.


----------



## tahuyaman

It looks like there’s a strong case for a mistrial to be declared before the verdict. Evidently the prosecution failed to turn over video evidence which would have benefitted the defense.

The prosecutor on this case needs to be fired as he’s both incompetent and dishonest.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> Do you even know what a neo con is?   You are continually proving to me that you are not worth wasting time on.   You can’t express your views without name calling I’d and baseless accusations.
> 
> I don’t care about NYC.   I don’t live there.  I don’t vote there.  I have no plans to visit.


*name calling*

The irony!
Someone else's suffering means nothing to you.
One day the police will not protect your block.


----------



## DrLove

Indeependent said:


> What is a normal Conservative?
> A neo-Con?


Not you and not Trump. Hard Stop


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> Not you and not Trump. Hard Stop


okkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> This forum is basically a troll farm.  I’ve seen two or three members who can actually engage in a discussion and present opposing views.


Yea, it’s a black hole. I plan on heading off to greener pastures


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> Yea, it’s a black hole. I plan on heading off to greener pastures


The Grass is blue Donkey.


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> Yea, it’s a black hole. I plan on heading off to greener pastures


Bye!


----------



## tahuyaman

eagle1462010 said:


> They are easy to see.  They are hunched over when they walk around from carrying the bribe money back from their latest Money Laundering vote.  And they never have a War they weren't for.


You are correct when you make the assertion that neo-cons are not opposed to continually committing troops overseas. They believe in nation building.   They want to impose democracy by force even in nations where we know it won’t work.  Afghanistan and Iraq are the two most recent examples. 

They are also very much social liberals.  They do not oppose big government.  They just think they can manage big government better than liberals.

When it comes to this Rittenhouse situation  I’m not sure where a neo con stands on that.   I would think they are more inclined to support the defense because they claim to be pro law and order. The riots were the very definition of lawlessness and disorder.


----------



## DrLove

eagle1462010 said:


> The Grass is blue Donkey.


Typical Trump supporter below. All he needs is a MAGA hat


----------



## DrLove

Indeependent said:


> Bye!


----------



## Rigby5

Flash said:


> It is more complicated than just quoting that law because there are referenced exemptions you have to look at.
> 
> The Prosecution conceded that the law did not apply to Kyle during the trial when asked to measure the gun and that is why the Judge dropped it.
> 
> Here is a better explanation



The lawyer is completely wrong and stupid.
The whole point of 29.593 is that there is an exception to the 948.60 statue if the minor is hunting and has a valid hunting license to prove it.
Since Kyle was not hunting and did not have a valid hunting license, then he is not eligable for the 29.593 exception.


----------



## DrLove

Indeependent said:


> A neo-Con is a globalist who loves slave labor, is greedy and suffers from avarice and doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
> A neo-Con sends other people to fight their fights.
> A neo-Con does not consider events in context, but reacts emotionally and intellectually to every event that effects their assets, realized and unrealized,
> 
> Yes, I know many neo-Cons.


You’re little more than a Neo-NUT
So there is that.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Rittenhouse was standing there, protecting property from violent rioters. That is a legal act. And moral. And hurts no one. Helps people even.
> 
> 
> The rioters, wanted to burn down other people's property causing great harm to them. That is an illegal act. ANd immoral. ANd hurts people.
> 
> 
> How is it different? It is different in every way.


That's absurd. Rittenhouse wasn't authorized or qualified, or even asked to defend anything. Nothing I say should be construed to support the illegal actions of the rioters, but it must be noted that their illegal actions were intended to reduce the epidemic of cops killing black men with seemingly no consequences. If you want to condemn rioters, and call them vigilantes, I won't disagree with you, but that still doesn't justify Rittenhouse's vigilantism.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> A neo-Con is a globalist who loves slave labor, is greedy and suffers from avarice and doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
> A neo-Con sends other people to fight their fights.
> A neo-Con does not consider events in context, but reacts emotionally and intellectually to every event that effects their assets, realized and unrealized,
> 
> Yes, I know many neo-Cons.


You have part of it right.   A small part.  They are globalists.   However, I doubt that you know what that means.   That’s about all you got right but you don’t know why.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> Just being there, with a rifle, is not "causing" a confrontation.


Pointing it at people did. After the first murder, he was an active shooter trying to escape.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> Typical Trump supporter below. All he needs is a MAGA hat
> 
> View attachment 565505


I love the MAGA hat.  Did your burn loot and murder PEDO get a Karma award.

Oh well.  But you should google Tiger and Donkey get into argument over the color of grass.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> You’re little more than a Neo-NUT
> So there is that.


Actually he’s a malcontent who simply opposes things only because he doesn’t understand the idea or basic philosophy.   It’s obvious that he’s not a conservative.   He’s the type who mindlessly follows the marching orders fed to him by his favorite talk show host.


----------



## eagle1462010

__





						StackPath
					





					movemequotes.com
				




The donkey told the tiger, _“The grass is blue.”_

The tiger replied, _“No, the grass is green.”_

The discussion became heated, and the two decided to submit the issue to arbitration, so they approached the lion.

As they approached the lion on his throne, the donkey started screaming: _′′Your Highness, isn’t it true that the grass is blue?”_

The lion replied: _“If you believe it is true, the grass is blue.”_

The donkey rushed forward and continued: _′′The tiger disagrees with me, contradicts me and annoys me. Please punish him.”_

The king then declared: _′′The tiger will be punished with 3 days of silence.”_

The donkey jumped with joy and went on his way, content and repeating _′′The grass is blue, the grass is blue…”_

The tiger asked the lion, _“Your Majesty, why have you punished me, after all, the grass is green?”_

​

The lion replied, _′′You’ve known and seen the grass is green.”_

The tiger asked, _′′So why do you punish me?”_

The lion replied, _“That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is degrading for a brave, intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with an ass, and on top of that, you came and bothered me with that question just to validate something you already knew was true!”_


----------



## BULLDOG

JohnDB said:


> Unless you withdraw.
> Meaning run away...just like Kyle did.
> 
> That's why everyone (including the judge and prosecutor) is talking about perfect self defense because they recognize it as such.


In an active shooter situation, the shooter trying to getaway is hardly de-escalation.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> The riots are anti-white race riots.
> 
> View attachment 565489



I don't see any evidence the rioters were even primarily Black, much less anti white.
All the people shot by Rittenhouse were white.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> That's absurd. Rittenhouse wasn't authorized or qualified, or even asked to defend anything. Nothing I say should be construed to support the illegal actions of the rioters, but it must be noted that their illegal actions were intended to reduce the epidemic of cops killing black men with seemingly no consequences. If you want to condemn rioters, and call them vigilantes, I won't disagree with you, but that still doesn't justify Rittenhouse's vigilantism.




I don't care if he was authorized or asked. He had the right to stand there adn  protect property and in doing so, he was violating no laws and not hurting anyone.


The rioters, were looking to burn and destroy. That was breaking laws and hurting people.


You asked how they were different. As I explained, they are different in every way.


Now that you know that, now please explain what your point was. Were you trying to make the point that they were the same?


Because now you see that is NOT the case. CLEARLY. 


Does that now change your view of the rioters or Rittenhouse?


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> Actually he’s a malcontent who simply opposes things only because he doesn’t understand the idea or basic philosophy.   It’s obvious that he’s not a conservative.   He’s the type who mindlessly follows the marching orders fed to him by his favorite talk show host.


Didn’t take you long to figure this hellhole out. Nice work


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Pointing it at people did. After the first murder, he was an active shooter trying to escape.




Depends why he was "pointing" it at people. And even if it was a provocation, the bit were he ran and ran, would have been him deescalating the confrontation and the bit where the rioters chased him down and attacked him, would have flipped the legal onus back onto them.


He was never an "active shooter". He was an "active trying to get away".


----------



## DrLove

eagle1462010 said:


> I love the MAGA hat.  Did your burn loot and murder PEDO get a Karma award.
> 
> Oh well.  But you should google Tiger and Donkey get into argument over the color of grass.


I don’t do cartoons. Turn it to Disney. Adults are talking.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> I don't see any evidence the rioters were even primarily Black, much less anti white.
> All the people shot by Rittenhouse were white.




Oh, antifa is definitely anti-white racist assholes.


----------



## BULLDOG

Correll said:


> I don't care if he was authorized or asked. He had the right to stand there adn  protect property and in doing so, he was violating no laws and not hurting anyone.
> 
> 
> The rioters, were looking to burn and destroy. That was breaking laws and hurting people.
> 
> 
> You asked how they were different. As I explained, they are different in every way.
> 
> 
> Now that you know that, now please explain what your point was. Were you trying to make the point that they were the same?
> 
> 
> Because now you see that is NOT the case. CLEARLY.
> 
> 
> Does that now change your view of the rioters or Rittenhouse?


Your silly explanations were absurd, and proved nothing.


----------



## Correll

BULLDOG said:


> Your silly explanations were absurd, and proved nothing.




Said the man that asked a question, and when I answered it, paid no attention to the answer.


That is a fine example of how "questions" from libs, are not really questions, and are actually lies.

Because you were not really asking a question. You did not care about any answer and did not listen to, nor respond to the answer.


Thus, the act of asking the question, is a lie. Because it is not a question. YOu are using the form of the question to hide your unsupported and indefensible assertions.


Rittenhouse defending property is not hurting anyone, indeed, is helping people. Rosenbaum burning shit down, is hurting people. That is the difference.


Your side bad guys. My side good guys.


----------



## eagle1462010

DrLove said:


> I don’t do cartoons. Turn it to Disney. Adults are talking.


Where.  Sure isn't you.  You are here to troll and don't like what we are saying about your MERCs.  Oh well.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Oh, antifa is definitely anti-white racist assholes.



Nonsense.
Antifa is anti-fascist, so is not anti-white.
Most antifa is white.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Said the man that asked a question, and when I answered it, paid no attention to the answer.
> 
> 
> That is a fine example of how "questions" from libs, are not really questions, and are actually lies.
> 
> Because you were not really asking a question. You did not care about any answer and did not listen to, nor respond to the answer.
> 
> 
> Thus, the act of asking the question, is a lie. Because it is not a question. YOu are using the form of the question to hide your unsupported and indefensible assertions.
> 
> 
> Rittenhouse defending property is not hurting anyone, indeed, is helping people. Rosenbaum burning shit down, is hurting people. That is the difference.
> 
> 
> Your side bad guys. My side good guys.



Rittenhouse was not defending any property.
If there was property for him to defend, then he would have stayed on that property, instead of going from person to person, trying to intimidate them.


----------



## DrLove

eagle1462010 said:


> Where.  Sure isn't you.  You are here to troll and don't like what we are saying about your MERCs.  Oh well.


MERC - Is that 4th grade cartoon code of some sort?  

Well, at least your speaking at Trump level!









						Trump speaks at fourth-grade level, lowest of last 15 U.S. presidents, new analysis finds
					

President Trump says he's "like, really smart," but he communicates at the lowest grade level of the last 15 presidents.




					www.newsweek.com


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Nonsense.
> Antifa is anti-fascist, so is not anti-white.
> Most antifa is white.




1. Antifa is not "anti-fascist".  They are using text book fascists tactics.

2. Antifa is certainly anti-white racist. 

3. But thanks for not insulting my intelligence with the stupid lie that they do not exist.  Some libs are such assholes that they make that claim.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Rittenhouse was not defending any property.
> If there was property for him to defend, then he would have stayed on that property, instead of going from person to person, trying to intimidate them.




Sure he was. The car dealership. 


That bit where you had to lie? That was your brain dealing with the fact that is knows that your position, is complete shit.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Yea, it’s a black hole. I plan on heading off to greener pastures


Most forums are the same.


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> MERC - Is that 4th grade cartoon code of some sort?
> 
> Well, at least your speaking at Trump level!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump speaks at fourth-grade level, lowest of last 15 U.S. presidents, new analysis finds
> 
> 
> President Trump says he's "like, really smart," but he communicates at the lowest grade level of the last 15 presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com




The lefty pretends to be too stupid to know the word "merc". 


What a moron.


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> Most forums are the same.


Some forums feature sane conservatives. These idiots chase the sane ones off.


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> Some forums feature sane conservatives. These idiots chase the sane ones off.




Said the lefty pretending to not know the word "merc".


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> 1. Antifa is not "anti-fascist".  They are using text book fascists tactics.
> 
> 2. Antifa is certainly anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. But thanks for not insulting my intelligence with the stupid lie that they do not exist.  Some libs are such assholes that they make that claim.



Anybody can use any tactics, but it is their goals what make them good or bad, not their tactics.

But I agree Antifa likely is anti-white racists.
Personally I don't care if a person wants to be racist, as long as they do not control public resources.


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> The lefty pretends to be too stupid to know the word "merc".
> What a moron.



Sorry, makes no sense. Go play with you’re fellow loons.





__





						Urban Dictionary: Merc
					

The origin is from the noun, mercenary. A mercenary is someone who will carry out combat missions but aren't part of an official organization, like the military, or CIA and are usually not motivated by justice or an allegiance. (They are usually motivated by profit) Activities associated with...




					www.urbandictionary.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

BULLDOG said:


> No. Get a grownup to explain it to you.



You're not grownup enough to defend your claim?


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Anybody can use any tactics, but it is their goals what make them good or bad, not their tactics.
> 
> But I agree Antifa likely is anti-white racists.
> Personally I don't care if a person wants to be racist, as long as they do not control public resources.




1. Bullshit. Tactics that involve violent crime and vile behavior, do make someone a bad person.

2. Antifa, are marxist pieces of shit. Marxist is an vile goal. They goal ALSO makes them vile pieces of shit. 

3. Thank you for not denying the obvious truth that antifa are anti-white racists.

4. ANd leftards like yourself and antifa, DO control vast public resources and you do discriminate massively in hte distribution and use  of those resources.


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> Sorry, makes no sense. Go play with you’re fellow loons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urban Dictionary: Merc
> 
> 
> The origin is from the noun, mercenary. A mercenary is someone who will carry out combat missions but aren't part of an official organization, like the military, or CIA and are usually not motivated by justice or an allegiance. (They are usually motivated by profit) Activities associated with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.urbandictionary.com




Look the libtard pretended to not know that the word means, and now posts the definition.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Sure he was. The car dealership.
> 
> 
> That bit where you had to lie? That was your brain dealing with the fact that is knows that your position, is complete shit.



I watched an interview with the car dealership, and they said they did not want Kyle or anyone else anywhere near their property.
Also all the video showed Kyle no where near the car dealership.









						Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Car dealership workers testify
					

During Friday's testimony, family members of the man who owns the car dealership destroyed during the unrest – and where the shootings took place – took the stand. They testified that they did not ask anyone to come and protect the property.




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> So in your world your right to assemble is negated by anyone with authority to declare a curfew?


Yes....as we saw with limits on public gatherings during the height of the covid scandal


JohnDB said:


> Your voting rights can be negated by that same person as well then....same as your free speech rights and....



Well..one can always vote by mail.  LOL.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> I watched an interview with the car dealership, and they said they did not want Kyle or anyone else anywhere near their property.
> Also all the video showed Kyle no where near the car dealership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Car dealership workers testify
> 
> 
> During Friday's testimony, family members of the man who owns the car dealership destroyed during the unrest – and where the shootings took place – took the stand. They testified that they did not ask anyone to come and protect the property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com




Irrelevant details. He was there with intent of protecting property. 

That he left the area to do something else, and then was prevented from returning by the police, does not change that his primary task in being there was to protect property. 


Which he did. INdeed, it was right after he and that group put out a fire, that the rioters had set, that Rosenbaum issued his now famous death threat, to 


"kill any of them, that he caught alone".



Rittenhouse there to protect property, and help people, Rosenbaum there to burn and destroy and kill.


----------



## DrLove

Rigby5 said:


> I watched an interview with the car dealership, and they said they did not want Kyle or anyone else anywhere near their property.
> Also all the video showed Kyle no where near the car dealership.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Car dealership workers testify
> 
> 
> During Friday's testimony, family members of the man who owns the car dealership destroyed during the unrest – and where the shootings took place – took the stand. They testified that they did not ask anyone to come and protect the property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com


I saw the same interview. The “car dealership” BS by Baby Kyle the Killer was a ruse.


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> Irrelevant details. He was there with intent of protecting property.
> 
> That he left the area to do something else, and then was prevented from returning by the police, does not change that his primary task in being there was to protect property.
> 
> 
> Which he did. INdeed, it was right after he and that group put out a fire, that the rioters had set, that Rosenbaum issued his now famous death threat, to
> 
> 
> "kill any of them, that he caught alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Rittenhouse there to protect property, and help people, Rosenbaum there to burn and destroy and kill.



Who did he “help” exactly?
Oh yes, NO ONE


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> 1. Bullshit. Tactics that involve violent crime and vile behavior, do make someone a bad person.
> 
> 2. Antifa, are marxist pieces of shit. Marxist is an vile goal. They goal ALSO makes them vile pieces of shit.
> 
> 3. Thank you for not denying the obvious truth that antifa are anti-white racists.
> 
> 4. ANd leftards like yourself and antifa, DO control vast public resources and you do discriminate massively in hte distribution and use  of those resources.



When justified, there are no tactics that are off limits.
For example, the invasion of Iraq was totally wrong, illegal, and deliberately based on lies, so if someone had assassinated Bush, it would have been justified.

I don't know much about Antifa, but I do not believe they are Marxist, and Maxism is an idealistic utopia, not something bad or evil.
Marxism claims that if people were not forced to cater to the profit motive, that they would all be willingly sharing everything.
I do not believe that, but it is a naïve belief, not an evil one.

I do not believe in discriminating against anyone, including white racists.
They are entitled to their beliefs.


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> I saw the same interview. The “car dealership” BS by Baby Kyle the Killer was a ruse.




Or, the person being question was afraid to support Rittenhouse's story for fear of being targeted by violent lefties like Rosenbaum or you.


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> Who did he “help” exactly?
> Oh yes, NO ONE




He protected property. He protected his fellows in the group, when Rosenbaum and his mob were threatening to kill them. He helped the people who's property he helped clean.  Could be more. But that is plenty.



His intent was to help and he did. 


Rosenbaum is on record as trying to destroy and publicly stating his intent to kill.


----------



## Rigby5

Correll said:


> Irrelevant details. He was there with intent of protecting property.
> 
> That he left the area to do something else, and then was prevented from returning by the police, does not change that his primary task in being there was to protect property.
> 
> 
> Which he did. INdeed, it was right after he and that group put out a fire, that the rioters had set, that Rosenbaum issued his now famous death threat, to
> 
> 
> "kill any of them, that he caught alone".
> 
> 
> 
> Rittenhouse there to protect property, and help people, Rosenbaum there to burn and destroy and kill.



Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.
And those who would try to prevent destruction over a valid political protest then would be criminal.

Again, only a criminal would have tried to stop the Boston Tea Party.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Some forums feature sane conservatives. These idiots chase the sane ones off.


Yep.  They aren’t very willing to have a discussion.


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> When justified, there are no tactics that are off limits.
> ...



That bit, where they do what they can to provoke a response, and then whine like faggots that they were attacked, especially when the attack is complete bullshit?

Anyone that would do that, is a piece of human garbage. 


I saw a video of a guy that had a sign on a pole, and people like you, attacked him and tore the sign off the pole, and then in an organized manner, they started crying out that he had a weapon, because now he was carrying a stick. 

At BEST their intent was to create a video campaign targeting this guy for cyber bullying, 


worse trying to get him arrested, or God FOrbid in the chaos, riling up one of their less stable members to attack him in "self defense".


That way they do shit like that, where they have obviously trained and practiced being such vile, lying pieces of shit?


That is them being FUCKING EVIL.


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> He protected property. He protected his fellows in the group, when Rosenbaum and his mob were threatening to kill them. He helped the people who's property he helped clean.  Could be more. But that is plenty.
> His intent was to help and he did.
> Rosenbaum is on record as trying to destroy and publicly stating his intent to kill.



Translation: I have nothing.

Guess your definition of “help” is provoking and killing people. Weird


----------



## Correll

Rigby5 said:


> Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.
> And those who would try to prevent destruction over a valid political protest then would be criminal.
> 
> Again, only a criminal would have tried to stop the Boston Tea Party.




1. What you going to do, when you run into a property owner prepared to fight you? 

2. The Boston Tea Party was NOT the template for our revolution. Armed, trained, and organized militias, more like Rittenhouse was.


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> Translation: I have nothing.
> 
> Guess your definition of “help” is provoking and killing people. Weird




Standing there, armed and deterring aggression is not "provoking". Putting out a fire, is not "provoking".


You are lying. You are a liar.


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> Or, the person being question was afraid to support Rittenhouse's story for fear of being targeted by violent lefties like Rosenbaum or you.


You’re a fucking NUT  my friend.
But you be you!


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> 1. What you going to do, when you run into a property owner prepared to fight you?
> 
> 2. The Boston Tea Party was NOT the template for our revolution. Armed, trained, and organized militias, more like Rittenhouse was.



The only actual firearms “training” that lil punk had was likely from violent video games and YouTube.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Rigby5 said:


> Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.



You're such a twat.


----------



## tahuyaman

Rigby5 said:


> Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.


No it’s not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> Guess your definition of “help” is provoking and killing people.



Did Rosenbaum's victims also provoke him?


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> You have part of it right.   A small part.  They are globalists.   However, I doubt that you know what that means.   That’s about all you got right but you don’t know why.


Because only someone with your incredibly high IQ understands cheap Asian labor and US citizens can go to hell.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> The only actual firearms “training” that lil punk had was likely from violent video games and YouTube.



Are you sad about the 3 scumbags he shot?


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Because only someone with your incredibly high IQ understands cheap Asian labor and US citizens can go to hell.


WTF?


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> The only actual firearms “training” that lil punk had was likely from violent video games and YouTube.




Considering how well he handled himself, that is very unlikely.

If true, it is incredible support for the quality of those games, OR to what a natural BAD ASS, Kyle is.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> WTF?


Cheap labor overseas, cheap, compliant H1-Bs, cheap Mexican labor and an artificially pumped up Stock Market.
Then we wonder why Trump's platform to employ US citizens got him elected.


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> Considering how well he handled himself, that is very unlikely.
> 
> If true, it is incredible support for the quality of those games, OR to what a natural BAD ASS, Kyle is.



Oh wow, you’re getting wood over that babyfaced lil punk.

Go to bed and squeeze one off. You’ll feel better.


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you sad about the 3 scumbags he shot?



I feel sad about ANYONE who dies unnecessarily.


----------



## Indeependent

DrLove said:


> I feel sad about ANYONE who dies unnecessarily.


Watch Sesame Street and cheer up!


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> Oh wow, you’re getting wood over that babyfaced lil punk.
> 
> Go to bed and squeeze one off. You’ll feel better.



Giving well deserved kudos to a young man who defended himself against a violent attack by a marxist mob, 


is the right thing to do.


Naturally, you find it alien and even perverse. But that is  about your problems.  Nothing to do with me, you weirdo.


----------



## BackAgain

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you sad about the 3 scumbags he shot?


It is a shame — in human terms — that the scumbags forced Kyle to defend himself.  The result was sad and tragic I guess for them and their loved ones. It wasn’t a major loss to humankind however. Honestly, I feel sorry for Kyle. It’s a shame he suffers from the anguish of what he was forced to do.


----------



## Correll

BackAgain said:


> It is a shame — in human terms — that the scumbags forced Kyle to defend himself.  The result was sad and tragic I guess for them and their loved ones. It wasn’t a major loss to humankind however. Honestly, I feel sorry for Kyle. It’s a shame he suffers from the anguish of what he was forced to do.



Agreed. I have often heard that police that have to shot violent criminals, often have dramatic life changes from the impact.


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> Giving well deserved kudos to a young man who defended himself against a violent attack by a marxist mob,
> is the right thing to do.
> Naturally, you find it alien and even perverse. But that is  about your problems.  Nothing to do with me, you weirdo.



This is officially a cult. Wasn’t The Cult of Trump enough for ya?
Sheesh - It’s now The Cult of Kyle. Has a ring don’t it


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> I feel sad about ANYONE who dies unnecessarily.



Stupidity hurts, sometimes it's fatal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> This is officially a cult.



I know, defending yourself......outrageous!!!


----------



## DrLove

Judge hung out today with Kyle and his defense team. Totally appropriate right?


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Stupidity hurts, sometimes it's fatal.


True. Ashli Babbitt being a classic example


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> True. Ashli Babbitt being a classic example



Not as good an example as the 3 twats in Kenosha.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> Cheap labor overseas, cheap, compliant H1-Bs, cheap Mexican labor and an artificially pumped up Stock Market.
> Then we wonder why Trump's platform to employ US citizens got him elected.


I know exactly why Trump got elected.    It was a combination of things.

You still can’t support the idiotic accusation that I’m a neo con.


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I know, defending yourself......outrageous!!!


Cult members don’t know they’re in one.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> True. Ashli Babbitt being a classic example


She did do a stupid thing as did everyone in that riot.  .  However, her killing was not justified.   The officer panicked.


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> This is officially a cult. Wasn’t The Cult of Trump enough for ya?
> Sheesh - It’s now The Cult of Kyle. Has a ring don’t it




Normally human interaction is not a "cult".  I give respect to people that deserve it. 


You are the weirdo here, not me.


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not as good an exanple as the 3 twats in Kenosha.


Kyle played stupid games and won stupid prizes.
Shoulda stayed home with his moonfaced Mama, ate hot pockets & played violent video games.


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

aaronleland said:


> I never cared about this kid one way or another. Was he defending himself? Yes. Should he have been there in the first place? No.


He had more right to be there than any of the ones that were there "protesting" and when I say protesting, I mean rioting, assaulting, starting fires and possibly looting. 

Him being there, with that size of weapon irrespective if you think he had no business there is irrelevant - he was breaking no laws - as confirmed by the judge already.


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> She did do a stupid thing as did everyone in that riot.  .  However, her killing was not justified.   The officer panicked.


Everyone saw the drawn guns. 
She chose to crawl through the window anyway.
Dumb


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> Cult members don’t know they’re in one.



But enough about ANTIFA....or whatever those criminals thought they were a part of.


----------



## DrLove

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> He had more right to be there than any of the ones that were there "protesting" and when I say protesting, I mean rioting, assaulting, starting fires and possibly looting.
> 
> Him being there, with that size of weapon irrespective if you think he had no business there is irrelevant - he was breaking no laws - as confirmed by the judge already.



You mean the judge who got cozy with him today? Touching huh??


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

DrLove said:


> You mean the judge who got cozy with him today? Touching huh??


That picture could mean literally anything. You're taking a picture, with no context or explanation and trying to create a cosy little leftist narrative.


----------



## DrLove

Correll said:


> Normally human interaction is not a "cult".  I give respect to people that deserve it.
> You are the weirdo here, not me.


Meh, you may be the weirdest dude in the forum.


----------



## DrLove

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> That picture could mean literally anything. You're taking a picture, with no context or explanation and trying to create a cosy little leftist narrative.


This RW judge has given every indication that he thinks the lil boy is innocent.
Sorry, but neutral judges don’t put themselves in compromised positions like that, regardless of “context”.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> Kyle played stupid games and won stupid prizes.



Not as stupid as the 3 criminals, eh?


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

DrLove said:


> This RW judge has given every indication that he thinks the lil boy is innocent.
> Sorry, but neutral judges don’t put themselves in compromised positions like that, regardless of “context”.


He is innocent. 

Give me some examples of these indications that the judge has said he's innocent?

The judge has pulled up (and shouted at) these amateur-hour prosecutors for their lies and bullshit throughout - which is a different thing. 

The picture still proves nothing. I see nothing unusual in it. He's talking with the accused and his defense - inside the court - is that really such a big deal? if so, feel free to show me a rule that says that's not allowed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> You mean the judge who got cozy with him today? Touching huh??



Where is the prosecutor, two feet to the judge's right? LOL!


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Not as stupid as the 3 criminals, eh?


I see two. Was there another Boogaloo Boi in attendance?


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where is the prosecutor, two feet to the judge's right? LOL!


No loon. That is Baby Kyle’s attorney


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Everyone saw the drawn guns.
> She chose to crawl through the window anyway.
> Dumb


Like I said. She did a very dumb thing, but it didn’t justify killing her.   She wasn’t posing a deadly threat.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> I see two. Was there another Boogaloo Boi in attendance?
> 
> View attachment 565552



The two dead criminals and "Lefty".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> No loon. That is Baby Kyle’s attorney



And who is on the other side of the judge?


----------



## tahuyaman

Correll said:


> Oh, antifa is definitely anti-white racist assholes.


They are anti-law and order.  They are opposed to any authority.   They are anti capitalists, but  I don’t see a particular racial element with them


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Judge hung out today with Kyle and his defense team. Totally appropriate right?


Without the context of this one can really comment with any confidence.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Canon Shooter said:


> I have a couple of problems with Rittenhouse's case:
> 
> First, if it was legal for him to own that gun, why didn't he purchase it himself?
> 
> He admitted to shooting an unarmed man.
> 
> He gave away his body armor, claiming he wouldn't need it, because he would be performing first aid.
> 
> He retained his weapon instead of giving it to someone who could've used it while he was performing first aid.
> 
> He provided first aid to no one.
> 
> He may well walk. But if he's found guilty of any of the primary or lesser charges, I can certainly see a strong argument for that.
> 
> Usually, when a verdict comes back quickly, it's because guilt or innocence is obvious. If a verdict doesn't come relatively short order, I think that could bode poorly for the the young Mr. Rittenhouse...


You are clueless---actually he did provide minor first aid to several people that night--band aid type stuff.  

Gun was legally his.  Adults buy guns all the time, and give the guns to their children as gifts.


----------



## eagle1462010

Rigby5 said:


> Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.
> And those who would try to prevent destruction over a valid political protest then would be criminal.
> 
> Again, only a criminal would have tried to stop the Boston Tea Party.


And in almost every case  the person they are rioting over is the guilty one.

 Since your side feels this way.  Then the same goes to you.  This is why you are so upset.  You feel you have the RIGHT TO BURN LOOT AND MURDER.  We feel you ARE THE PROBLEM.

That is why this country is divided.  Your party is the AMERICA SUCKS PARTY.  Burn the flag party.  WE ARE AGAINST YOU ON THIS.

The covid nonsense.  Me and you happen to be on the same side.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> Judge hung out today with Kyle and his defense team. Totally appropriate right?


Yea, right. They were playing video games together.

You are a fucking moron.


----------



## Flash

DrLove said:


> Kyle played stupid games and won stupid prizes.
> Shoulda stayed home with his moonfaced Mama, ate hot pockets & played violent video games.




The shitheads that earned stupid prizes were the two assholes that attacked him and got killed and the dipshit that threatened Kyle with a Glock and is now having to masturbate with boyfriend with his left hand.


----------



## 22lcidw

DrLove said:


> I see two. Was there another Boogaloo Boi in attendance?
> 
> View attachment 565552


What the ph uk do you care? This kid would protect you before any of the ones who died and injured would.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> I know exactly why Trump got elected.    It was a combination of things.
> 
> You still can’t support the idiotic accusation that I’m a neo con.


You live behind a gate and have no regard for the welfare of others.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Yes....as we saw with limits on public gatherings during the height of the covid scandal
> 
> 
> Well..one can always vote by mail.  LOL.


Not if your constitutional rights are allowed to be circumvented.  Which is why we still had an election in the middle of a pandemic.  

Constitutional rights are either given by God or a bunch of dead guys...

If given by God...then they can never be removed or taken from you in the event of any "emergency". 

If given to you by a bunch of dead guys...then running out of shampoo is sufficient reason to remove all of your constitutional rights.


----------



## Resnic

Turtlesoup said:


> You are clueless---actually he did provide minor first aid to several people that night--band aid type stuff.
> 
> Gun was legally his.  Adults buy guns all the time, and give the guns to their children as gifts.



I can vouch for that.

By the time I was 12 I owned 2 pistols, 1 shotgun, and 3 rifles my grandparents and uncle had gotten me. I kept them in my closet as a kid. When I was 5 or 6 I got a pellet gun before that and that's what I learned on.

Of course I also drove to school when I was 12 in middle school, I wasn't a typical kid.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> Not if your constitutional rights are allowed to be circumvented.  Which is why we still had an election in the middle of a pandemic.
> 
> Constitutional rights are either given by God or a bunch of dead guys...
> 
> If given by God...then they can never be removed or taken from you in the event of any "emergency".
> 
> If given to you by a bunch of dead guys...then running out of shampoo is sufficient reason to remove all of your constitutional rights.



Not following that...  God or a bunch of dead guys...shampoo...  whatever.


----------



## Flash

Turtlesoup said:


> You are clueless---actually he did provide minor first aid to several people that night--band aid type stuff.
> 
> Gun was legally his.  Adults buy guns all the time, and give the guns to their children as gifts.




Just like here in Florida.  He was prevented from purchasing the rifle but not prohibited from possessing it.  Certainly not prohibited from using it for self defense.


----------



## FA_Q2

JohnDB said:


> Not if your constitutional rights are allowed to be circumvented.  Which is why we still had an election in the middle of a pandemic.
> 
> Constitutional rights are either given by God or a bunch of dead guys...
> 
> If given by God...then they can never be removed or taken from you in the event of any "emergency".
> 
> If given to you by a bunch of dead guys...then running out of shampoo is sufficient reason to remove all of your constitutional rights.


That they are intrinsic to our nature is in no way diminished by the fact that they can be infringed upon by those with power. 

That does not make it correct or moral but their infringement also does not change the source.


----------



## john doe 101

ClaireH said:


> “If any federal, state, or city level command was given for the police to stand down, this needs to be known and records released to the public.” Where exactly is there need for revision John Doe?
> 
> I was quite clear that if any type of communication did occur, if a verbal command to stand down happened, the public needs full disclosure. Nothing over the top about calling for communication records be reviewed JD. Are you of the mindset that governmental communication should be kept private regarding hostile situations and chaos?  The choice to keep intel  protected only involves protecting lives and in this case it certainly did not.


But see if it doesnt exist, you animals won't accept that, will you?  You'll just keep on making stuff up to fit your narrative.


----------



## DudleySmith

Indeependent said:


> Watch Sesame Street and cheer up!



He can't handle shows that deep.


----------



## Flash

The Judge is waiting for a verdict before he determines if it is a mistrial?  That ain't right.  He should declare it now.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Not following that...  God or a bunch of dead guys...shampoo...  whatever.


You were claiming that constitutional rights can be removed by a local ordinance or temporary mandate...

And I was explaining that they are not. 

Kyle had a constitutional right to be at the car lots...as invited by the owner to protect them. The curfew is not relevant to his being there. He is at his residence when he is invited to be there under the law. No matter what else you want to claim. It became his residence when Sammy said so. 

Those who were destroying cars and setting fires were the one breaking curfew...not Kyle. And since it is a constitutional right of Kyle's the charges had to be dropped and removed from consideration. 

Kyle also has a right to self defense. 
Which is why even the prosecutor has mentioned it...he knows already that when Kyle ran away from his attackers it was a case of perfect self defense. The only reason he is bringing the charges is because of political pressure from the Mayor and Governor.


----------



## JohnDB

FA_Q2 said:


> That they are intrinsic to our nature is in no way diminished by the fact that they can be infringed upon by those with power.
> 
> That does not make it correct or moral but their infringement also does not change the source.


The constitution is clear...
The constitution is all about focusing on limiting the government's power...not on giving us rights. The rights we already have as you suggested. But when someone in legal circles acting as an agent of the Government claims that the defense has constitutional rights it means that in reality they can't do anything because of the constitution is limiting them.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> You were claiming that constitutional rights can be removed by a local ordinance or temporary mandate...
> 
> And I was explaining that they are not.


Yes they can.  People were prohibited from gathering in large groups during the pandemic.  


JohnDB said:


> Kyle had a constitutional right to be at the car lots...as invited by the owner to protect them. The curfew is not relevant to his being there. He is at his residence when he is invited to be there under the law. No matter what else you want to claim. It became his residence when Sammy said so.


Kyle was on the street; not in a residence.


JohnDB said:


> Those who were destroying cars and setting fires were the one breaking curfew...not Kyle.


Both were breaking curfew.


JohnDB said:


> Kyle also has a right to self defense.
> Which is why even the prosecutor has mentioned it...he knows already that when Kyle ran away from his attackers it was a case of perfect self defense. The only reason he is bringing the charges is because of political pressure from the Mayor and Governor.



If Kyle was in a residence...why was he "running away" from his attackers?


----------



## JohnDB

Flash said:


> The Judge is waiting for a verdict before he determines if it is a mistrial?  That ain't right.  He should declare it now.


At this point there's a hearing already moving forward no matter what... prosecutorial misconduct is a serious charge...and it isn't taken lightly especially when there's a "preponderance of evidence" demonstrating that such has happened. 

Verdict is not relevant anymore...


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Yes they can.  People were prohibited from gathering in large groups during the pandemic.
> 
> Kyle was on the street; not in a residence.
> 
> Both were breaking curfew.
> 
> 
> 
> If Kyle was in a residence...why was he "running away" from his attackers?


You need to go back to grade school and relearn Civics...
This is basic stuff every 5th grader knows all about. 
Constitutional rights can't be usurped by anyone at anytime...not even the president. 

If they are then there's a remedy for that...and it doesn't go well for the person who violated another person's rights.  Just like the prosecuting attorney is in a LOT of hot water over the drone footage... regardless of the outcome of the trial. He violated Kyle's rights several times and in several ways. He has hell to pay when convicted for doing it.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Turtlesoup said:


> You are clueless---actually he did provide minor first aid to several people that night--band aid type stuff.



Well, then you know more than Rittenhouse, because he testified to the fact that he didn't render first aid to anyone.

But please continue to tell me how _I'm_ the clueless one, you ignorant bitch...



Turtlesoup said:


> Gun was legally his.  Adults buy guns all the time, and give the guns to their children as gifts.



If he could own it legally, why didn't he purchase it? Why was it not registered in his name?

That gun purchase was made with the intent to do an end around on the law. Rittenhouse and Black both knew a gun retailer would never have sold the gun to Rittenhouse...


----------



## Correll

DrLove said:


> Meh, you may be the weirdest dude in the forum.




The kid was swarmed by a violent mob and held it together despite being hit with a rock, a skateboard and kicked in the head. 

That you cannot see that as impressive, is you being a very small person.


----------



## FA_Q2

JohnDB said:


> The constitution is clear...
> The constitution is all about focusing on limiting the government's power...not on giving us rights. The rights we already have as you suggested. But when someone in legal circles acting as an agent of the Government claims that the defense has constitutional rights it means that in reality they can't do anything because of the constitution is limiting them.


Yes, that is a legal position.  I was commenting on the very concept of rights.  If you were speaking in a legal sense then I agree.


----------



## FA_Q2

Canon Shooter said:


> If he could own it legally, why didn't he purchase it? Why was it not registered in his name?
> 
> That gun purchase was made with the intent to do an end around on the law. Rittenhouse and Black both knew a gun retailer would never have sold the gun to Rittenhouse...


Because it was not legal for him to purchase it.

Following the law is NOT doing an end run around it.


----------



## tahuyaman

Indeependent said:


> You live behind a gate and have no regard for the welfare of others.


No on both


----------



## tahuyaman

FA_Q2 said:


> Because it was not legal for him to purchase it.
> 
> Following the law is NOT doing an end run around it.


It is true that Rittenhouse could not legally purchase the    rifle.


----------



## FA_Q2

tahuyaman said:


> It is true that Rittenhouse could not legally purchase the    rifle.


I feel like you have more to say than that one line.  Do you have a point with that statement or is it just an affirmation of that fact?


----------



## Flash

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, then you know more than Rittenhouse, because he testified to the fact that he didn't render first aid to anyone.
> 
> But please continue to tell me how _I'm_ the clueless one, you ignorant bitch...
> 
> 
> 
> If he could own it legally, why didn't he purchase it? Why was it not registered in his name?
> 
> That gun purchase was made with the intent to do an end around on the law. Rittenhouse and Black both knew a gun retailer would never have sold the gun to Rittenhouse...




You are confused.

Kyle testified that he did render first aid to two people.  It was minor but first aid nevertheless.  He offered first aid to anybody that wanted it.  We have videos of him asking.

The law in Wisconsin (like here in Florida and a few other states) says that someone his age could not buy an AR.  However, he could possesses it.  That is why the charge was dropped.  It was illegal for Dominic Black to do a straw purchase for Kyle and he will have to answer for that but it was not illegal for Kyle to have the weapon in his possession.

The retailer did not sell the rifle to Kyle.  He sold it to Dominic Black so he has no liability.    On the form that Black filled out for the background check it asked the question if it was a straw purchase and if it was then Black would not have been able to buy the rifle.

Black was helping out a friend and he got fucked.

My nephew wanted an AR when he was 16.   I built one for him and let him shoot it when he was 16 and 17.   However, I didn't give him until he was 18.  He could have legally possessed it at 17 but it would have been illegal for me to have transfered it to him.  He would have been legal and I would have been illegal.


----------



## tahuyaman

FA_Q2 said:


> I feel like you have more to say than that one line.  Do you have a point with that statement or is it just an affirmation of that fact?


It was the verification of a fact.  I’ve made many substantive comments in this thread.    You can easily review them if you choose


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> The law in Wisconsin (like here in Florida and a few other states) says that someone his age could not buy an AR.  However, he could possesses it….


He could under certain conditions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Rigby5 said:


> Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.
> And those who would try to prevent destruction over a valid political protest then would be criminal.
> 
> Again, only a criminal would have tried to stop the Boston Tea Party.


God you are crazy rioting and destruction of other peoples property is never justified.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Rigby5 said:


> Burning and destroying property is the correct thing to do if the political message needs to be strong enough, such as over a murder by police.
> And those who would try to prevent destruction over a valid political protest then would be criminal.
> 
> Again, only a criminal would have tried to stop the Boston Tea Party.


And doing so is a declaration of war, so be prepared for the consequences.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> You are confused.
> 
> Kyle testified that he did render first aid to two people.  It was minor but first aid nevertheless.  He offered first aid to anybody that wanted it.  We have videos of him asking.
> 
> The law in Wisconsin (like here in Florida and a few other states) says that someone his age could not buy an AR.  However, he could possesses it.  That is why the charge was dropped.  It was illegal for Dominic Black to do a straw purchase for Kyle and he will have to answer for that but it was not illegal for Kyle to have the weapon in his possession.
> 
> The retailer did not sell the rifle to Kyle.  He sold it to Dominic Black so he has no liability.    On the form that Black filled out for the background check it asked the question if it was a straw purchase and if it was then Black would not have been able to buy the rifle.
> 
> Black was helping out a friend and he got fucked.
> 
> My nephew wanted an AR when he was 16.   I built one for him and let him shoot it when he was 16 and 17.   However, I didn't give him until he was 18.  He could have legally possessed it at 17 but it would have been illegal for me to have transfered it to him.  He would have been legal and I would have been illegal.


So, Black lied.


----------



## Faun

Indeependent said:


> You are carrying a rifle in one hand and a medical kit in the other hand.
> In what position do you maintain the rifle?


The medical kit wasn't in his other hand. It was attached to a strap that went across his body.


----------



## Faun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not  in in defense of self NO and that's what he did.


Self defense of what? He was being chased. Being chased by an unarmed man is a threat to someone's life invoking lethal force to prevent?


----------



## JohnDB

tahuyaman said:


> So, Black lied.


That's because he doesn't have Kyle's attorney. 
And Kyle's attorney has stated during the trial as to why...he has every reason to lie and none to tell the truth except loyalty...which he has demonstrated that he doesn't own. 

And that has to be bugging Kyle as well. 

Kyle has demonstrated that he is extremely loyal. Also extreme honesty. 
(Which has been used against him) 

Now where he isn't exactly the most brightest bulb on the tree...those two qualities alone more than make up for it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Faun said:


> Self defense of what? He was being chased. Being chased by an unarmed man is a threat to someone's life invoking lethal force to prevent?


More people are killed every year by fists then rifles.  FBI report: In 2019, more people were killed by hands, fists, and feet than rifles


----------



## JohnDB

Faun said:


> Self defense of what? He was being chased. Being chased by an unarmed man is a threat to someone's life invoking lethal force to prevent?


Yes...by law. 

And every woman (there's a ton of them) and police officer who has owned a gun is entitled to that exact defense as well.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Resnic said:


> I can vouch for that.
> 
> By the time I was 12 I owned 2 pistols, 1 shotgun, and 3 rifles my grandparents and uncle had gotten me. I kept them in my closet as a kid. When I was 5 or 6 I got a pellet gun before that and that's what I learned on.
> 
> Of course I also drove to school when I was 12 in middle school, I wasn't a typical kid.


Knowing how use a gun is a good skill to have---think its need is about to become more and more apparent.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Flash said:


> The Judge is waiting for a verdict before he determines if it is a mistrial?  That ain't right.  He should declare it now.


Nope...he should wait.   The Judge is going to make a statement ruling...this corrupt abusive ignorant prosecutor needs to be punished and to serve as a warning to other corrupt prosecutors not to play the games that he has.   They are going to be teaching law classes on this trial for decades to come----the Judge's name will never be forgotten in the legal community.  The prosecutor is likely to get censure or disbarred.   

If the judge waits, even if the jury comes back with a verdict against Kyle---it will be tossed.  Any charges that they don't convict on can't be retried do to double jeopardy laws---

Biden's corrupt administration will be the next to try to destroy this good young man----Lets see if their corrupt prosecutors will try to play same games after the states prosecutor gets his just desserts.


----------



## Indeependent

tahuyaman said:


> No on both


Limousine Liberal?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Faun said:


> Self defense of what? He was being chased. Being chased by an unarmed man is a threat to someone's life invoking lethal force to prevent?


yes


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> You need to go back to grade school and relearn Civics...
> This is basic stuff every 5th grader knows all about.
> Constitutional rights can't be usurped by anyone at anytime...not even the president.


So every curfew ever imposed was illegal?  What about capacity limits imposed by the fire Marshall...are those unconstitutional? 
All of the restrictions on gatherings last year...were those illegal?  Let me guess... you know more than all of the legal scholars who's said they were legal..right?   


JohnDB said:


> If they are then there's a remedy for that...and it doesn't go well for the person who violated another person's rights.  Just like the prosecuting attorney is in a LOT of hot water over the drone footage... regardless of the outcome of the trial. He violated Kyle's rights several times and in several ways. He has hell to pay when convicted for doing it.



riiiight.


----------



## Resnic

Turtlesoup said:


> Knowing how use a gun is a good skill to have---think its need is about to become more and more apparent.



I grew up around my grandparents, parents and uncle. They all seemed to think anything dangerous was something I needed to be exposed to early in a safe way.

Guns, a car, alcohol, R rated movies and so on. I was exposed to all of that by age 10. They never treated me as a child even when I was one. That's why I never grew up to be irresponsible.

Especially my uncle. When I was 10 he would let me drink beer, I never actually finished one till I was 20 or so and it was never a big deal to me and I never snuck out to get one. Of course when I was 13 or 14 we watched a movie with a flamethrower and I said I wish I had one and his response was "ok let's build one" so we planned it out, he told me about the operation and physics and presto, I had one.

Here is a pic his girlfriend took when I first test fired it.


----------



## Faun

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> yes


Bullshit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Faun said:


> Being chased by an unarmed man is a threat to someone's life invoking lethal force to prevent?



Sometimes.


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> So, Black lied.




Yep, on the 4473 form.  That is why Black has been indicted.

a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? *Warning:  You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. * *If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.*  Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired
firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21b.


By the way, that asshole GG who got shot in the arm for pointing that Glock at Kyle should be indicted because he was illegally carrying a firearm with a revoked CWP.

Of course the Democrat DA didn't indict him.  Why?


----------



## Flash

Turtlesoup said:


> Nope...he should wait.   The Judge is going to make a statement ruling...this corrupt abusive ignorant prosecutor needs to be punished and to serve as a warning to other corrupt prosecutors not to play the games that he has.   They are going to be teaching law classes on this trial for decades to come----the Judge's name will never be forgotten in the legal community.  The prosecutor is likely to get censure or disbarred.
> 
> If the judge waits, even if the jury comes back with a verdict against Kyle---it will be tossed.  Any charges that they don't convict on can't be retried do to double jeopardy laws---
> 
> Biden's corrupt administration will be the next to try to destroy this good young man----Lets see if their corrupt prosecutors will try to play same games after the states prosecutor gets his just desserts.


What Federal crime can Kyle be charged with?

It would be one hellva stretch to say that it was a "hate crime" or any of the other bullshit stuff the filthy Feds have on the books.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Faun said:


> Bullshit.


So some big brolic 240 pound beefcake is chasing a 90 pound woman down an alleyway, she has nothing to worry about?  Nothing life-threatening about that?  No right to use deadly force?

I will just sit over here im my easy chair and enjoy being right.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> So every curfew ever imposed was illegal?  What about capacity limits imposed by the fire Marshall...are those unconstitutional?
> All of the restrictions on gatherings last year...were those illegal?  Let me guess... you know more than all of the legal scholars who's said they were legal..right?
> 
> 
> riiiight.


Almost every argument you made is a red herring...

Curfews are not illegal. 
When there's a curfew it means you can't go to the park or streets for a stroll. 

You are permitted to go to the pharmacy or grocery store if they remain open. 
You always have a right to stay in any residence you are invited into. Such as the case was for Kyle. 

Which is why those charges of curfew violation were dropped... Kyle was at a residence by invitation. 

The rioters were guilty of curfew, vandalism, and trespassing.


----------



## Flash

Resnic said:


> I grew up around my grandparents, parents and uncle. They all seemed to think anything dangerous was something I needed to be exposed to early in a safe way.
> 
> Guns, a car, alcohol, R rated movies and so on. I was exposed to all of that by age 10. They never treated me as a child even when I was one. That's why I never grew up to be irresponsible.
> 
> Especially my uncle. When I was 10 he would let me drink beer, I never actually finished one till I was 20 or so and it was never a big deal to me and I never snuck out to get one. Of course when I was 13 or 14 we watched a movie with a flamethrower and I said I wish I had one and his response was "ok let's build one" so we planned it out, he told me about the operation and physics and presto, I had one.
> 
> Here is a pic his girlfriend took when I first test fired it.


I taught my sons to shoot at an early age and gun safety.  They are very responsible gun owners now.

I kept all the firearms locked up when they lived at home.  Not because I was afraid they would do something stupid but I was afraid their friends would.


----------



## Flash

JohnDB said:


> Almost every argument you made is a red herring...
> 
> Curfews are not illegal.
> When there's a curfew it means you can't go to the park or streets for a stroll.
> 
> You are permitted to go to the pharmacy or grocery store if they remain open.
> You always have a right to stay in any residence you are invited into. Such as the case was for Kyle.
> 
> Which is why those charges of curfew violation were dropped... Kyle was at a residence by invitation.
> 
> The rioters were guilty of curfew, vandalism, and trespassing.




The street crewfew in Kenosha was determined by a judge to be illegal.  That is why the Judge dropped the charge. 










						Citations dismissed for those who contested emergency curfew violations issued during August 2020 protests
					

Tickets for curfew violations issued during unrest in Kenosha last August have been dismissed for those who contested them in court, a judge finding they were improperly prosecuted.




					www.kenoshanews.com
				




Tickets for curfew violations issued during unrest in Kenosha last August have been dismissed for those who contested them in court, *a judge finding they were improperly prosecuted.*

Kenosha Circuit Court Judge Jason Rossell on Friday dismissed tickets issued to about two dozen people. He had in July dismissed tickets for three others who were contesting the tickets issued for curfew violations during protests and unrest following the shooting of Jacob Blake by a Kenosha Police officer on Aug. 23, 2020.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, 94 people were arrested for violating the curfew that Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth declared from Aug. 23 through Sept. 2. Many of those ticketed spent more than a day in jail after they were arrested. While some of those ticketed likely paid the $200 fine or failed to show up to court, others have contested the arrests.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Resnic said:


> I grew up around my grandparents, parents and uncle. They all seemed to think anything dangerous was something I needed to be exposed to early in a safe way.
> 
> Guns, a car, alcohol, R rated movies and so on. I was exposed to all of that by age 10. They never treated me as a child even when I was one. That's why I never grew up to be irresponsible.
> 
> Especially my uncle. When I was 10 he would let me drink beer, I never actually finished one till I was 20 or so and it was never a big deal to me and I never snuck out to get one. Of course when I was 13 or 14 we watched a movie with a flamethrower and I said I wish I had one and his response was "ok let's build one" so we planned it out, he told me about the operation and physics and presto, I had one.
> 
> Here is a pic his girlfriend took when I first test fired it.





Flash said:


> What Federal crime can Kyle be charged with?
> 
> It would be one hellva stretch to say that it was a "hate crime" or any of the other bullshit stuff the filthy Feds have on the books.


In a normal world, I would have no fear of Kyle being set free and left alone by the feds....but the world has become a crazy place over the last decade or two.  It's not about what Kyle can legally and rightfully be charged with---its about how bad do the globalists and the swamp want to destroy this boy because he is a reminder that at one time America's young men strived to do the right things and protect other innocent people from the bad guys---They can't have that when they are trying to break down the US morally and every other way imaginable.


----------



## Flash




----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Flash said:


> I taught my sons to shoot at an early age and gun safety.  They are very responsible gun owners now.
> 
> I kept all the firearms locked up when they lived at home.  Not because I was afraid they would do something stupid but I was afraid their friends would.


I did the same.  I showed my children at a very young age what damage a firearm can do, and they don't fear them, but respect them.

My 18-year-old daughter is an expert.  Insane amount of trigger and muzzle discipline.  She would have mowed down the Kenosha mob, field stripped the rifle in less than a minute, and got back to the business of death without missing a beat.

Also, she has a passion for cars.  Just the other day, she changed the pads and rotors on the sedan....like a pro.  And she ain't no Tom Boy either.

Sorry.  I have to brag on my kids when opportunity knocks.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Resnic said:


> I grew up around my grandparents, parents and uncle. They all seemed to think anything dangerous was something I needed to be exposed to early in a safe way.
> 
> Guns, a car, alcohol, R rated movies and so on. I was exposed to all of that by age 10. They never treated me as a child even when I was one. That's why I never grew up to be irresponsible.
> 
> Especially my uncle. When I was 10 he would let me drink beer, I never actually finished one till I was 20 or so and it was never a big deal to me and I never snuck out to get one. Of course when I was 13 or 14 we watched a movie with a flamethrower and I said I wish I had one and his response was "ok let's build one" so we planned it out, he told me about the operation and physics and presto, I had one.
> 
> Here is a pic his girlfriend took when I first test fired it.


Your uncle sounds like he was a very interesting and handy man to have around.    We grew up much the same way minus the flame thrower of course---


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

candycorn said:


> So every curfew ever imposed was illegal?


Unless under Marshal Law, yes.


candycorn said:


> What about capacity limits imposed by the fire Marshall...are those unconstitutional?


No, because the people asked the government for fire protection.  The government gets to set the rules.

Moral of the story:  DON'T ASK GOVERNMENT FOR ANYTHING


----------



## tahuyaman

Faun said:


> The medical kit wasn't in his other hand. It was attached to a strap that went across his body.


Correct.  He was carrying a rifle in a ready position while engaged in a violent riot. That’s a provocative act.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Penelope said:


> Everybody had the right to take down an active shooter, and he was.


He was not,

An active shooter is not one who strictly fires in self defense


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Unless under Marshal Law, yes.
> 
> No, because the people asked the government for fire protection.  The government gets to set the rules.
> 
> Moral of the story:  DON'T ASK GOVERNMENT FOR ANYTHING


Marshall law is not a requirement for a city to establish a curfew.


----------



## Penelope

Soupnazi630 said:


> He was not,
> 
> An active shooter is not one who strictly fires in self defense


If anything he was not in defense of anything. Neither the guys was shot carried a gun.


----------



## tahuyaman

Soupnazi630 said:


> He was not,
> 
> An active shooter is not one who strictly fires in self defense


An active shooter is someone who is actively shooting a firearm


----------



## DrLove

22lcidw said:


> What the ph uk do you care? This kid would protect you before any of the ones who died and injured would.


He might try to protect me, but he'd probably blow my arm off by accident in the process.


----------



## Soupnazi630

Penelope said:


> If anything he was not in defense of anything. Neither the guys was shot carried a gun.


Wrong.

HE was in defense of himself and only fired on those who were attacking him.

That is not an active shooter.


----------



## tahuyaman

tahuyaman said:


> Correct.  He was carrying a rifle in a ready position while engaged in a violent riot. That’s a provocative act.


I’m not sure why some think that’s funny.


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> An active shooter is someone who is actively shooting a firearm


No it is not. By that stupid logic anyone on a gun range can be violently taken down


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> I’m not sure why some think that’s funny.


Because it is bullshit and nothing more than a lie to justify rioters attacking ANYONE


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Yep, on the 4473 form.  That is why Black has been indicted.
> 
> a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)? *Warning:  You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. * *If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.*  Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired
> firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21b.
> 
> 
> By the way, that asshole GG who got shot in the arm for pointing that Glock at Kyle should be indicted because he was illegally carrying a firearm with a revoked CWP.
> 
> Of course the Democrat DA didn't indict him.  Why?


It’s odd how some people post comments as if “Kyle” is their best friend.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> I’m not sure why some think that’s funny.


then the problem is in you,,


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> It’s odd how some people post comments as if “Kyle” is their best friend.


thats your perception,,


----------



## tahuyaman

Soupnazi630 said:


> No it is not. By that stupid logic anyone on a gun range can be violently taken down


So it’s your view that someone actively shooting a firearm is not an active shooter?   Is he then an inactive shooter?


----------



## tahuyaman

Soupnazi630 said:


> Because it is bullshit and nothing more than a lie to justify rioters attacking ANYONE


Where did I lie?  Lease be specific.


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> So it’s your view that someone actively shooting a firearm is not an active shooter?   Is he then an inactive shooter?


Active shooter is a recent term used to describe people commiting mass murder usually in a random manner.

It is not my view

It does not describe ANYONE shooting a firearm


----------



## Correll

Flash said:


> View attachment 565691




Ah, Men. We are not complex creatures.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> So it’s your view that someone actively shooting a firearm is not an active shooter?   Is he then an inactive shooter?


he wasnt actively shooting a firearm,,


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> thats your perception,,


It’s an accurate observation.


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> Where did I lie?  Lease be specific.


Calling him an active shooter.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> It’s an accurate observation.


only in your mind,,


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> It’s an accurate observation.


No it is an idiotic lie


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> Like I said. She did a very dumb thing, but it didn’t justify killing her.   She wasn’t posing a deadly threat.


How did the cops know that? The reason they had their guns drawn was that these apes were literally within feet of Mike Pence and everyone else.


----------



## tahuyaman

Soupnazi630 said:


> No it is an idiotic lie


How so?  Do you have anything other than insults?


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> It’s odd how some people post comments as if “Kyle” is their best friend.


Just easier than typing out his last name.

I wouldn't mind having Kyle as a friend.  He is a great American hero.

Even though I am a Veteran, Firearms Instructor and Range Officer Kyle could teach me some combat skills.  He performed magnificently under stress.   He tried to evade conflict, only engaged the direct threats and disengaged without any additional casualties.


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> How did the cops know that? The reason they had their guns drawn was that these apes were literally within feet of Mike Pence and everyone else.


They were not “within feet” of anyone.


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> How so?  Do you have anything other than insults?


I posted no insults and your question has been answered


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Just easier than typing out his last name.
> 
> I wouldn't mind having Kyle as a friend.  He is a great American hero.
> 
> Even though I am a Veteran, Firearms Instructor and Range Officer Kyle could teach me some combat skills.  He performed magnificently under stress.   He tried to evade conflict, only engaged the direct threats and disengaged without any additional casualties.


Lol.


----------



## tahuyaman

Soupnazi630 said:


> I posted no insults and your question has been answered


I didn’t ask a question. I made an observation and you responded with an insult.


----------



## DrLove

Scottish_Brexiteer_UK said:


> He is innocent.
> 
> Give me some examples of these indications that the judge has said he's innocent?
> 
> The judge has pulled up (and shouted at) these amateur-hour prosecutors for their lies and bullshit throughout - which is a different thing.
> 
> The picture still proves nothing. I see nothing unusual in it. He's talking with the accused and his defense - inside the court - is that really such a big deal? if so, feel free to show me a rule that says that's not allowed.



Not appropriate for the judge to be seated that close to the defendant. The defense attorney is supposed to approach the bench if he'd like to chat.


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> I didn’t ask a question. I made an observation and you responded with an insult.


That is yet another lie as I posted no such thing.


----------



## Resnic

Turtlesoup said:


> Your uncle sounds like he was a very interesting and handy man to have around.    We grew up much the same way minus the flame thrower of course---



He was an old school marine recon turned US marshall. He wasn't my real uncle, just my dad's best friend but he treated me like I was his son and he was more of a dad than my own. One of the few people I loved in this world. I grew up to be a strong person and responsible because of him and my grandma, that old lady is sweet as can be but she is tougher than a coffin nail.

Anyway enough of my topic derailment posts here.


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> They were not “within feet” of anyone.


That isn't correct my friend. 

In our first view of Babbitt on the video she’s at the front of an angry mob trying to get through to the “Speaker’s Lobby,” where members of Congress and staff are holed up. She’s screaming at the police, apparently demanding entry.​​The crowd is surging. It’s at the doors. “F— the blue!” can be heard. People are bashing at the glass panels on the doors with sticks and flagpoles. Several police officers are doing their best to hold back an entire crowd, but it seems like a losing battle. “Break it down,” yells the crowd.​​*Members of Congress can be seen on the other side of the door. Also on the other side of the door is a police lieutenant holding a gun, pointing it at the mob, an unmistakable warning to stay back.*​​But Babbit decides instead — although it’s a little hard to see on the video — to climb through the shattered glass window into the Speaker’s Lobby, past the police barricade, toward the pointed gun. If she is allowed through, it seems inevitable that the mob will follow​








						Column: Ashli Babbitt was not a peaceful protester. It’s clear why the cop who shot her was exonerated
					

A look back at the video of the Jan. 6 riot helps explain why the Capitol Police  decided the shooting was “lawful”




					www.latimes.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Penelope said:


> If anything he was not in defense of anything. Neither the guys was shot carried a gun.



No one is a threat unless they carry a gun?


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> That isn't correct my friend.
> 
> In our first view of Babbitt on the video she’s at the front of an angry mob trying to get through to the “Speaker’s Lobby,” where members of Congress and staff are holed up. She’s screaming at the police, apparently demanding entry.​​The crowd is surging. It’s at the doors. “F— the blue!” can be heard. People are bashing at the glass panels on the doors with sticks and flagpoles. Several police officers are doing their best to hold back an entire crowd, but it seems like a losing battle. “Break it down,” yells the crowd.​​*Members of Congress can be seen on the other side of the door. Also on the other side of the door is a police lieutenant holding a gun, pointing it at the mob, an unmistakable warning to stay back.*​​But Babbit decides instead — although it’s a little hard to see on the video — to climb through the shattered glass window into the Speaker’s Lobby, past the police barricade, toward the pointed gun. If she is allowed through, it seems inevitable that the mob will follow​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Column: Ashli Babbitt was not a peaceful protester. It’s clear why the cop who shot her was exonerated
> 
> 
> A look back at the video of the Jan. 6 riot helps explain why the Capitol Police  decided the shooting was “lawful”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com


People were evacuated safely before anyone got anywhere close.   You’re biting into the AOC lie


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> Not appropriate for the judge to be seated that close to the defendant. The defense attorney is supposed to approach the bench if he'd like to chat.



They were watching video. The prosecutor was to the right of the judge. So what?


----------



## tahuyaman

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That is yet another lie as I posted no such thing.


Wrong again.


----------



## FA_Q2

tahuyaman said:


> It was the verification of a fact.  I’ve made many substantive comments in this thread.    You can easily review them if you choose


Just looking for clarification.  Unfortunately this is a merged thread and I have not the time to go back through 60 pages of posts lol.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> Wrong again.








Why are you misquoting me?


----------



## tahuyaman

DrLove said:


> Not appropriate for the judge to be seated that close to the defendant. The defense attorney is supposed to approach the bench if he'd like to chat.


You are making an issue of nothing on this one.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> How so?  Do you have anything other than insults?




In every instance, he was not "actively" trying to shot people, he was "actively" trying to get away, only shooting when forced to.


What happened with bicep man is a good example. He approached Rittenhouse, and Rittenhouse pointed his gun at the gun. Bicep raised his hands to show they were empty and he was not attacking. 


Rittenhouse looked away for a second, and bicep man pulled his gun and aimed it at Rittenhouse.

AT THAT POINT, Rittenhouse then fired, hitting him in hte arm.


An active shooter, would not have NOT shot him, because he raised his empty hands. 


Every shot fired, has a story like that.


----------



## tahuyaman

FA_Q2 said:


> Just looking for clarification.  Unfortunately this is a merged thread and I have not the time to go back through 60 pages of posts lol.


Then don’t make accusations you can’t or won’t support.


----------



## tahuyaman

Toddsterpatriot said:


> View attachment 565707
> 
> Why are you misquoting me?


Where did I misquote you?


----------



## tahuyaman

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were watching video. The prosecutor was to the right of the judge. So what?


There was nothing improper there.


----------



## FA_Q2

tahuyaman said:


> Then don’t make accusations you can’t or won’t support.


What accusation did I make?


----------



## tahuyaman

FA_Q2 said:


> What accusation did I make?


That I had not add any substantive comments


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Marshall law is not a requirement for a city to establish a curfew.


I disagree.  Just because they DO establish a curfew does not mean that it is proper.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> That I had not add any substantive comments


you havent,,


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> Where did I misquote you?







I never said, "That is yet another lie as I posted no such thing"

You should delete that post.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> There was nothing improper there.



Tell Dr Love, he thinks it was wrong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> An active shooter is someone who is actively shooting a firearm


So, if anyone uses a gun in self-defense, that person is an active shooter?

Why are we arguing about this again?


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, if anyone uses a gun in self-defense, that person is an active shooter?
> 
> Why are we arguing about this again?


If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter.   Does this confuse you?  

 When I was a soldier firing my rifle in a combat situation, I was an active shooter.   When I was on the range qualifying, I was an active shooter.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter.   Does this confuse you?
> 
> When I was a soldier firing my rifle in a combat situation, I was an active shooter.   When I was on the range qualifying, I was an active shooter.


so if I am out hunting or at a shooting range I am an active shooter???

thats enough of your lies already,,


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> ….Why are we arguing about this again?


 Because you fail to grasp the concept.


----------



## FA_Q2

tahuyaman said:


> That I had not add any substantive comments


Then read it again.  I never made any such claim.  I asked a question.


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> so if I am out hunting or at a shooting range I am an active shooter???
> 
> thats enough of your lies already,,


Yes. 

if you out hunting and haven’t run across any game to shoot, you can’t be an active shooter. 

How is that a lie?

A shooter is someone firing a firearm.   An active shooter is someone actively shooting a firearm.


----------



## tahuyaman

FA_Q2 said:


> Then read it again.  I never made any such claim.  I asked a question.


Then ask again. I’ll answer.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> Yes.


then youre a fucking idiot,,


----------



## maybelooking

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, if anyone uses a gun in self-defense, that person is an active shooter?
> 
> Why are we arguing about this again?


its what people who have no facts on their side do.  

might as well argue about nonsense because the actual facts of the case that have been laid out over the past week cant be disputed.  

Kyles claims of self defense are evident.  So lets call him an "active shooter" to make the case against him somehow look stronger.

Theres not a person arguing in this thread that doesn't know that an active shooter doesn't wait until someone attacks him first to shoot them!!!  But idiots here are trying to make the case because.....well......they dont live in reality land.


----------



## FA_Q2

tahuyaman said:


> Then ask again. I’ll answer.


?

Now I am confused.  You did answer.  You said that you were just reaffirming the fact.  I was wondering if you hade quoted me and made that statement because you were alluding to a greater point.  One that very well could have been made earlier.  I would have expected what you said, that it was just affirming the point, or a reiteration/post of the point you wanted to make.  You said said the former.

Am I missing something?


----------



## JohnDB

It appears to me,
That many people are assigning "gun guilt" to Kyle. 
Meaning that by simply having possession of a firearm he is guilty of something.  

A completely automated response ingrained into people by Hollywood and particular elements of society.  

And they can't get past this. 

A gun is just a tool... nothing more or less. 
Just like a drill, hammer, or shovel. Or possibly a chef's knife. 

These things can be used as a weapon...but that's not their primary purpose. A firearm is just another tool useful for many things like self protection (like a bullet vest) and hunting and target shooting. 

You cannot ascribe "gun guilt" in a court of law just because of his possession of a firearm. Nobody is ascribing practicing medicine without a license because he offered first aide...
Same thing here.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter.   Does this confuse you?
> 
> When I was a soldier firing my rifle in a combat situation, I was an active shooter.   When I was on the range qualifying, I was an active shooter.




That is not the usage the Prosecutor or his lib allies are using. 


They are trying to use semantic games to gain control of the narrative so they can spin this to justify their rioting brownshirts attacks.


Rittenhouse was NOT an active shooter. HE was NOT hunting people to shot them. He was trying to get away, and only shooting them when they were an immediate threat to him.


----------



## tahuyaman

FA_Q2 said:


> ?
> 
> Now I am confused.  You did answer.  You said that you were just reaffirming the fact.  I was wondering if you hade quoted me and made that statement because you were alluding to a greater point.  One that very well could have been made earlier.  I would have expected what you said, that it was just affirming the point, or a reiteration/post of the point you wanted to make.  You said said the former.
> 
> Am I missing something?


Ok.  Good bye.     Run along.


----------



## FA_Q2

JohnDB said:


> It appears to me,
> That many people are assigning "gun guilt" to Kyle.
> Meaning that by simply having possession of a firearm he is guilty of something.
> 
> A completely automated response ingrained into people by Hollywood and particular elements of society.
> 
> And they can't get past this.
> 
> A gun is just a tool... nothing more or less.
> Just like a drill, hammer, or shovel. Or possibly a chef's knife.
> 
> These things can be used as a weapon...but that's not their primary purpose. A firearm is just another tool useful for many things like self protection (like a bullet vest) and hunting and target shooting.
> 
> You cannot ascribe "gun guilt" in a court of law just because of his possession of a firearm. Nobody is ascribing practicing medicine without a license because he offered first aide...
> Same thing here.


It is an effect of making a legal case peg fit into a political point hole.

The case needs to fit the proper narrative so it will be twisted to do so.  In this case, gun control and racism were the political narrative on the left and lawlessness and rioting were the narratives on the right.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter.   Does this confuse you?
> 
> When I was a soldier firing my rifle in a combat situation, I was an active shooter.   When I was on the range qualifying, I was an active shooter.


LOL according to you then even though in self defense others can attack you because you as you claim are an active shooter.


----------



## FA_Q2

tahuyaman said:


> Ok.  Good bye.     Run along.


Man, you are a complete asshat.  I was not actually expecting that.  Unfortunate.


----------



## tahuyaman

Correll said:


> That is not the usage the Prosecutor or his lib allies are using.
> 
> 
> They are trying to use semantic games to gain control of the narrative so they can spin this to justify their rioting brownshirts attacks.
> 
> 
> Rittenhouse was NOT an active shooter. HE was NOT hunting people to shot them. He was trying to get away, and only shooting them when they were an immediate threat to him.


It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter.   Does this confuse you?


Why would you so terribly mis-apply this term?

FBI:
An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area,








						Active Shooter Safety Resources | Federal Bureau of Investigation
					

This is the FBI's one-stop shopping webpage for information pertaining to active shooting incidents. The Bureau continues its commitment to working with its partners to protect schools, workplaces, houses of worship, transportation centers, other public gathering sites, and communities from...




					www.fbi.gov
				




DHS:
An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in 
a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victim


			https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf
		


USDOJ
One or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a 
populated area


			https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdpa/page/file/1272096/download


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.


Please provide the rational basis for your claim of intent.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL according to you then even though in self defense others can attack you because you as you claim are an active shooter.


If one is actively shooting a firearm they an active shooter.  

Jeebus, what’s the problem here?


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.


then why did he wait until he was attacked and then stopped once the attacks stopped??


----------



## tahuyaman

So an active shooter is not someone who is actively shooting a firearm?   How can that be possible?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.


Reading minds now? Perhaps you can explain why he only shot those directly attacking him?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> If one is actively shooting a firearm they an active shooter.
> 
> Jeebus, what’s the problem here?


It has no meaning then and should not be used in court since according to YOUR definition no matter the reason it is applied.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> So an active shooter is not someone who is actively shooting a firearm?   How can that be possible?


here let me google that for you,,,









						Active shooter - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Resnic

FA_Q2 said:


> Man, you are a complete asshat.  I was not actually expecting that.  Unfortunate.



Don't bother. I've seen his overwhelming amount of constant responses in this thread. Each one changes based on what he is replying to. Side step, double down, statements made change every 3 or 4 pages, or just completely dismissive. His goal is to be right in each scenario with no room for discussion, it's all just point blank "I am right and you are wrong", there is no discussion, it's like just a game to win to him and very little is backed up by facts, it's all opinion based.


----------



## Godboy

tahuyaman said:


> If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter.   Does this confuse you?
> 
> When I was a soldier firing my rifle in a combat situation, I was an active shooter.   When I was on the range qualifying, I was an active shooter.


That is incorrect. Im not sure where you got that idea from. Are you thinking it is defined by the literal words "active" and "shooter"? Its not. 


*Active shooter*_ or *active killer* describes the perpetrator of a type of mass murder marked by rapidity, scale, randomness, and often suicide. The United States Department of Homeland Security defines an active shooter as "an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims."









						Active shooter - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



_


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> then why did he wait until he was attacked and then stopped once the attacks stopped??


I don’t get why supposed rational Adults think it was OK for a teenager to arm himself and become engaged in a violent riot.      I think these people are motivated by something they don’t want to expose


----------



## Godboy

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.


Then why did he run before shooting anyone? Why did he try to run EVERY SINGLE TIME before he shot anyone?


----------



## Godboy

tahuyaman said:


> I don’t get why supposed rational Adults think it was OK for a teenager to arm himself and become engaged in a violent riot.      I think these people are motivated by something they don’t want to expose


I dont understand why you would be more angry at a kid with a gun defending himself, than you are at the adult rioter with a gun who is attacking him.


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They were watching video. The prosecutor was to the right of the judge. So what?


No, that is the defense attorney seated on the right.
JEEEsus ... His name is Mark Richards - Dude on the right in both these shots.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter. Does this confuse you?


So, running down the street, looking for the cops is NOT shooting, right?

Is that confusing?



tahuyaman said:


> When I was a soldier firing my rifle in a combat situation, I was an active shooter. When I was on the range qualifying, I was an active shooter.


But, when you were on patrol, with your firearm slung, you were NOT an active shooter.

What exactly are you trying to argue here?

He was not an active shooter when the 3 amigos attacked him.


----------



## tahuyaman

FA_Q2 said:


> Man, you are a complete asshat.  I was not actually expecting that.  Unfortunate.


So. You have nothing to refute anything but childish insults.  Got it.


----------



## DrLove

tahuyaman said:


> People were evacuated safely before anyone got anywhere close.   You’re biting into the AOC lie



Nope, they were visible THROUGH THE WINDOW when Ashli tried to call through busted out glass.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, running down the street, looking for the cops is NOT shooting, right?
> 
> Is that confusing?
> 
> 
> But, when you were on patrol, with your firearm slung, you were NOT an active shooter.


This situation has made formerly rational people lose their mind.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

tahuyaman said:


> So an active shooter is not someone who is actively shooting a firearm?   How can that be possible?


According to the ten debunked lies,  calling Rittenhouse an active shooter is one of them.








						10 heinous lies about Kyle Rittenhouse debunked: Devine
					

Of all the willful lies and omissions in the media’s coverage of the Steele dossier, Brian Sicknick, the Covington kids, Jussie Smollett, the Wuhan lab, Hunter Biden’s laptop and so on, nothing bea…




					nypost.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> So. You have nothing to refute anything but childish insults.  Got it.


Meanwhile you were given the  legal definition of active shooter, gonna admit you were wrong now?


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.




He ran first. not until he heard shots behind him, did he turn and defend himself. 


Then he ran again.  And then again.


Again and again, he ran first and only shot when under immediate threat.


His actual ACTIONS conflict with what you think his intent was.


Even IF you were right about his INTENT, his actual ACTIONS, when shit got real, was NOT that. 


And to be clear, I think his intent was, that a group of armed citizens standing between the rioters and their targets, would DETER violence.

And, his actual actions, FITS with that.


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> then youre a fucking idiot,,


You’re a sperm gurgling Twink.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> If one is actively shooting a firearm they an active shooter.


So, at the time one of the rioters "craniumed" Kyle with a rock while Kyle was running to the police, Kyle was NOT actively shooting, and was therefore NOT an active shooter, so they cannot claim they were after an "active shooter" when Rock guy hit him in the head and knocked him to the ground.  Jump-Kick man cannot claim he was an active shooter.  He only became an active shooter WHEN ATTACKED.

RIGHT?


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> I don’t get why supposed rational Adults think it was OK for a teenager to arm himself and become engaged in a violent riot.      I think these people are motivated by something they don’t want to expose


when the elected officials, cops and the adults refuse its left for the children to do,,


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> You’re a sperm gurgling Twink.


ouch,,,


----------



## tahuyaman

Correll said:


> He ran first. not until he heard shots behind him, did he turn and defend himself.
> 
> 
> Then he ran again.  And then again.
> 
> 
> Again and again, he ran first and only shot when under immediate threat.
> 
> 
> His actual ACTIONS conflict with what you think his intent was.
> 
> 
> Even IF you were right about his INTENT, his actual ACTIONS, when shit got real, was NOT that.
> 
> 
> And to be clear, I think his intent was, that a group of armed citizens standing between the rioters and their targets, would DETER violence.
> 
> And, his actual actions, FITS with that.


He inserted himself  into this riot with the intent of engaging someone with the firearm he acquired illegally.   Period.


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> So an active shooter is not someone who is actively shooting a firearm?   How can that be possible?


See post #1451.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> He inserted himself  into this riot with the intent of engaging someone with the firearm he acquired illegally.   Period.


wrong,,,


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> He inserted himself  into this riot with the intent of engaging someone with the firearm he acquired illegally.   Period.


Please demonstrate this intent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> He inserted himself  into this riot with the intent of engaging someone with the firearm he acquired illegally.   Period.


Gonna just ignore the fact you are wrong?


----------



## JohnDB

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.


There's absolutely no evidence of that. In fact everything about him demonstrated the exact opposite.


----------



## tahuyaman

M14 Shooter said:


> See post #1451.


So you think to be an active shooter one must be in the process of committing murder?  That’s idiotic.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gonna just ignore the fact you are wrong?


How am I wrong?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> This situation has made formerly rational people lose their mind.


What is that supposed to mean?

They attacked a guy who was fleeing.  PERIOD.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> He inserted himself  into this riot with the intent of engaging someone with the firearm he acquired illegally.   Period.




Umm, that is not supported by his actions. He did not "engage" when given the chance. He ran. He ran until he heard shooting behind him.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> So you think to be an active shooter one must be in the process of committing murder?  That’s idiotic.











						Active shooter - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> So you think to be an active shooter one must be in the process of committing murder?  That’s idiotic.


That is the LEGAL definition as submitted by the FBI.


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> So you think to be an active shooter one must be in the process of committing murder?  That’s idiotic.


You disagree with the FBI DHS and USDOJ.
You choose to be wrong.


----------



## tahuyaman

JohnDB said:


> There's absolutely no evidence of that. In fact everything about him demonstrated the exact opposite.


You guys have let your emotions guide your view.   You are so angry at the rioters that your judgement has been  sucked from your brain.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> How am I wrong?


Do you read the thread? 2 legal definitions of active shooter were provided and linked.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> He inserted himself into this riot


Irrelevant to his self-defense privilege.


tahuyaman said:


> with the intent of engaging someone


No evidence presented of his intent.   In fact, THE EXACT OPPOSITE was presented, where he gave his body armor to another person because "I won't need it."  That shows NO INTENT


tahuyaman said:


> with the firearm he acquired illegally. Period.


WRONG  

He was LEGALLY in possession of a firearm.  It was not a short-barrel rifle.  That charge should not have been brought.

PERIOD


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> You guys have let your emotions guide your view.   You are so angry at the rioters that your judgement has been  sucked from your brain.




If your usages of the term is the correct one, how would ANYONE ever be able to legally defend themselves?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.



Why do you feel that?


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> You guys have let your emotions guide your view.   You are so angry at the rioters that your judgement has been  sucked from your brain.


are you stomping your feet when youre saying that??


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> How am I wrong?


You seem to be focusing on the fact that he was at the "mostly peaceful protest" and that act alone makes him guilty of everything.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> That is the LEGAL definition as submitted by the FBI.


So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?      

The FBI is possibly one of the most corrupt and incompetently run agencies of Government today.


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> are you stomping your feet when youre saying that??


No.  I’m shaking my head.


----------



## JohnDB

tahuyaman said:


> You guys have let your emotions guide your view.   You are so angry at the rioters that your judgement has been  sucked from your brain.


No...
Not even. 
I simply don't hold a "gun man bad" ideology. 

I don't care about the rioters...they were a result of caloussness of left wing politics with encouragement by foreign interests in social media.   

Those who rioted are nothing more than tools used by others. I hold animosity towards their puppet masters...but the rioters themselves I have no feelings about whatsoever.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And doing so is a declaration of war, so be prepared for the consequences.


Actually it's not a declaration of war, dumbass.  A crime, yes.  And yet another thinly veiled threat from you.  You're just itching to shoot a lefty, arent you?


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?
> 
> The FBI is possibly one of the most corrupt and incompetently run agencies of Government today.


its more accurate than you calling a deer hunter an active shooter,,


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You seem to be focusing on the fact that he was at the "mostly peaceful protest" and that act alone makes him guilty of everything.


Did that seem like a smart comment while you were typing it?    It certainly isn’t now.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?
> 
> The FBI is possibly one of the most corrupt and incompetently run agencies of Government today.


LOL cant admit when you are wrong I see.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?
> 
> The FBI is possibly one of the most corrupt and incompetently run agencies of Government today.


I agree that the FBI is corrupt, but you have not been clear on what constitutes an active shooter. 

You have done this mainly because you are mad that Kyle armed himself.  PERIOD.

Admit it.  You're mad that he had a gun to protect himself.  Just get it off your chest.  You are mad that he used a gun to save his life.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> No.  I’m shaking my head.


then stop,, the little birdies dont like you shaking their cage,,


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?


Yes.
Why do you choose to be wrong?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Did that seem like a smart comment while you were typing it?    It certainly isn’t now.


What?  That you are INCORRECTLY focusing on the fact that Kyle was at the "mostly peaceful protest" and for that reason, you think he should be guilty of MURDER?


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?
> 
> The FBI is possibly one of the most corrupt and incompetently run agencies of Government today.


Kyle shot in self defense.

If anybody the "active shooter" was the protester that fired the first shots that started this shit.


----------



## tahuyaman

M14 Shooter said:


> You disagree with the FBI DHS and USDOJ.
> You choose to be wrong.


 Because they are always right.     If they say someone actively shooting a firearm is not active shooter, they are obviously wrong.    

Now, there are different types of active shooters.  I gues dumb-asses can’t figure that out.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

M14 Shooter said:


> Yes.
> Why do you choose to be wrong?


He is choosing to be wrong SOLELY because he is angry that Kyle used a firearm to defend himself.  THAT IS ALL.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?
> 
> The FBI is possibly one of the most corrupt and incompetently run agencies of Government today.




I suspect that definition is not new. But yes, the fbi has been doing a shit job for a while now.


Burt this time, they have it right. An "Active shooter" is NOT just anyone doing any shooting.


If Rittenhouse was an "Active Shooter" he would not have held his fire when bicep man first held up his hands.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> I don’t get why supposed rational Adults think it was OK for a teenager to arm himself and become engaged in a violent riot.



I don’t get why supposed rational Adults think it was OK for a teenager to be attacked by violent felons. Or why they think he shouldn't defend himself when he's attacked.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> Kyle shot in self defense.
> 
> If anybody the "active shooter" was the protester that fired the first shots that started this shit.


He also provoked a confrontation.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> Because they are always right.     If they say someone actively shooting a firearm is not active shooter, they are obviously wrong.
> 
> Now, there are different types of active shooters.  I gues dumb-asses can’t figure that out.




The Prosecutor and his lib allies are using the term, INCORRECTLY to try to confuse the issue.


They are doing that, because they know that Rittenhouse was legally defending himself, but they still want him to go to jail.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Because they are always right.     If they say someone actively shooting a firearm is not active shooter, they are obviously wrong.
> 
> Now, there are different types of active shooters.  I gues dumb-asses can’t figure that out.


Well, why don't you 'splain it to us, genius?  You have yet to do so.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> No, that is the defense attorney seated on the right.
> JEEEsus ... His name is Mark Richards - Dude on the right in both these shots.


*No, that is the defense attorney seated on the right.*

Who is sitting on the judge's right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> Because they are always right.     If they say someone actively shooting a firearm is not active shooter, they are obviously wrong.
> 
> Now, there are different types of active shooters.  I gues dumb-asses can’t figure that out.


Ya cause your definition makes it impossible to be used in a court room.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> He also provoked a confrontation.




There is no evidence to support that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> He also provoked a confrontation.


How?

(this is where you incorrectly state that the mere possession of a firearm is provocation and you are mad that he had a gun)


----------



## JohnDB

tahuyaman said:


> He also provoked a confrontation.


And even if he did...when he withdrew he regained every right to self defense. 

Hence: perfect self defense


----------



## tahuyaman

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don’t get why supposed rational Adults think it was OK for a teenager to be attacked by violent felons. Or why they think he shouldn't defend hmself when he's attacked.


No one said it was ok for him to be attacked. That said, he needlessly placed himself in harms way and Provoked a deadly altercation.


----------



## M14 Shooter

tahuyaman said:


> Because they are always right.     If they say someone actively shooting a firearm is not active shooter, they are obviously wrong.
> Now, there are different types of active shooters.  I gues dumb-asses can’t figure that out.


Thanks for making it clear there's no need to waste any more time on you.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> No one said it was ok for him to be attacked. That said, he needlessly placed himself in harms way and Provoked a deadly altercation.





tahuyaman said:


> No one said it was ok for him to be attacked. That said, he needlessly placed himself in harms way and Provoked a deadly altercation.




He had the RIGHT to be there. 

There was an obvious need for him. The rioters were rioting. 


There is no evidence to support the claim that Rittenhouse provoked the clash. Certainly his later actions on tape, do not show aggression or irresponsible behavior.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> No one said it was ok for him to be attacked. That said, he needlessly placed himself in harms way and Provoked a deadly altercation.


Thus, you admit that you're mad that he had the gun.  

C'mon.  Just say it.  We all know already.

YOU WANT HIM CONVICTED OF MURDER SOLELY BECAUSE HE HAD A GUN AND USED IT IN SELF-DEFENSE.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> How?…


That’s been explained many many times.   Twenty more time won’t make a difference with you and a few others.


----------



## JohnDB

tahuyaman said:


> No one said it was ok for him to be attacked. That said, he needlessly placed himself in harms way and Provoked a deadly altercation.


Nope...the rioters were needlessly rioting, Kyle was invited...and if by some miracle not a single camera caught him pointing his rifle all night long...he withdrew from a confrontation and restored his right to defense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> He also provoked a confrontation.



How?


----------



## Flash

tahuyaman said:


> He also provoked a confrontation.




You haven't seen the evidence in the trial, have you?  That is absolutely not a true statement.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.

The ones that were doing the provoking were the insurrectionists that were destroying things and even fired the first shots and attacked Kyle for helping to put out a fire with clubs, kicking in the head and a pistol.

Those shithead pussies thought this young baby faced kid was going to be an easy target so they attacked him when he helped to put out the fire.  They threatened to kill him.  They ran him down and kicked him in the head before he even fired the first shot.  They made a big mistake.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> That’s been explained many many times.   Twenty more time won’t make a difference with you and a few others.


By the mere possession of a firearm, he provoked a violent attack?

Right.

We know. 

You're mad that he had a gun and you want him (and anyone else who uses a gun in self-defense) to be convicted of murder.

Admit it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How?


Having a gun.

The dude is mad that Kyle had a gun, PERIOD.


----------



## tahuyaman

I am both disgusted and embarrassed by the so called conservatives who think this troubled teen did the right thing.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Having a gun.
> 
> The dude is mad that Kyle had a gun, PERIOD.


That’s one of your dumber comments.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> By the mere possession of a firearm, he provoked a violent attack?
> 
> Right.
> 
> We know.
> 
> You're mad that he had a gun and you want him (and anyone else who uses a gun in self-defense) to be convicted of murder.
> 
> Admit it.


That’s idiotic.   I don’t want troubled teenagers policing the streets playing police officer.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> I am both disgusted and embarrassed by the so called conservatives who think this troubled teen did the right thing.




Rittenhouse was not troubled. He was a young man stepping up to take responsibility for his community.


Rosenbaum, now he was troubled. He was just let out of an insane asylum.


YOu know, in a sane world, some questions would be being asked about who made the call that he was safe to walk the streets.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> That’s idiotic.   I don’t want troubled teenagers policing the streets playing police officer.




You would rather have lefty mobs rampaging unchecked?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> I am both disgusted and embarrassed by the so called conservatives who think this troubled teen did the right thing.


I am disgusted that you are mad that a kid protected HIS LIFE with a firearm.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> I am both disgusted and embarrassed by the so called conservatives who think this troubled teen did the right thing.



Self-defense was the right thing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> That’s one of your dumber comments.


All your comments confirm it.

And, yes.  You are stupid for believing the mere possession of a firearm is provocation. 

In fact, I find that such a retarded belief makes you one of the dumbest people on USMB, and that is quite an achievement.

I don't consider myself a conservative, but I bet those who do are COMPLETELY embarrassed by you.


----------



## Mr Natural

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Self-defense was the right thing.


No, staying home and minding his own business would have been the right thing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> That’s idiotic.   I don’t want troubled teenagers policing the streets playing police officer.


And, so anyone who does (assuming you are correct about Kyle playing police office)(you're wrong about that) should lose all rights to self-defense?

Yeah, that is pretty idiotic.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Mr Clean said:


> No, staying home and minding his own business would have been the right thing.


And, because he didn't stay home....he is not entitled to self-defense and is therefore a murderer.

Right.

We know that's what you think.  It's stupid, but hey....it's you..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mr Clean said:


> No, staying home and minding his own business would have been the right thing.



And once he was there, defending himself was the right thing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Just so we're clear on these arguments above, going to a "mostly peaceful protest" with a firearm means that you can be attacked and beat to death because just having a firearm makes you a provoker, and you have no right to defend yourself from any such hostility.  So, you must take your beating and die, or get a life sentence for murder.

Is that about right?


----------



## tahuyaman

We n


Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And, so anyone who does (assuming you are correct about Kyle playing police office)(you're wrong about that) should lose all rights to self-defense?
> 
> Yeah, that is pretty idiotic.


once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> We n
> 
> once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.



Show the provocation.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> We n
> 
> once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.


I sure do hope its the last time,,

your distorted view of the facts are starting to bore me,,


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> We n
> 
> once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.



There is no evidence that happened AND the claim it did, clashes with his later behavior.

AND, it would not matter because he ran.


----------



## tahuyaman

It’s embarrassing and troubling that so many so called conservatives have elevated this troubled teen to hero status.      

People in the media like Hannity nearly worshiping this kid is embarrassing.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> It’s embarrassing and troubling that so many so called conservatives have elevated this troubled teen to hero status.
> 
> People in the media like Hannity nearly worshiping this kid is embarrassing.




His coolness under attack, is impressive and should be celebrated.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> It’s embarrassing and troubling that so many so called conservatives have elevated this troubled teen to hero status.
> 
> People in the media like Hannity nearly worshiping this kid is embarrassing.


so you lied and it wasnt for the last time,,


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> I sure do hope its the last time,,
> 
> your distorted view of the facts are starting to bore me,,


You can help that bu not asking the same dumb question over and over again.

The distorted view is the one which elevated a disturbed teenager acting as a vigilante to Icon status


----------



## M14 Shooter

Mr Clean said:


> No, staying home and minding his own business would have been the right thing.


Which does nothing to mitigate, much less negate, his right to self-defense.


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> so you lied and it wasnt for the last time,,


Where did I lie?    Be specific


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> You can help that bu not asking the same dumb question over and over again.
> 
> The distorted view is the one which elevated a disturbed teenager acting as a vigilante to Icon status




Running for  your life and then defending yourself, is not being a vigilante.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> You can help that bu not asking the same dumb question over and over again.
> 
> The distorted view is the one which elevated a disturbed teenager acting as a vigilante to Icon status


when did he take any law into his own hands to make him a vigilante??


----------



## tahuyaman

M14 Shooter said:


> Which does nothing to mitigate, much less negate, his right to self-defense.


Actually it does, but you’re too clouded with irrational bias to see it.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> Where did I lie?    Be specific


when you called him an active shooter,,


----------



## tahuyaman

progressive hunter said:


> when you called him an active shooter,,


While in the act of shooting a firearm one is an active shooter.     As I dated earlier, there are various types of active shooters.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.



Show the provocation. Be specific.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> We n
> 
> once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.


And that provocation (in your warped opinion) is the mere possession of a firearm.

Which is NOT backed by law.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> While in the act of shooting a firearm one is an active shooter.     As I dated earlier, there are various types of active shooters.


So, at no time was Kyle Rittenhouse an active shooter when he was attacked.  Got it.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Correll said:


> Running for  your life and then defending yourself, is not being a vigilante.


He's lying to you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Show the provocation. Be specific.


Having a gun.

He is saying it plainly but will not admit it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> While in the act of shooting a firearm one is an active shooter.



So when he was running toward the police, he was not an active shooter.
He was not an active shooter when Huber attacked him.


----------



## M14 Shooter

progressive hunter said:


> when did he take any law into his own hands to make him a vigilante??


He's lying to you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Show the provocation. Be specific.


He's lying to you.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> While in the act of shooting a firearm one is an active shooter.     As I dated earlier, there are various types of active shooters.


you were given legal definitions that prove you wrong,,

so unless you have a link that proves youre claim right we can only assume youre lying and desperate for attention,,


----------



## M14 Shooter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> And that provocation (in your warped opinion) is the mere possession of a firearm.
> Which is NOT backed by law.


He's lying to you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> You can help that bu not asking the same dumb question over and over again.
> 
> The distorted view is the one which elevated a disturbed teenager acting as a vigilante to Icon status


Oh, is that what is making you so mad that you want him to be in jail for life?


----------



## Mr Natural

Correll said:


> Running for  your life and then defending yourself, is not being a vigilante.


Being where you needn’t be with a loaded gun is.


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> While in the act of shooting a firearm one is an active shooter.     As I dated earlier, there are various types of active shooters.




When Rittenhouse was running away from the mob, not shooting. What was  he then?


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Oh, is that what is making you so mad that you want him to be in jail for life?


When did Indaybi wanted him in jail tor life?  In fact I’ve stated several times that I think he was over-charged. But you’re too reffing stupid to acknowledge that.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

progressive hunter said:


> when did he take any law into his own hands to make him a vigilante??


By defending himself with a firearm.  

According to these gun-hating leftists, no one is allowed to defend themselves.  That is a job for police, and when seconds count, police are only minutes away.


----------



## tahuyaman

Correll said:


> When Rittenhouse was running away from the mob, not shooting. What was  he then?


Fleeing.


----------



## Correll

Mr Clean said:


> Being where you needn’t be with a loaded gun is.




True. Rittenhouse standing there, between the mob and their target, could be considered "vigilantism".


ANd if so, that demonstrates that vigilantism can be a good thing.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> When did Indaybi wanted him in jail tor life?  In fact I’ve stated several times that I think he was over-charged. But you’re too reffing stupid to acknowledge that.


Well, then, what do you think he should be charged with?

State the charges and the supporting facts.

This should be fun.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Mr Clean said:


> Being where you needn’t be with a loaded gun is.


Really?

What law was he trying to enforce, I mean other than enforcing the assault and murder laws on his own behalf (self-defense)?

What facts do you have that supports your claim?


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> By defending himself with a firearm.
> 
> According to these gun-hating leftists, no one is allowed to defend themselves.  That is a job for police, and when seconds count, police are only minutes away.


So I’m hit limited mind, one is a “gun hating leftist”’because he thinks Rittenhouse was wrong to insert himself into a riot.   

Not a true mind numbed moron would assume yet


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Well, then, what do you think he should be charged with?
> 
> State the charges and the supporting facts.
> 
> This should be fun.


Negligent homicide or something equivalent.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> So I’m hit limited mind, one is a “gun hating leftist”’because he thinks Rittenhouse was wrong to insert himself into a riot.
> 
> Not a true mind numbed moron would assume yet


You may not be a gun-hating leftist....but you're acting like one.

What should Rittenhouse be charged with and what facts support those charges?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Negligent homicide or something equivalent.


Do you know the elements of that crime and can you state the facts you believe warrant a conviction?

Is any of that excused by self-defense?

Explain yourself.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You may not be a gun-hating leftist....but you're acting like one.
> 
> What should Rittenhouse be charged with and what facts support those charges?


Well, you’re acting like an idiotic far right wing kook.


----------



## Ordinary Guy

Not guilty and he rid the world of a few felons, excellent


----------



## Correll

tahuyaman said:


> Fleeing.




And not engaging any targets. Because he was not an active shooter.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Do you know the elements of that crime and can you state the facts you believe warrant a conviction?
> 
> Is any of that excused by self-defense?
> 
> Explain yourself.


Heavy sigh.  You’re a freaking loon.  You are completely clueless. You are nothing but a mynah bird relating the talking point you get fro people like Hannity.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Mr Clean said:


> Being where you needn’t be with a loaded gun is.


Only if you completely re-define the term.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> Heavy sigh.  You’re a freaking loon.  You are completely clueless. You are nothing but a mynah bird relating the talking point you get fro people like Hannity.


so you cant support your claim with facts


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> You can help that bu not asking the same dumb question over and over again.
> 
> The distorted view is the one which elevated a disturbed teenager acting as a vigilante to Icon status


You have not provided one instance where Kyle pointed his firearm at anyone not threatening him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> While in the act of shooting a firearm one is an active shooter.     As I dated earlier, there are various types of active shooters.


NOT ACCORDING TO THE LAW, and you have been shown that legally it is NOT true, so either you are lying when you say it or to STUPID to understand the law, which is it?


----------



## Correll

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have not provided one instance where Kyle pointed his firearm at anyone not threatening him.



Actually, that is the crucial fact. Well done. 


Correct. Very correct. He never even pointed his gun at anyone not ACTIVELY threatening him. 

He was not an ACTIVE SHOOTER, he was an ACTIVE SELF DEFENDER.


----------



## JohnDB

Ziminski illegally brought a gun to the riot.
Grosskreutz illegally brought a gun to the riot.
 And considering the amount of gunfire many people illegally brought firearms to the riot. 

Anybody who wanted to protect themselves and property needed to bring a firearm to an obviously violent situation.


----------



## Mr Natural

JohnDB said:


> Anybody who wanted to protect themselves and property needed to bring a firearm to an obviously violent situation.


Or stay home where you belong.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Judge has just banned MSNBC from the courtroom as one of their reporters was arrested yesterday for following the Jury Bus.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Mr Clean said:


> Or stay home where you belong.


Yes.  The rioters should have stayed home.


----------



## Correll

Mr Clean said:


> Or stay home where you belong.




You don't see any value in a society having young men willing to fight to protect it?


Call for Mr Clean, on line three. Imperial Rome would like to talk to you. About the joys of being sacked.


----------



## maybelooking

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.


absolute lie.


----------



## Mr Natural

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.


Every gun nuts’ wet dream come true.


----------



## Correll

Mr Clean said:


> Every gun nuts’ wet dream come true.




As has been pointed out, he never pointed his gun at anyone not threatening him.


----------



## maybelooking

all you guys should have figured out pretty quickly that tahuyaman is a perfect candidate for ignore.

just updated my list!!!


----------



## Resnic

RetiredGySgt said:


> NOT ACCORDING TO THE LAW, and you have been shown that legally it is NOT true, so either you are lying when you say it or to STUPID to understand the law, which is it?



Pay no mind to him. He will do any mental gymnastics needed in every single posts he makes in order to feel he is right and the other person is wrong.

Even intentionally changing a definition to suit him. He says everyone shooting is an active shooter in the same way if you're driving a car youre an active driver, vs not driving a car youre an inactive driver. He knows what an active shooter really means but will alter the definition so he can be right.


----------



## Otis Mayfield

Never thought there would be over a day's deliberation.

Kyle might be looking at some jail time.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Otis Mayfield said:


> Never thought there would be over a day's deliberation.
> Kyle might be looking at some jail time.


Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.


----------



## JohnDB

Otis Mayfield said:


> Never thought there would be over a day's deliberation.
> 
> Kyle might be looking at some jail time.


Nope...
Not likely... when the judge notices a case of perfect self defense...it's not likely to go wrong. 

Here's a case law argument from Georgia where in ALL jury cases the judge is the 13th Juror. 

And he is capable of reversing a jury decision.


----------



## Turtlesoup

tahuyaman said:


> Correct.  He was carrying a rifle in a ready position while engaged in a violent riot. That’s a provocative act.


Oh good grief----


----------



## john doe 101

M14 Shooter said:


> Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.


You mean the rumor you just started?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

M14 Shooter said:


> Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.


Translation: some right wing paid liar gave me this idea


----------



## Turtlesoup

Mr Clean said:


> Or stay home where you belong.


Oh brother---you are saying instead of protecting the country that you should hide in a corner from the criminals that are attacking looting and burning down city after city.

Cowards get beat to death and robbed hun.   It's time that we all start acting like we got some morals and some backbones and stand up to the criminals and our corrupt prosecutors.   

Kyle committed no crime and was doing a good deed unlike the 3 criminals and the spare criminal that didn't get shot.   He had every right to be there--they didn't.


----------



## Resnic

M14 Shooter said:


> Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.



If that's true I understand their hesitation and concerns. But I could also not abide by them, I couldn't sleep at night if I knew I ruined someone's life by not being honest in a court of law. 

Worrying about some domestic terrorists might do isn't worth not be honest and truthful as a juror. If they lie just to avoid a riot they still let those scumbags win.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> We n
> 
> once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.


But what is NOT backed by law is YOUR completely stupid assertion that the mere possession of a firearm IS PROVOCATION, motherfucker!!!


----------



## Scottish_Brexiteer_UK

DrLove said:


> Not appropriate for the judge to be seated that close to the defendant. The defense attorney is supposed to approach the bench if he'd like to chat.


So you've no credible examples then?


----------



## Golfing Gator

M14 Shooter said:


> Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Heavy sigh.  You’re a freaking loon.  You are completely clueless. You are nothing but a mynah bird relating the talking point you get fro people like Hannity.


Here, I will do your job for you and beat your ass with it:

*940.08  Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire.*
(1)  Except as provided in sub. (3), whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
(2) Whoever causes the death of an unborn child by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a health care provider acting within the scope of his or her practice or employment.
History: 1977 c. 173; 1985 a. 293; 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295; 2001 a. 109; 2011 a. 2.
Judicial Council Note, 1988: The definition of the offense is broadened to include highly negligent handling of fire, explosives and dangerous weapons in addition to firearm, airgun, knife or bow and arrow. See s. 939.22 (10). [Bill 191-S]
The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381, 01-3063.
_In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon; 2) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and 3) the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. __State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409._

Let's look at that JC note again, shall we:

In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), *the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:* 

the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon; 
the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and 
the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.
*We need to know what "criminal negligence" means, right?*

Here you go:

*939.25  Criminal negligence.*
(1)  In this section, “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, except that for purposes of ss. 940.08 (2), 940.10 (2) and 940.24 (2), “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to an unborn child, to the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or to another.
(2) If criminal negligence is an element of a crime in chs. 939 to 951 or s. 346.62, the negligence is indicated by the term “negligent" or “negligently".
(3) This section does not apply to s. 948.21.
History: 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 56 s. 259; 1997 a. 180, 295; 2017 a. 283.
Judicial Council Note,_ 1988: This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware. [Bill 191-S]_
_The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994)._


And now for the JC note:

 This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). *Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware.* [Bill 191-S]
The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994).


 So, what action of Rittenhouse, a minor at the time, created a SUBSTANTIAL *AND *UNREASONABLE risk of death or great bodily harm to another?

Explain yourself.


----------



## jc456

jbrownson0831 said:


> Being there or not is his own decision.


again, we aren't in East Berlin are we?


----------



## EvilCat Breath

M14 Shooter said:


> Rumor is there are 2 jurors more concerned with the invertible riots than they are the innocence of the defendant.


If that is true, deliberations are a sham.  The jury does not want to make a responsible decision are is kicking it back to the judge. They are simply waiting it out.  The judge will either declare it a hung jury or a mistrial.  He will have the responsibility.  Not them.  

There are two motions for mistrial, one with prejudice, one without.  The judge has said he will not rule on either one until a jury verdict.  This is an indication that there will be no hung jury at all.  If the jury cannot make a decision it will be a mistrial,  probably with prejudice.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Here, I will do your job for you and beat your ass with it:
> 
> *940.08  Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire.*
> (1)  Except as provided in sub. (3), whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
> (2) Whoever causes the death of an unborn child by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.
> (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a health care provider acting within the scope of his or her practice or employment.
> History: 1977 c. 173; 1985 a. 293; 1987 a. 399; 1997 a. 295; 2001 a. 109; 2011 a. 2.
> Judicial Council Note, 1988: The definition of the offense is broadened to include highly negligent handling of fire, explosives and dangerous weapons in addition to firearm, airgun, knife or bow and arrow. See s. 939.22 (10). [Bill 191-S]
> The common law “year-and-a-day rule" that no homicide is committed unless the victim dies within a year and a day after the injury is inflicted is abrogated, with prospective application only. State v. Picotte, 2003 WI 42, 261 Wis. 2d 249, 661 N.W.2d 381, 01-3063.
> _In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 1) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon; 2) the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and 3) the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. __State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409._
> 
> Let's look at that JC note again, shall we:
> 
> In order to establish that the defendant was guilty of the crime of homicide by negligent handling of a dangerous weapon under sub. (1), *the state had to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:*
> 
> the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon;
> the defendant operated or handled a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence; and
> the defendant's operation or handling of a dangerous weapon in a manner constituting criminal negligence caused the death of another human being. State v. Langlois, 2018 WI 73, 382 Wis. 2d 414, 913 N.W.2d 812, 16-1409.
> *We need to know what "criminal negligence" means, right?*
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> *939.25  Criminal negligence.*
> (1)  In this section, “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, except that for purposes of ss. 940.08 (2), 940.10 (2) and 940.24 (2), “criminal negligence" means ordinary negligence to a high degree, consisting of conduct that the actor should realize creates a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to an unborn child, to the woman who is pregnant with that unborn child or to another.
> (2) If criminal negligence is an element of a crime in chs. 939 to 951 or s. 346.62, the negligence is indicated by the term “negligent" or “negligently".
> (3) This section does not apply to s. 948.21.
> History: 1987 a. 399; 1989 a. 56 s. 259; 1997 a. 180, 295; 2017 a. 283.
> Judicial Council Note,_ 1988: This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware. [Bill 191-S]_
> _The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994)._
> 
> 
> And now for the JC note:
> 
> This section is new. It provides a uniform definition of criminal negligence, patterned on prior ss. 940.08 (2), 940.24 (2) and 941.01 (2). *Criminal negligence means the creation of a substantial and unreasonable risk of death or great bodily harm to another, of which the actor should be aware.* [Bill 191-S]
> The definition of criminal negligence as applied to homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Barman, 183 Wis. 2d 180, 515 N.W.2d 493 (Ct. App. 1994).
> 
> 
> So, what action of Rittenhouse, a minor at the time, created a SUBSTANTIAL *AND *UNREASONABLE risk of death or great bodily harm to another?
> 
> Explain yourself.


Here is where you made your mistake.  The law that you cited is not part of the jury instructions.  They won't even be discussed.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tipsycatlover said:


> If that is true, deliberations are a sham.  The jury does not want to make a responsible decision are is kicking it back to the judge. They are simply waiting it out.  The judge will either declare it a hung jury or a mistrial.  He will have the responsibility.  Not them.


Well, like I said - a rumor.
And I agree - the judge is holding the mistrial or directed verdict in his pocket.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

M14 Shooter said:


> Well, like I said - a rumor.
> And I agree - the judge is holding the mistrial or directed verdict in his pocket.


I'd say this won't go beyond tomorrow.  The judge won't let this drag on into another week.


----------



## FA_Q2

tahuyaman said:


> So. You have nothing to refute anything but childish insults.  Got it.





tahuyaman said:


> You’re a sperm gurgling Twink.


ROFLMAO.

No, it was an actual fact.  You actually are an asshat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Tipsycatlover said:


> Here is where you made your mistake.  The law that you cited is not part of the jury instructions.  They won't even be discussed.


Right.  They didn't charge him for criminal 
negligence because they can't prove negligence.  The mere possession of a firearm is not negligence.  

They had NOTHING so they threw the book at him.


----------



## FA_Q2

M14 Shooter said:


> Well, like I said - a rumor.
> And I agree - the judge is holding the mistrial or directed verdict in his pocket.


I think this is the original source of that rumor:
edited - removed video.

Original claim was by Posobeic.  Also not a credible source.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Tipsycatlover said:


> Here is where you made your mistake.  The law that you cited is not part of the jury instructions.  They won't even be discussed.


And here is your mistake: the judge may let the jury consider lesser charges.


----------



## 22lcidw

M14 Shooter said:


> Well, like I said - a rumor.
> And I agree - the judge is holding the mistrial or directed verdict in his pocket.


Progs are bringing us back to other times in our past with trials. It is already predetermined that a person or persons are guilty and they are doing everything they can to get the result they desire. They have endless resources from the elites who control the globe.


----------



## Lisa558

The judge recognizes a perfect case of self-defense, and is probably surprised that the jury is taking this long. No matter. He is hoping for an acquittal, as are all normal people. If that doesn’t come to pass, he will simply dismiss the charges with prejudice.

Kyle is within a day or two of being a free teenager again.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And here is your mistake: the judge may let the jury consider lesser charges.


How would that work?  Re-open evidence, do arguments again, and do another jury charge?  

Not saying you're wrong.  Just thinking procedurally. 

They didn't include criminal negligence probably because nothing Rittenhouse did was negligent.


----------



## M14 Shooter

FA_Q2 said:


> I think this is the original source of that rumor:
> edited - removed video.
> Original claim was by Posobeic.  Also not a credible source.


Maybe.  I saw it on Twitter.


----------



## Lisa558

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And here is your mistake: the judge may let the jury consider lesser charges.


The jury is already deliberating. Too late.

Now what about that felon/thug who drop-kicked Kyle? Properly landed, it would have killed him. When do we see his televised trial for attempting murder? Or do the BLM savages have this country so turned upside down that we don’t try blacks any more - just whites?


----------



## ClaireH

john doe 101 said:


> But see if it doesnt exist, you animals won't accept that, will you?  You'll just keep on making stuff up to fit your narrative.


You will rarely be accurate when you book together large groups of people indicating they’re all the same. Your choice of using “you animals” tells me that you’re emotionally unbalanced with high blood pressure. Discussing politics might be testing both your emotional and physical limits. Take heed.


----------



## john doe 101

Lisa558 said:


> The jury is already deliberating. Too late.
> 
> Now what about that felon/thug who drop-kicked Kyle? Properly landed, it would have killed him. When do we see his televised trial for attempting murder? Or do the BLM savages have this country so turned upside down that we don’t try blacks any more - just whites?


A misplaced kick does not equal attempted murder you dumb piece of shit.  You gonna start arresting pre-schoolers for doing the same now you savage?


----------



## john doe 101

ClaireH said:


> You will rarely be accurate when you book together large groups of people indicating they’re all the same. Your choice of using “you animals” tells me that you’re emotionally unbalanced with high blood pressure. Discussing politics might be testing both your emotional and physical limits. Take heed.


I've met exactly ONE reasonable person on here that says they are from the right.  So I'm pretty sure the rest of you are all animals.  And history will say as much.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> How would that work?


He lets them consider lesser charges. That's it. Nothing more to it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lisa558 said:


> jury is already deliberating. Too late.


Wrong. He has already allowed them to consider lesser charges. To correct myself.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That prosecutor made all sorts of ridiculous arguments.  I would take anything from Little Binger (finger) with a grain of salt.


He made a lot of arguments in closing where he didn’t have to support them with evidence or testimony.


----------



## john doe 101

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. He has already allowed them to consider lesser charges. To correct myself.


I believe 2 of the 5 charges are eligible for a lesser charge.


----------



## AZrailwhale

tahuyaman said:


> I agree in that he was completely incompetent and had no idea how to make his case.    He should be unemployed as soon as this case is over.


He didn’t have a case to make in the first place, then his own witnesses blew what he had out of the water.


----------



## ClaireH

I


john doe 101 said:


> I've met exactly ONE reasonable person on here that says they are from the right.  So I'm pretty sure the rest of you are all animals.  And history will say as much.


In that case, it’s good you went with JohnDoe 101 (basic to little knowledge) instead of claiming advanced 401 level. Closing a mind before conversation happens is a curious concept but level 101 is a starter position, not where most people choose to remain. Your choice.


----------



## lantern2814

john doe 101 said:


> A misplaced kick does not equal attempted murder you dumb piece of shit.  You gonna start arresting pre-schoolers for doing the same now you savage?


Watch  the video of that assault you walking turd. Then slink off in shame and STFU.


----------



## lantern2814

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. He has already allowed them to consider lesser charges. To correct myself.


Get ready to cry some more.


----------



## Flash

Looks like Kyle is going to be fucked by some stupid dizzy Karen jury forebitch.


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *No, that is the defense attorney seated on the right.*
> 
> Who is sitting on the judge's right?



Beat it ya GD F’n IDIOT 








						Who is Mark Richards, Kyle Rittenhouse's defense attorney?
					

Kyle Rittenhouse's defense attorney Mark Richards argued that his client "acted in self-defense". The case will be deliberated by the jury.




					www.hitc.com


----------



## john doe 101

lantern2814 said:


> Watch  the video of that assault you walking turd. Then slink off in shame and STFU.


Somebody gets kicked now that's attempted murder?  LOL.  If you say so.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

candycorn said:


> Has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


I am still laughing at this clueless comment.  

Self-defense = vigilantism

 

No, you may not take the law into your own hands and defend yourself.  

 

You must wait several minutes for police to show up and defend your life when your death is within seconds.  Police will show up and arrest the thug who killed you.  If said thug is woke and/or non-white, he will be immediately released on a PR bond.


----------



## john doe 101

Flash said:


> Looks like Kyle is going to be fucked by some stupid dizzy Karen jury forebitch.


It's always someone screwing your kind over.  If it's not the blacks, it's dizzy women bitches.  If it isnt one of those two, it's the communists.  It's never, ever because you (or in this case Kyle) were in the wrong.


----------



## lantern2814

john doe 101 said:


> Somebody gets kicked now that's attempted murder?  LOL.  If you say so.


Watch the video you uneducated fuck. I’ll just sit sit here and laugh at your incompetence while you stutter and stammer.


----------



## john doe 101

lantern2814 said:


> Watch the video you uneducated fuck. I’ll just sit sit here and laugh at your incompetence while you stutter and stammer.


What are you gonna do if Kyle is found guilty?


----------



## lantern2814

john doe 101 said:


> It's always someone screwing your kind over.  If it's not the blacks, it's dizzy women bitches.  If it isnt one of those two, it's the communists.  It's never, ever because you (or in this case Kyle) were in the wrong.


Kyle wasn’t wrong. Neither are we. You always are. See the governors election in Virginia dancing boy.


----------



## lantern2814

john doe 101 said:


> What are you gonna do if Kyle is found guilty?


He won’t be. Cry harder.


----------



## john doe 101

lantern2814 said:


> Kyle wasn’t wrong. Neither are we. You always are. See the governors election in Virginia dancing boy.


Neither Kyle's verdict or the governor of VA affects my life.  Seemingly it does yours.


----------



## john doe 101

lantern2814 said:


> He won’t be. Cry harder.


That wasnt what I asked.   I didnt say he's going to be found guilty.  I asked you what are you going to do IF he is found guilty.


----------



## Lisa558

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wrong. He has already allowed them to consider lesser charges. To correct myself.


He dropped the lesser charges.


----------



## john doe 101

Lisa558 said:


> He dropped the lesser charges.


Are you really this stupid?  Really?  You do realize that in some cases, if you are charged with a crime, the jury can consider LESSER charges if they find circumstances to do so?   You do realize that, right?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Lisa558 said:


> He dropped the lesser charges.


Uh...no.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> Beat it ya GD F’n IDIOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Mark Richards, Kyle Rittenhouse's defense attorney?
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse's defense attorney Mark Richards argued that his client "acted in self-defense". The case will be deliberated by the jury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hitc.com



Moron. The judge's right. DURR.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> Marshall law is not a requirement for a city to establish a curfew.



MARTIAL law, genius.

And unless you can provide the proof that a curfew was in effect that the prosecution couldn't provide, feel free to stop beating that dead horse.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> How would that work?  Re-open evidence, do arguments again, and do another jury charge?
> 
> Not saying you're wrong.  Just thinking procedurally.
> 
> They didn't include criminal negligence probably because nothing Rittenhouse did was negligent.


The jury may consider lesser included offenses.  The charge is murder.  Negligence is not a lesser included offense.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> I’m not sure why some think that’s funny.



Um, because it sounds ridiculous?


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> It’s odd how some people post comments as if “Kyle” is their best friend.



It's odd how some people can't grasp the idea of defending principle without it being personal.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

FA_Q2 said:


> Is this what passes for oops I fucked up in your mind?


I find her comments HYSTERICAL as this dumb bitch is almost always the one reviving old dead threads.
How are you going to accuse someone else of being lonely when you spend so much damn time digging around in the archives looking for troll bait???

Definition of a fucking loser


----------



## Cecilie1200

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No one is a threat unless they carry a gun?



Someone should tell that to Reginald Denny.  Mind you, I don't think he would understand it, due to the brain damage he sustained from being beaten by people who didn't have guns.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> If someone is in act of shooting a firearm, they are an active shooter.   Does this confuse you?
> 
> When I was a soldier firing my rifle in a combat situation, I was an active shooter.   When I was on the range qualifying, I was an active shooter.



Ahh, the venerable old "I claim it on the Internet and that proves I'm an expert!" ploy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> He lets them consider lesser charges. That's it. Nothing more to it.


Only charges in line with the evidence not just any lesser charge


----------



## Death Angel

Mr Clean said:


> Lock him up!


Lock up leftist insurrectionists


----------



## tahuyaman

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ahh, the venerable old "I claim it on the Internet and that proves I'm an expert!" ploy.


^^^^^^ dip-shit.


----------



## tahuyaman

The idiotic trolls inthis forum are wearing me down.  I’ve tried hard not to respond with nothing but insults, but these dip-shits make it difficult.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> The idiotic trolls inthis forum are wearing me down.  I’ve tried hard not to respond with nothing but insults, but these dip-shits make it difficult.


You have never acknowledge you were wrong once in this thread.


----------



## tahuyaman

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's odd how some people can't grasp the idea of defending principle without it being personal.


That’s exactly what you guys have done.  With you guys it’s personal.    None of you people should ever get close to being on any jury in any circumstance.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> That’s exactly what you guys have done.  With you guys it’s personal.    None of you people should ever get close to being on any jury in any circumstance.


Wrong your whole complaint is he shouldn't have been there with a firearm and claiming that made him the aggressor.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.



"Obvious" in what sense?  In the sense that you want to believe that because you want to think badly of him for daring to hinder the rioters?


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> Almost every argument you made is a red herring...


Translation; you have no counter.


JohnDB said:


> Curfews are not illegal.


Yet you said they were.


JohnDB said:


> When there's a curfew it means you can't go to the park or streets for a stroll.


Kyle was walking up and down the street.  Thanks for confirming he was violating the curfew.


----------



## tahuyaman

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have never acknowledge you were wrong once in this thread.


How can an opinion be wrong?  My view is just that, my view.    I’ve stated facts to support my view though. You haven’t.   You back your opinions with more opinion. 


You sound like some left far wing loon.   You must be an AOC supporter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> The idiotic trolls inthis forum are wearing me down.  I’ve tried hard not to respond with nothing but insults, but these dip-shits make it difficult.



You still haven't said how he provoked an altercation.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> So an active shooter is not someone who is actively shooting a firearm?   How can that be possible?



Perhaps because you're deliberately trying to re-interpret the term to suit yourself, according to the most childish and disingenuous views you can manage.

Here's the DHS definition:

_An Active Shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area; in most cases, active shooters use firearms(s) and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims._

Context is everything.  An active shooter is someone who is actively looking to kill people for the sake of killing them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

RetiredGySgt said:


> Only charges in line with the evidence not just any lesser charge


Rght, the charges have been specified.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> That’s exactly what you guys have done.  With you guys it’s personal.    None of you people should ever get close to being on any jury in any circumstance.



Excuse me, Miss Cleo.  If I'm ever interested in having you read my mind and tell me what I'm "really" thinking and feeling, I'll ask you.  And I'm sure you'd love to have jury duty dependent on defining principled and rational as "Holds the positions I have decided that you should", but please allow me to be the first to tell you to piss off.


----------



## DrLove

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ahh, the venerable old "I claim it on the Internet and that proves I'm an expert!" ploy.


Tahu is correct.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> Beat it ya GD F’n IDIOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is Mark Richards, Kyle Rittenhouse's defense attorney?
> 
> 
> Kyle Rittenhouse's defense attorney Mark Richards argued that his client "acted in self-defense". The case will be deliberated by the jury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hitc.com



Still confused about the judge's right side and the judge's left side?


----------



## tahuyaman

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Obvious" in what sense?  In the sense that you want to believe that because you want to think badly of him for daring to hinder the rioters?


I have no personal feelings about Rittenhouse.  My view is based on facts and common sense.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

For the love of Jeebus, someone give the toddinator some attention.


----------



## Lisa558

tahuyaman said:


> It’s obvious that Rittenhouse armed himself and went to that riot with the intent of shooting someone.   The kid has a hero complex.


What is obvious is that the BLM thugs went to the riot with the intent to set things afire, destroy personal property, and cause millions of dollars of damage.

The only one there with a good heart (albeit a bit naive) was Rittenhouse.


----------



## tahuyaman

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You still haven't said how he provoked an altercation.


I have about 20 times.   I’m not going to do it any more.

Jeebus.


----------



## tahuyaman

Lisa558 said:


> What is obvious is that the BLM thugs went to the riot with the intent to set things afire, destroy personal property, and cause millions of dollars of damage.
> 
> The only one there with a good heart (albeit a bit naive) was Rittenhouse.


That’s it.  The views of the Rittenhouse  fan club is based on an opposition to BLM.


----------



## struth

tahuyaman said:


> I have no personal feelings about Rittenhouse.  My view is based on facts and common sense.


if your view is correct, can’t the same be said about the demafascist brownshirts that traveled there, i mean they started the riot.  So if they traveled there looking for violence as well, and got it…then this is mere mutual combat and the case should be dismissed


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> How can an opinion be wrong?  My view is just that, my view.    I’ve stated facts to support my view though. You haven’t.   You back your opinions with more opinion.
> 
> 
> You sound like some left far wing loon.   You must be an AOC supporter.


I linked to the ACTUAL LAW no opinion at all.


----------



## Lisa558

The thing that SHOULD clear Rittenhouse is that is was running away from the felon, trying to avoid a confrontation, even though he had a rifle at his disposable and could have blown him away at any time. It was only when the felon caught up to him, threatened to kill him, and was within a couple of seconds of disarming him that Rittenhouse shot. Incredible restraint for a teen being threatened by criminal adults.


----------



## Lisa558

tahuyaman said:


> That’s it.  The views of the Rittenhouse  fan club is based on an opposition to BLM.


….opposition to BLM violence, looting, arson, and murder.

Interesting how you condemn the teen, but refuse to acknowledge that BLM is a violent organization with thousands of lowlife scumbag criminals causing all sorts of damage to property and people.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

tahuyaman said:


> I have no personal feelings about Rittenhouse.  My view is based on facts and common sense.


There you go again claiming your opinion is fact.


----------



## struth

tahuyaman said:


> That’s it.  The views of the Rittenhouse  fan club is based on an opposition to BLM.


my views of the case are based on what was presented at trial


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> How can an opinion be wrong?  My view is just that, my view.    I’ve stated facts to support my view though. You haven’t.   You back your opinions with more opinion.
> 
> 
> You sound like some left far wing loon.   You must be an AOC supporter.


You can have your opinion about what constitutes a provocation, but until you are able to change Wisconsin law, the mere fact that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha with a firearm is NOT provocation.  You opinions are noted.  Wisconsin law differs.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You can have your opinion about what constitutes a provocation, but until you are able to change Wisconsin law, the mere fact that Rittenhouse was in Kenosha with a firearm is NOT provocation.  You opinions are noted.  Wisconsin law differs.


I stated Wisconsin law.  You ignored it.


----------



## struth

tahuyaman said:


> I stated Wisconsin law.  You ignored it.


no wisconsin law made it illegal for him to have that gun, and open carry it, or allow others to attack him for being there with it


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> I stated Wisconsin law.  You ignored it.


Oh?  Which one?  The one where it's legal for a minor to open carry a rifle as long as it is not a SBR?

That law?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> I stated Wisconsin law.  You ignored it.


THAT's who you remind me of....I couldn't place it.

Mac1958.   You could be his twin.  You post just like him.


----------



## skye

Hung Jury?

like I said on the other thread?


----------



## AZrailwhale

tahuyaman said:


> I have no personal feelings about Rittenhouse.  My view is based on facts and common sense.


I haven’t noticed you providing much of either.  There is no evidence Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone.


----------



## ColonelAngus

tahuyaman said:


> You guys have let your emotions guide your view.   You are so angry at the rioters that your judgement has been  sucked from your brain.





skye said:


> Hung Jury?
> 
> like I said on the other thread?


It looks that way.

Now will the judge step in?


----------



## AZrailwhale

tahuyaman said:


> I have about 20 times.   I’m not going to do it any more.
> 
> Jeebus.


What you are claiming violates the law, common sense and the evidence.  Openly carrying a rifle isn’t provocation,  it might be intimidation, but not provocation.


----------



## skye

ColonelAngus said:


> It looks that way.
> 
> Now will the judge step in?



I don't know


----------



## WEATHER53

Judge going to have to be real life fact tough again and tell the jurors they don’t have safe space In his courtroom and  that they must come to a verdict and can’t continue to hide from that legal responsibility .


----------



## Opie

What you guys think of the libera Medis blowing up the fact a juror got to take ”take home the jury instructions“ I mean it is kind of weird tho because your not supposed to talk about it outside of court but hey this has been a SNL
skit so far anyway


----------



## WEATHER53

AZrailwhale said:


> What you are claiming violates the law, common sense and the evidence.  Openly carrying a rifle isn’t provocation,  it might be intimidation, but not provocation.


Openly carrying a rifle promotes nothing other than fear in those who are up to no good. That’s what libbies want-carte Blanche to do bad. Defund the police and a dozen other examples of criminal conduct permissibility


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Patriot43 said:


> What you guys think of the libera Medis blowing up the fact a juror got to take ”take home the jury instructions“ I mean it is kind of weird tho because your not supposed to talk about it outside of court but hey this has been a SNL
> skit so far anyway


Reading something is not the same as talking to somebody.


----------



## WEATHER53

skye said:


> I don't know


I’m hearing 3 jurors refuse to render any vote.


----------



## Lisa558

WEATHER53 said:


> I’m hearing 3 jurors refuse to render any vote.


How would you know that?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

WEATHER53 said:


> I’m hearing 3 jurors refuse to render any vote.


Yeah, ya made that up. The lies... always with you...


----------



## skye

WEATHER53 said:


> I’m hearing 3 jurors refuse to render any vote.



yeah, as I have said elsewhere , Jury deadlocked at 6-6 ?


----------



## XponentialChaos

If they haven't reached a verdict by now, I don't think they will.


----------



## ColonelAngus

skye said:


> I don't know



Ugh. This is so bad.

How have we come to this nonsense?

I am concerned if outside forces affected this jury.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

skye said:


> yeah, as I have said elsewhere , Jury deadlocked at 6-6 ?


11-1 would be deadlocked.


----------



## ColonelAngus

Judge has to declare mistrial with no prejudice or whatever the legal word fuck it is.


----------



## skye

ColonelAngus said:


> Judge has to declare mistrial with no prejudice or whatever the legal word fuck it is.




ok, so it's inconclusive.....the Jury can not agree as we said.


----------



## WEATHER53

Lisa558 said:


> How would you know that?


I do not know it as in confirmed.
People like me at the higher level of income and responsibility do develop contacts. One of my 2 businesses is media related and that’s where what I said comes from . The people are solid but not always the info. I think over last 20 years my Reuters guy has given me 4/5 blockbusters snd 4/5 complete flops


----------



## WEATHER53

ColonelAngus said:


> Ugh. This is so bad.
> 
> How have we come to this nonsense?
> 
> I am concerned if outside forces affected this jury.


Outside forces is all this is about
If my guy is right it’s not about the vote tally but about 3 refusing to render any verdict. About the only logical conclusion is that the fear their name being tied to Any verdict, guilty or innocent


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

WEATHER53 said:


> Outside forces is all this is about
> If my guy is right it’s not about the vote tally but about 3 refusing to render any verdict. About the only logical conclusion is that the fear their name being tied to Any verdict, guilty or innocent


Just making stuff up wholesale tonight, eh?


----------



## WEATHER53

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Just making stuff up wholesale tonight, eh?


Well of course you can’t believe it and never will be able to because you are a liberal shill absent the motivation to make something out of yourself.
There was some other guy here today who “just doesn’t believe” how housing and stocks can make one a multi millionaire.
That because his mindset and path is one of self defeat and lack of effort so naturally those of us providing extremely different results are “liars”


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

WEATHER53 said:


> Well of course you can’t believe it and never will be able to because you are a liberal shill absent the motivation to make something out of yourself.


...because I won't believe the conspiracy theories you are inveting out of thin air.

Okay nutball.


----------



## candycorn

Again, has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


----------



## WEATHER53

candycorn said:


> Again, has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


The vigilantes were the ones who went after him.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> I don’t get why supposed rational Adults think it was OK for a teenager to arm himself and become engaged in a violent riot.      I think these people are motivated by something they don’t want to expose



I don't get why you think you're the arbiter of what's rational and what's not.  Seems to me that you have whole bushels more outrage over Kyle being there than you do about the violent riot.  I think YOU are motivated by something other than "rational adulthood", and you're not sounding like anyone I want trying to impose your idea of moral standards on me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> This situation has made formerly rational people lose their mind.



This situation has made never-rational people hallucinate that they're rational.


----------



## candycorn

WEATHER53 said:


> The vigilantes were the ones who went after him.


Not Rosenbaum.

The other two?  Yes.


----------



## Cecilie1200

progressive hunter said:


> when the elected officials, cops and the adults refuse its left for the children to do,,



Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there.  The police should have been there.  The National Guard should have been there.  The officials elected and/or appointed to maintain civil order should have been there.  The adults of the community should have been there.  Kyle Rittenhouse was there because all of the people who should have been there failed their responsibilities.  

Young men see the virtue in courage.  Old men try to make a virtue of cowardice by calling it "wisdom".


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> He inserted himself  into this riot with the intent of engaging someone with the firearm he acquired illegally.   Period.



Prove it, or shove your "period".  You sure do spend a lot of time making definitive assertions about what other people are "really" thinking and feeling.  You have a crystal ball, or are you working the tarot cards tonight?


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Again, has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?



Again, at what point did you get the idea that YOU could shame people for not behaving the way you want them to?  I've stepped on wads of gum on the sidewalk whose moral judgement held more weight with me.


----------



## Cecilie1200

candycorn said:


> Not Rosenbaum.
> 
> The other two?  Yes.



And I'm sure you were just gleeful when the prosecutor gave you a new talking point to "know" after your previous ones all got you laughed at . . . again.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> So you think to be an active shooter one must be in the process of committing murder?  That’s idiotic.



Well, the DHS seems to think so.  Perhaps you should go give them the benefit of your "superior knowledge" in that department.  I'm sure they'll be eager for your guidance.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> You guys have let your emotions guide your view.   You are so angry at the rioters that your judgement has been  sucked from your brain.



"Never mind what law enforcement says.  I know better.  But YOU GUYS are the ones who are using your emotions instead of logic!!!"

The only one who's angry here is you, at Kyle, for nothing more than being someone the media has told you to be angry at.  The more you talk, the more grateful I am to be nothing that the likes of you would consider "rational".


----------



## Soupnazi630

tahuyaman said:


> If one is actively shooting a firearm they an active shooter.
> 
> Jeebus, what’s the problem here?


That is not what active shooter means you sensational moron.

That has been explained to you and your literal word games is a lost cause proving you are a fool.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

candycorn said:


> Not Rosenbaum.
> 
> The other two? Yes.


Vigilantes? Yes, it would seem so. What lesson did they and those like them learn? Bring rifles. That's the message of the last 18 months of protests from left and right, and our reaction to them.


----------



## candycorn

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Vigilantes? Yes, it would seem so. What lesson did they and those like them learn? Bring rifles. That's the message of the last 18 months of protests from left and right, and our reaction to them.


As far as I know, Rosenbaum was just another one of the knuckhead mob who was out protesting/burning shit.  That doesn't make him a vigilante.  The other two..one attacked pop and fresh with a skateboard and the other pointed a pistol at him....both in the name of law enforcement.  That wasn't their job.  KR was/is a jerk looking for trouble, created it, and is being (hopefully) prosecuted for it.  But he still has rights.


----------



## AZrailwhale

WEATHER53 said:


> I’m hearing 3 jurors refuse to render any vote.


If that’s the case the judge will either replace them with alternates or declare a mistrial if there aren’t enough alternates.


----------



## fncceo

candycorn said:


> Again, has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?



Vigilantes are cool!


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> So the FBI says that an active shooter is only someone who is shooting at random people intending to commit murder?
> 
> The FBI is possibly one of the most corrupt and incompetently run agencies of Government today.



DHS says that, too.


----------



## Cecilie1200

AZrailwhale said:


> If that’s the case the judge will either replace them with alternates or declare a mistrial if there aren’t enough alternates.



No, he won't.  That's not how it works.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> Because they are always right.     If they say someone actively shooting a firearm is not active shooter, they are obviously wrong.
> 
> Now, there are different types of active shooters.  I gues dumb-asses can’t figure that out.



So your idea of rational, unemotional thinking is, "If all the experts disagree with me, that means THEY are all wrong and I know better from my vast law enforcement experience of wanting to be right!"

Tell us more about how you're qualified to call anyone else a dumbass.  I'm sure I'm not the only one enjoying your clown show.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Correll said:


> I suspect that definition is not new. But yes, the fbi has been doing a shit job for a while now.
> 
> 
> Burt this time, they have it right. An "Active shooter" is NOT just anyone doing any shooting.
> 
> 
> If Rittenhouse was an "Active Shooter" he would not have held his fire when bicep man first held up his hands.



The FBI has been doing its job badly, but not because they don't know how to define words.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Correll said:


> There is no evidence to support that.



You have to keep in mind that fools like this define "provoked a confrontation" as "opposed the behavior that I like, how DARE he?!"


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, he won't.  That's not how it works.


But he can declare a mistrial for other reasons - including prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor insinuated that the defendant‘s use of his right to remain silent signaled guilt, for one, and for another, the prosecutor did not share the clear video of Kyle running away from his would-be murderer.

If they are hung 11 normals to 1 leftist, the judge can also consider how impossible it will be to get a conviction in this case and to not waste more of the state’s money going after a white teen who defended himself against BLM terrorists within seconds of killing him.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> No one said it was ok for him to be attacked. That said, he needlessly placed himself in harms way and Provoked a deadly altercation.



Like I said, your position is, "How DARE he interfere with our riots?!"


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> The FBI has been doing its job badly, but not because they don't know how to define words.


The FBI has been weaponized to intimidate American citizens who dissent from radical liberalism, but that’s a different thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> But he can declare a mistrial for other reasons - including prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor insinuated that the defendant‘s use of his right to remain silent signaled guilt, for one, and for another, the prosecutor did not share the clear video of Kyle running away from his would-be murderer.
> 
> If they are hung 11 normals to 1 leftist, the judge can also consider how impossible it will be to get a conviction in this case and to not waste more of the state’s money going after a white teen who defended himself against BLM terrorists within seconds of killing him.



Oh, he can definitely declare a mistrial.  And I frankly think he should at this point, as well as file an ethics complaint with the Bar Association, given the various shenanigans of the prosecution.  I've seen attorneys disbarred for far less.

But he can't replace jurors because the jury is hung (assuming it is).


----------



## Resnic

Soupnazi630 said:


> That is not what active shooter means you sensational moron.
> 
> That has been explained to you and your literal word games is a lost cause proving you are a fool.



He knows what he is saying but that's a democrat and liberal way of thinking. Twist meanings to support you so you feel you're always right.

We all know what "active shooter" really means, so does he but he will lie to himself and us to be right. He knows what it means, but he is applying the same definition as if I am driving down the road I am a active driver on the sense of regardless of what he is doing with the gun even shooting at targets he is in the process of shooting.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How?



By daring to interfere with what leftist pukes want.


----------



## Lisa558

tahuyaman said:


> No one said it was ok for him to be attacked. That said, he needlessly placed himself in harms way and Provoked a deadly altercation.


What if I was stupidly walking in a bad section of town at night, where I didn’t need to be, and a bunch of lowlife scums attacked me? I provoked it?


----------



## Mr Natural

Lisa558 said:


> What if I was stupidly walking in a bad section of town at night, where I didn’t need to be, and a bunch of lowlife scums attacked me? I provoked it?


But that wasn't the case. He knew exactly where he was going.


----------



## Lisa558

candycorn said:


> As far as I know, Rosenbaum was just another one of the knuckhead mob who was out protesting/burning shit.  That doesn't make him a vigilante.  The other two..one attacked pop and fresh with a skateboard and the other pointed a pistol at him....both in the name of law enforcement.  That wasn't their job.  KR was/is a jerk looking for trouble, created it, and is being (hopefully) prosecuted for it.  But he still has rights.


The BLM rioters were much worse - that night, and all the nights over three months while they destroyed property, burned down buildings, set cars aflame, and murdered dozens of people. Why aren‘t their trials being televised? Or are there even any trials for them at all? Where’s the trial for the thug looter who killed the police captain? Seems these days, all you see are trials of white boys.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> We n
> 
> once again for the very last time.   One loses ability to claim self defense when they provoke an altercation.     This is backed by the law.



Once again, for the very last time.  One regains the right to claim self-defense when one withdraws from the confrontation and is then followed.  This is backed by the law.

Also, one is not "provoking a confrontation" simply by opposing leftists, no matter HOW much you may feel that your personal desires are the equivalent of holy writ.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> It’s embarrassing and troubling that so many so called conservatives have elevated this troubled teen to hero status.
> 
> People in the media like Hannity nearly worshiping this kid is embarrassing.



It's embarrassing and troubling that so many leftists continue to think their approval is important.

Get over yourself.


----------



## Lisa558

Mr Clean said:


> But that wasn't the case. He knew exactly where he was going.


So what? He was young and naive, but well-intentioned. You can’t say the same for the throngs of lowlife felons intentionally out to destroy property. What about that lowlife that drop-kicked Kyle? When is his trial for attempted murder going on TV?

Lots of rage for a white teen who wanted to fight back against the violence and terror of BLM rioters, and got himself into more than he could handle. (Well, actually, he proved he COULD handle it….defended himself effectively.)

At the crux, this is about liberals taking a firm stance against people who object to the BLM terror group and their violent supporters.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> You can help that bu not asking the same dumb question over and over again.
> 
> The distorted view is the one which elevated a disturbed teenager acting as a vigilante to Icon status



No, the distorted view continues to be, "It's a horrible crime to oppose what we want."


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, he can definitely declare a mistrial.  And I frankly think he should at this point, as well as file an ethics complaint with the Bar Association, given the various shenanigans of the prosecution.  I've seen attorneys disbarred for far less.
> 
> But he can't replace jurors because the jury is hung (assuming it is).


Agree. He can’t replace jurors. I suspect we will hear a dismissal with prejudice within days.


----------



## Lisa558

Just think. If that lowlife scumbag Blake just followed police direction, rather than go for a weapon in his car, there would have been no Kenosha riot at all.

This is all due to yet another criminal black man ignoring police and going for a weapon. But shhhhh…..


----------



## Cecilie1200

Correll said:


> Running for  your life and then defending yourself, is not being a vigilante.



It's pretty clear that we need to deal with the left's mindless parroting of the word "vigilante".  As with virtually everything spewing from their headholes, they have no idea what it means.  

A vigilante is someone who tries to usurp the powers of law enforcement authorities for himself, but that pre-supposes there are authorities prepared to enforce the laws.  In the case of Kenosha, those authorities abdicated their responsibilities.  To put it another way, "vigilante" is a term describing behavior under a functioning social order.  To try to apply it to a situation where there is no functioning social order is ridiculous.

As much as leftists hate it and try their best to change it, Americans are not serfs.  We are not subjects.  We're citizens.  Those in authority do not rule by divine right, obligating us to simply accept whatever they choose to do and however they decide the world is going to be at the moment.  They are servants, employees who work for us and wield authority granted to them by us.  When they abandon their responsibilities and refuse to do their jobs, that authority does not remain with them.  It devolves back where it came from, to the people themselves.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> While in the act of shooting a firearm one is an active shooter.     As I dated earlier, there are various types of active shooters.



I just heard, "Fuck the legal definitions.  I have declared this, and that makes it TRUE!!!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> So what? He was young and naive, but well-intentioned. You can’t say the same for the throngs of lowlife felons intentionally out to destroy property. What about that lowlife that drop-kicked Kyle? When is his trial for attempted murder going on TV?
> 
> Lots of rage for a white teen who wanted to fight back against the violence and terror of BLM rioters, and got himself into more than he could handle. (Well, actually, he proved he COULD handle it….defended himself effectively.)
> 
> At the crux, this is about liberals taking a firm stance against people who object to the BLM terror group and their violent supporters.



More than that.  This is about leftists taking a firm stance against people having rights and being anything other than slaves to the elite.


----------



## Correll

Cecilie1200 said:


> It's pretty clear that we need to deal with the left's mindless parroting of the word "vigilante".  As with virtually everything spewing from their headholes, they have no idea what it means.
> 
> A vigilante is someone who tries to usurp the powers of law enforcement authorities for himself, but that pre-supposes there are authorities prepared to enforce the laws.  In the case of Kenosha, those authorities abdicated their responsibilities.  To put it another way, "vigilante" is a term describing behavior under a functioning social order.  To try to apply it to a situation where there is no functioning social order is ridiculous.
> 
> As much as leftists hate it and try their best to change it, Americans are not serfs.  We are not subjects.  We're citizens.  Those in authority do not rule by divine right, obligating us to simply accept whatever they choose to do and however they decide the world is going to be at the moment.  They are servants, employees who work for us and wield authority granted to them by us.  When they abandon their responsibilities and refuse to do their jobs, that authority does not remain with them.  It devolves back where it came from, to the people themselves.




Very well said. That is an example of using a definition to clarify an issue. 


The exact opposite of what lefties do.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Lisa558 said:


> Agree. He can’t replace jurors. I suspect we will hear a dismissal with prejudice within days.



It seems like the judge is intending to wait to rule on the requests for a mistrial after the jury ends its deliberations.


----------



## Cecilie1200

progressive hunter said:


> you were given legal definitions that prove you wrong,,
> 
> so unless you have a link that proves youre claim right we can only assume youre lying and desperate for attention,,



Like all leftists, this fool believes that reality is defined by his/her wishing really hard and making REALLY definitive statements of what everyone has to believe.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr Clean said:


> Being where you needn’t be with a loaded gun is.



"Where you needn't be" defined by whom?  Leftist animals who want to riot and destroy?


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> More than that.  This is about leftists taking a firm stance against people having rights and being anything other than slaves to the elite.


Yes, it’s the cancel culture taken to the next extreme. First, they silence you. Next, they sic the FBI on you. Next, they try to lock you up for life.

Leftists bring a new and chilling meaning to “my way or the highway.”

This Is no longer America. We have to make sure the left doesn’t cheat its way to a win in November 2022, so we can sweep Congress (both chambers) and block more of the Communist transformation. Hope the damage isn’t beyond repair by then, as the left sees the writing on the wall and is now doubling down on their destruction.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> So I’m hit limited mind, one is a “gun hating leftist”’because he thinks Rittenhouse was wrong to insert himself into a riot.
> 
> Not a true mind numbed moron would assume yet



Yes, basically, you're a gun-hating leftist because you think it's a bad idea to interfere with riots you're cheering on.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> "Where you needn't be" defined by whom?  Leftist animals who want to riot and destroy?


Yeah….isn’t THAT calling the kettle black? Leftist savages supporting the Summer of Love, rampaging city after city for months on end, are now deciding that People Who Disagree needn’t be at riots.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr Clean said:


> Or stay home where you belong.



It's really fascinating to watch leftist garbage attempt to enslave and oppress an entire nation in real time.  I used to try to picture what it was like to be in East Berlin after the wall went up, and people went overnight from being free citizens with the right to go anywhere they wanted whenever they wanted to being prisoners who needed a tyrant's permission simply to live their lives.  I don't have to imagine it any more, because now I get to watch the left try to duplicate it.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr Clean said:


> Every gun nuts’ wet dream come true.



And that riot was the wet dream of every evil piece of shit like you.  Sorry, but your attempt to judge and shame us has failed yet again.


----------



## Resnic

Lisa558 said:


> Just think. If that lowlife scumbag Blake just followed police direction, rather than go for a weapon in his car, there would have been no Kenosha riot at all.
> 
> This is all due to yet another criminal black man ignoring police and going for a weapon. But shhhhh…..



If he simply never broke laws this never would have happened. Just like if Floyd didn't break the law he would be alive right now. 

I can't believe this is the same America I was born in and that now the only time people get upset and take action is when something bad happens to a criminal.

Used to be criminals were bad guys and now rapists, murders, dope heads, felons, sex offenders and thieves are considered heroes. We definitely need to thin the herd in America.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Tipsycatlover said:


> If that is true, deliberations are a sham.  The jury does not want to make a responsible decision are is kicking it back to the judge. They are simply waiting it out.  The judge will either declare it a hung jury or a mistrial.  He will have the responsibility.  Not them.
> 
> There are two motions for mistrial, one with prejudice, one without.  The judge has said he will not rule on either one until a jury verdict.  This is an indication that there will be no hung jury at all.  If the jury cannot make a decision it will be a mistrial,  probably with prejudice.



Well, yes, if the jury declares itself hopelessly deadlocked, then the judge pretty much has to declare a mistrial.  No idea if he'll declare it with prejudice or without.  He SHOULD declare it with prejudice, but judges are almost as unpredictable as juries.


----------



## hadit

candycorn said:


> Has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


According to some, the mob was chasing Rittenhouse because, well, reasons and that he had shot someone and they were trying to stop an active shooter. That would make them vigilantes, or from a different perspective, a lynch mob.


----------



## JohnDB

Lisa558 said:


> Agree. He can’t replace jurors. I suspect we will hear a dismissal with prejudice within days.


The Judge is always the 13th juror...he can do as he pleases. 
Judges usually don't like to take on the role of the 13th juror but will to stop a miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Lisa558

Resnic said:


> If he simply never broke laws this never would have happened. Just like if Floyd didn't break the law he would be alive right now.
> 
> I can't believe this is the same America I was born in and that now the only time people get upset and take action is when something bad happens to a criminal.
> 
> Used to be criminals were bad guys and now rapists, murders, dope heads, felons, sex offenders and thieves are considered heroes. We definitely need to thin the herd in America.


Yes, leftists have turned this country and its values upside down. The only person with a good heart and decent values at the Kenosha riot that night was Kyle, with the others a bunch of savages intent on destroying other people’s property, damaging businesses, and setting the place on fire. Yet leftists are venting all their rage on the well-intentioned yet naive white teen.


----------



## JohnDB

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, yes, if the jury declares itself hopelessly deadlocked, then the judge pretty much has to declare a mistrial.  No idea if he'll declare it with prejudice or without.  He SHOULD declare it with prejudice, but judges are almost as unpredictable as juries.


Judge is the 13th juror...there's a lot of things that he can do... especially to stop a miscarriage of justice. 

Where we might have emotions concerning what we think he should do...he isn't nearly so empassioned. He will work inside the functions of laws to do what is right.


----------



## Lisa558

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, yes, if the jury declares itself hopelessly deadlocked, then the judge pretty much has to declare a mistrial.  No idea if he'll declare it with prejudice or without.  He SHOULD declare it with prejudice, but judges are almost as unpredictable as juries.


Hope he declares it with prejudice as well, but the judge probably fears for his own life too. We all have seen what subhuman terrorists leftists can be if they don’t get their way.


----------



## Lisa558

hadit said:


> According to some, the mob was chasing Rittenhouse because, well, reasons and that he had shot someone and they were trying to stop an active shooter. That would make them vigilantes, or from a different perspective, a lynch mob.


If Rittenhouse were black, the leftists WOULD have called this a lynch mob, and we’d have a whole new set of BLM riots.


----------



## Mr Natural

Lisa558 said:


> We all have seen what subhuman terrorists leftists can be if they don’t get their way.


Little Kyle is a perfect example of that.


----------



## Correll

Mr Clean said:


> Little Kyle is a perfect example of that.




Rittenhouse was the most responsible person out there, that night.


----------



## Lisa558

Mr Clean said:


> Little Kyle is a perfect example of that.


^^^ case in point


----------



## Cecilie1200

Tipsycatlover said:


> I'd say this won't go beyond tomorrow.  The judge won't let this drag on into another week.



I'm really not sure how much control he has over that, so long as the jury is continuing to deliberate and maintains that it is not yet hopelessly deadlocked.

I'm pretty sure he's going to call the jury in at some point and ask if they're deadlocked or still have the possibility of reaching a verdict, but I don't think we've reached that point yet.  As impatient and addicted to instant gratification as our society has become, it's actually not uncommon for it to take a long time.  There was a case in California in 2003 where the jury deliberated for 55 days before rendering a verdict.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And here is your mistake: the judge may let the jury consider lesser charges.



If he were going to do that, he would have already instructed them to that effect.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> ^^^^^^ dip-shit.



Well, if that's really how you want us to refer to you, okay.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> The idiotic trolls inthis forum are wearing me down.  I’ve tried hard not to respond with nothing but insults, but these dip-shits make it difficult.



Translated:  "I thought I would come in here and declare my opinion to be fact and get hailed as a genius, and people insist on disagreeing with me and proving me wrong!!  I'm just so tired of not getting my way!"


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> I have no personal feelings about Rittenhouse.  My view is based on facts and common sense.



Yeah, okay, Sparky.  The delusional and denial are really strong with you.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tahuyaman said:


> That’s it.  The views of the Rittenhouse  fan club is based on an opposition to BLM.



The views of the Rittenhouse lynch mob is based on support for criminals.


----------



## Resnic

Correll said:


> Rittenhouse was the most responsible person out there, that night.



Don't bother replying to him. He has done nothing in this thread except be a contrarian intent on saying stuff just to get a cheap sense of self satisfaction at pissing people off. He gets off on making people mad.


----------



## Lisa558

tahuyaman said:


> I have no personal feelings about Rittenhouse.  My view is based on facts and common sense.


The fact is that once Rittenhouse retreated from the confrontation, which he did by running away (quite a responsible decision, since he had a firearm and could blow the thugs out at that point), he was now In the position of being actively pursued, with the leftist scum screaming to kill him, and they got close to doing just that. Rittenhouse waited until he had no other option and then exercised the right to self-defense.

You just refuse to see the fact because some whitey showed up at a BLM riot in opposition to it.


----------



## JohnDB

Is it time to form a civil defense against rioters?

Since the mayors and governors seem unwilling to do so...

As civilians we can do a lot of things they can't...but they also can do things civilians can't either. 

And if necessary we can use all sorts of nasty, non-lethal deterrents that the police are not allowed to use.


----------



## candycorn

hadit said:


> According to some, the mob was chasing Rittenhouse because, well, reasons and that he had shot someone and they were trying to stop an active shooter. That would make them vigilantes, or from a different perspective, a lynch mob.


You're correct. Those were 2 vigilantes....

So that is two...  Any others?


----------



## candycorn

Lisa558 said:


> The BLM rioters were much worse - that night, and all the nights over three months while they destroyed property, burned down buildings, set cars aflame, and murdered dozens of people. Why aren‘t their trials being televised? Or are there even any trials for them at all? Where’s the trial for the thug looter who killed the police captain? Seems these days, all you see are trials of white boys.



Are you really that challenged to where you can't do this research on your own?  The prison population is 38% black.  Somebody is putting them on trial.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> Is it time to form a civil defense against rioters?
> 
> Since the mayors and governors seem unwilling to do so...
> 
> As civilians we can do a lot of things they can't...but they also can do things civilians can't either.
> 
> And if necessary we can use all sorts of nasty, non-lethal deterrents that the police are not allowed to use.


Well sack up and try something junior....  What you waiting for?


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Are you really that challenged to where you can't do this research on your own?  The prison population is 38% black.  Somebody is putting them on trial.


That would be Joe Biden. 
He signed legislation that resulted in more black people being incarcerated on a higher level than ever before.  He admitted to it during the debates.


----------



## jc456

ColonelAngus said:


> And dude who got his bicep vaporized was in ILLEGAL possession of a Glock…yet the left seems unconcerned by this…


adjudicated for his testimony.  How convenient.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> That would be Joe Biden.
> He signed legislation that resulted in more black people being incarcerated on a higher level than ever before.  He admitted to it during the debates.



Complete hogwash.


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> Well sack up and try something junior....  What you waiting for?


defund police and you get what you get.  citizens do want security.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Well sack up and try something junior....  What you waiting for?


No one has called me "junior" in a lot of years...

And a team of ten trained men can destroy a mob of 1,000 in ten minutes. 

One spotter, one infiltrator and 8 pairs of boots and a riot can be toast in minutes.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

candycorn said:


> Well sack up and try something junior....  What you waiting for?


Like anyone is going to tell you anything on a web forum.  But, keep poking the bear.  I think it's a great idea.


----------



## Resnic

JohnDB said:


> Is it time to form a civil defense against rioters?
> 
> Since the mayors and governors seem unwilling to do so...
> 
> As civilians we can do a lot of things they can't...but they also can do things civilians can't either.
> 
> And if necessary we can use all sorts of nasty, non-lethal deterrents that the police are not allowed to use.



I'm for anything that puts a stop to people rioting Everytime they don't get their way and makes them afraid to threaten to riot to get their way.

I even want to put an end to protests that aren't done appropriately. The ones that block streets, threaten civilians, interrupt people's normal lives or done in inappropriate places. Protests are fine when done properly, but most now are not.

It all needs to stop.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> No one has called me "junior" in a lot of years...
> 
> And a team of ten trained men can destroy a mob of 1,000 in ten minutes.
> 
> One spotter, one infiltrator and 8 pairs of boots and a riot can be toast in minutes.


Well, junior....what you waiting for.  You're not a coward are you?


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Complete hogwash.


Apparently you didn't watch the primary debates...it's a somewhat famous debate because Kamala accused Joe of being prejudice.  That very legislation was the focus of that accusation.


----------



## jc456

JohnDB said:


> No one has called me "junior" in a lot of years...
> 
> And a team of ten trained men can destroy a mob of 1,000 in ten minutes.
> 
> One spotter, one infiltrator and 8 pairs of boots and a riot can be toast in minutes.


well Kyle proved one guy can take out four. Three on his back.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

JohnDB said:


> No one has called me "junior" in a lot of years...
> 
> And a team of ten trained men can destroy a mob of 1,000 in ten minutes.
> 
> One spotter, one infiltrator and 8 pairs of boots and a riot can be toast in minutes.


In fact, the only reason riots don't get shot down like that it's because police are very soft on left-wing insurrectionists.

A volunteer civilian force protecting the lives of family members has no limitations whatsoever.


----------



## 22lcidw

candycorn said:


> Well, junior....what you waiting for.  You're not a coward are you?


Stop daring people. No one is bitch slapping you. But if one did what would you do?


----------



## jc456

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> In fact, the only reason riots don't get shot down like that it's because police are very soft on left-wing insurrectionists.
> 
> A volunteer civilian force protecting the lives of family members has no limitations whatsoever.


wouldn't that change their picture?


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> Apparently you didn't watch the primary debates...it's a somewhat famous debate because Kamala accused Joe of being prejudice.  That very legislation was the focus of that accusation.



Name one law that Biden signed off on that put blacks in state jails.


----------



## JohnDB

jc456 said:


> well Kyle proved one guy can take out four. Three on his back.


Like I said...if a civilian group of ten actually trained together for a couple of weeks...they can obliterate a violent mob.


----------



## jc456

JohnDB said:


> Like I said...if a civilian group of ten actually trained together for a couple of weeks...they can obliterate a violent mob.


why do you think they want the guns?


----------



## AZrailwhale

Cecilie1200 said:


> No, he won't.  That's not how it works.


That is how it works,  a juror refusing to vote is juror misconduct.  And the juror is removed.  A juror swears an oath to participate impartially.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, he can definitely declare a mistrial.  And I frankly think he should at this point, as well as file an ethics complaint with the Bar Association, given the various shenanigans of the prosecution.  I've seen attorneys disbarred for far less.
> 
> But he can't replace jurors because the jury is hung (assuming it is).


If this story is true, it’s not a hung jury, three members are refusing to vote either way.  A jury is hung by one or more jurors voting against the other jurors and refusing to change their votes.


----------



## Lisa558

candycorn said:


> Are you really that challenged to where you can't do this research on your own?  The prison population is 38% black.  Somebody is putting them on trial.


So?


candycorn said:


> Are you really that challenged to where you can't do this research on your own?  The prison population is 38% black.  Somebody is putting them on trial.


Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, so that would make sense. But I am speaking of what’s happened lately - toms of blacks committing violence at BLM rally’s, burning the place down, destroying property, and yes, killing people - and we are only seeing whitrs hung out to dry.

Why no televised trial for that scumbag looter who murdered the retired police captain? That was much more heinous - he shot someone in cold blood when his life was not in danger.  Or what about any of the other dozens of murderers over the BLM riots all summer? So far, the only case we see is of a good-hearted white teen with no criminal record being scapegoated.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

hadit said:


> According to some, the mob was chasing Rittenhouse because, well, reasons and that he had shot someone and they were trying to stop an active shooter. That would make them vigilantes, or from a different perspective, a lynch mob.


Originally Rittenhouse was being chased because he put out a fire in a dumpster being rolled into a gas station.


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Name one law that Biden signed off on that put blacks in state jails.


Apparently you are just a troll. 
Not even armed for a battle of wits. 

I'm A-political but even I'm aware of that particular debate because of Kamala getting tapped for VP.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

AZrailwhale said:


> If this story is true, it’s not a hung jury, three members are refusing to vote either way.  A jury is hung by one or more jurors voting against the other jurors and refusing to change their votes.


I doubt that.  Any juror refusing to vote would be reported to the judge by the jury foreman and replaced by an alternate.


----------



## JohnDB

AZrailwhale said:


> That is how it works,  a juror refusing to vote is juror misconduct.  And the juror is removed.  A juror swears an oath to participate impartially.



Also being influenced by others outside of the jury pool is also reason for a mistrial...such as threats of more riots. 

Which is going to turnover the Chauvin trial as well.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> In fact, the only reason riots don't get shot down like that it's because police are very soft on left-wing insurrectionists.
> 
> A volunteer civilian force protecting the lives of family members has no limitations whatsoever.


What is more likely, is a return to paid private security forces like those that existed before police departments.  Municipal police departments are a relatively recent thing.  Before them, neighborhoods, or rich people hired thugs to patrol their streets and deal with criminals.  Often calling it a night watch or something similar.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

candycorn said:


> Well, junior....what you waiting for.  You're not a coward are you?


Look, twat.  You think you're being cute with your "double-dog daring" but we see right through your schtick.  Take your man-shaming bullshit the fuck outta here.


----------



## bodecea

AZrailwhale said:


> If that’s the case the judge will either replace them with alternates or declare a mistrial if there aren’t enough alternates.


So many rumors from so many people who have NO access to this jury.................


----------



## AZrailwhale

Tipsycatlover said:


> I doubt that.  Any juror refusing to vote would be reported to the judge by the jury foreman and replaced by an alternate.


According to the OP, that’s what’s happening now.  That’s what we are discussing.  If you doubt me, take a second and go back and look.  The OP said he had information that three jurors are refusing to vote either way.


----------



## bodecea

Lisa558 said:


> The FBI has been weaponized to intimidate American citizens who dissent from radical liberalism, but that’s a different thread.


----------



## AZrailwhale

bodecea said:


> So many rumors from so many people who have NO access to this jury.................


That’s all there are right now.  The only people who know what is going on in the deliberation room are the jurors.


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## bodecea

Lisa558 said:


> The BLM rioters were much worse - that night, and all the nights over three months while they destroyed property, burned down buildings, set cars aflame, and murdered dozens of people. Why aren‘t their trials being televised? Or are there even any trials for them at all? Where’s the trial for the thug looter who killed the police captain? Seems these days, all you see are trials of white boys.


"All the nights over three months"?         Jacob Blake, who's shooting by Kenosha cops, only happened TWO DAYS before Rittenhouse went on his vigilante rampage............so protests for only TWO DAYS at the most.   Why are you lying?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Lisa558 said:


> The FBI has been weaponized to intimidate American citizens who dissent from radical liberalism, but that’s a different thread.


...to intimidate American citizens who dissent from _*the establishment*_.  

Make no mistake, Washington D.C. in its entirety sees the rest of us as peasants who pay tribute for the honor of licking their boots and doing as commanded.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

AZrailwhale said:


> That’s all there are right now.  The only people who know what is going on in the deliberation room are the jurors.


And by "rumors", we mean, "Lies made up out of thin air."


----------



## bodecea

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, it’s the cancel culture taken to the next extreme. First, they silence you. Next, they sic the FBI on you. Next, they try to lock you up for life.
> 
> Leftists bring a new and chilling meaning to “my way or the highway.”
> 
> This Is no longer America. We have to make sure the left doesn’t cheat its way to a win in November 2022, so we can sweep Congress (both chambers) and block more of the Communist transformation. Hope the damage isn’t beyond repair by then, as the left sees the writing on the wall and is now doubling down on their destruction.


"This is no longer America"....................what is it then?


----------



## bodecea

AZrailwhale said:


> That’s all there are right now.  The only people who know what is going on in the deliberation room are the jurors.


Empty vapid heads and you know what they say about a vacuum....Nature abhors one.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

AZrailwhale said:


> According to the OP, that’s what’s happening now.  That’s what we are discussing.  If you doubt me, take a second and go back and look.  The OP said he had information that three jurors are refusing to vote either way.


That would last no more than a day before the judge sends in alternates and charges the non participating jurors with contempt.

Now, are you saying there is secret information known only to the OP?   If the OP knows someone knows who could tell the judge.


----------



## bodecea

Lisa558 said:


> Yes, leftists have turned this country and its values upside down. The only person with a good heart and decent values at the Kenosha riot that night was Kyle, with the others a bunch of savages intent on destroying other people’s property, damaging businesses, and setting the place on fire. Yet leftists are venting all their rage on the well-intentioned yet naive white teen.


"The only person with a good heart and decent values at the Kenosha riot was".................the thug murderer.   This is a good look at rightwing values, isn't it?


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> Rittenhouse was the most responsible person out there, that night.


The underaged kid branishing the gun was the "most responsible person out there"........................


----------



## bodecea

Cecilie1200 said:


> The views of the Rittenhouse lynch mob is based on support for criminals.


"Rittenhouse lynch mob".......................


----------



## EvilCat Breath

AZrailwhale said:


> What is more likely, is a return to paid private security forces like those that existed before police departments.  Municipal police departments are a relatively recent thing.  Before them, neighborhoods, or rich people hired thugs to patrol their streets and deal with criminals.  Often calling it a night watch or something similar.


In Brazil off duty police and hired enforcers would hunt and kill feral children.  I don't know if they still do that.  It would be an ideal way to deal with shoplifters and smash and grab.


----------



## bodecea

JohnDB said:


> No one has called me "junior" in a lot of years...
> 
> And a team of ten trained men can destroy a mob of 1,000 in ten minutes.
> 
> One spotter, one infiltrator and 8 pairs of boots and a riot can be toast in minutes.


Well, why just talk about it....why aren't you doing it?


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> Again, has there ever been a vigilante the right wing hasn't idolized?


Why do you not understand that shooting someone in self-defense is not vigilanteism?


----------



## bodecea

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> In fact, the only reason riots don't get shot down like that it's because police are very soft on left-wing insurrectionists.
> 
> A volunteer civilian force protecting the lives of family members has no limitations whatsoever.


Which "volunteer civilian force" do YOU already belong to?


----------



## bodecea

22lcidw said:


> Stop daring people. No one is bitch slapping you. But if one did what would you do?


So....................it's all just Kowardly Keyboard Kommando talk.   What a surprise.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Cecilie1200 said:


> I just heard, "Fuck the legal definitions.  I have declared this, and that makes it TRUE!!!"


And this is why the board has an ignore feature.


----------



## bodecea

JohnDB said:


> Like I said...if a civilian group of ten actually trained together for a couple of weeks...they can obliterate a violent mob.


----------



## Lisa558

Tipsycatlover said:


> Originally Rittenhouse was being chased because he put out a fire in a dumpster being rolled into a gas station.


Is that it? So IOW, he was interfering with the savages‘ attempt to destroy property. And even more than that, he was a white teen trying to block the terror being committed in the name of “blacks’ rights”.  And behind even that, it all went back to a criminal thug black who defied police instruction and went for a weapon.


----------



## DrLove

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Still confused about the judge's right side and the judge's left side?


Keep digging!


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Lisa558 said:


> Is that it? So IOW, he was interfering with the savages attempt to destroy property. And even more than that, he was a white teen trying to block the terror being committed in the name of “blacks’ rights”.  And behind even that, it all went back to a criminal thug black who defied police instruction and went for a weapon.


That is what caused Rosenbaum to chase Rittenhouse.


----------



## Flash

bodecea said:


> "The only person with a good heart and decent values at the Kenosha riot was".................the thug murderer.   This is a good look at rightwing values, isn't it?




He is a good kid that had to defend himself from a vicious attack by filthy ass Moon Bat thugs and all you Libtards can do is demean him?  

You little shitheads are just as ignorant of Ethics as you are Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science and the Constitution.


----------



## tahuyaman

The Riitrnhouse cult is now drinking the kiool Aid


----------



## Lisa558

Tipsycatlover said:


> That is what caused Rosenbaum to chase Rittenhouse.


Makes the whole thing even worse. What leftists are saying is that they want to destroy property, damage businesses, burn stuff down, because reasons, and any decent person who tries to undo their damage will be killed.


----------



## bodecea

Tipsycatlover said:


> In Brazil off duty police and hired enforcers would hunt and kill feral children.  I don't know if they still do that.  It would be an ideal way to deal with shoplifters and smash and grab.


Well, isn't THIS a cool idea for the right wing.


----------



## jc456

bodecea said:


> "The only person with a good heart and decent values at the Kenosha riot was".................the thug murderer.   This is a good look at rightwing values, isn't it?


how was a rosenbaum a hero? Grosskreutz?  Huber?  Jump kick man?  Zilinski?  just explain the difference between their appearance there and Kyle's


----------



## bodecea

Flash said:


> He is a good kid that had to defend himself from a vicious attack by filthy ass Moon Bat thugs and all you Libtards can do is demean him?
> 
> You little shitheads are just as ignorant of Ethics as you are Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science and the Constitution.


"He's a good kid".....a good kid that likes to sucker punch high school girls?


----------



## jc456

Lisa558 said:


> Makes the whole thing even worse. What leftists are saying is that they want to destroy property, damage businesses, burn stuff down, and any decent person who tries to undo their damage will be killed.


well threatened at least.  Which was corroborated by witnesses.


----------



## candycorn

Lisa558 said:


> So?


You were wondering why there are no trials for black folks.  Turns out there are.


Lisa558 said:


> Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, so that would make sense. But I am speaking of what’s happened lately - toms of blacks committing violence at BLM rally’s, burning the place down, destroying property, and yes, killing people - and we are only seeing whitrs hung out to dry.


You'd have to admit that some guy who looks like the pillsbury doughboy driving across state lines to use an illegal weapon who kills 2 people because he was scared they were going to take the gun he decided to bring to the party is a bit of a unique event.


Lisa558 said:


> Why no televised trial for that scumbag looter who murdered the retired police captain? That was much more heinous - he shot someone in cold blood when his life was not in danger.  Or what about any of the other dozens of murderers over the BLM riots all summer? So far, the only case we see is of a good-hearted white teen with no criminal record being scapegoated.


That is actually a good point.

I don't know why any of these trials are being telecast.  Does it add to the justice for the victims or the plaintiff?  Pop and Fresh's life will be different going forward; win, lose, or draw. 

I really hope that judges stop this silly practice. 

You didn't ask but I'll tell you why I think it happens; the judges are vain.  I can't think of any other reason....

Anyway...good point.


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> The underaged kid branishing the gun was the "most responsible person out there"........................




Yep. As demonstrated by his coolness under assault and the results. 


Name one person or group that was doing better than him that night.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

bodecea said:


> "The only person with a good heart and decent values at the Kenosha riot was".................the thug murderer.   This is a good look at rightwing values, isn't it?





bodecea said:


> The underaged kid branishing the gun was the "most responsible person out there"........................


You clearly have not been watching the trial.


bodecea said:


> Which "volunteer civilian force" do YOU already belong to?


The Gay Black Jewish Nazi Pagan Trans Bikers for Christ.


----------



## candycorn

JohnDB said:


> Apparently you are just a troll.
> Not even armed for a battle of wits.
> 
> I'm A-political but even I'm aware of that particular debate because of Kamala getting tapped for VP.



Well, junior, either back up your statement or wallow in shame.  Biden hasn't held state office since the 80's in Delaware if I recall.  He has zero effect on what laws are putting people in jail in whatever red shit hole state you live in.


----------



## candycorn

M14 Shooter said:


> Why do you not understand that shooting someone in self-defense is not vigilanteism?



Yeah, I can't think of one either...thanks for the assist in making you look foolish.


----------



## Flash

bodecea said:


> "He's a good kid".....a good kid that likes to sucker punch high school girls?




The bad kids were the criminal record shithead Insurrectionists that threatened him and ran him down and kicked him the head, tried to bash his head in with a club and aimed a loaded Glock at his head.  All because he helped to put out a street fire the thugs started.

Your values are fucked up, aren't they?  Typical for a stupid uneducated Moon Bat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

candycorn said:


> Yeah, I can't think of one either...thanks for the assist in making you look foolish.


Serious question.  Not a troll.  Genuinely curious.

Do you believe that a person has the right to self-defense with a firearm?


----------



## Lisa558

candycorn said:


> You were wondering why there are no trials for black folks.  Turns out there are.
> 
> You'd have to admit that some guy who looks like the pillsbury doughboy driving across state lines to use an illegal weapon who kills 2 people because he was scared they were going to take the gun he decided to bring to the party is a bit of a unique event.
> 
> That is actually a good point.
> 
> I don't know why any of these trials are being telecast.  Does it add to the justice for the victims or the plaintiff?  Pop and Fresh's life will be different going forward; win, lose, or draw.
> 
> I really hope that judges stop this silly practice.
> 
> You didn't ask but I'll tell you why I think it happens; the judges are vain.  I can't think of any other reason....
> 
> Anyway...good point.



First, the thugs HAD threatened to kill him and then were within spitting distance. Once again, you are making excuses for the felons because they are BLM savages, and reserving your venom for the only decent person there that night - Kyle.

Second, glad you credit me with bringing up a good point as to why we only see whites in trials while blacks who have done much worse are not. And I will answer it for you. The left is a)  so overcompensating for black criminals that they fear the optics will look bad if they are seen to ”go after“ a Black, no matter what a scumbag lowlife he is, and b) has so spread an atmosphere where whitey is vilified that are comfortable showing how “we aren’t letting whitey get away with no shit.”


----------



## M14 Shooter

candycorn said:


> You'd have to admit that some guy who looks like the pillsbury doughboy driving across state lines to use an illegal weapon who kills 2 people because he was scared they were going to take the gun he decided to bring to the party is a bit of a unique event.


You haven't heard?  The wepaon was not illegal.
And the rest of your claim is unsupportable nonsense


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> Are you really that challenged to where you can't do this research on your own?  The prison population is 38% black.  Somebody is putting them on trial.


And 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks so they rightly are there.


----------



## M14 Shooter

RetiredGySgt said:


> And 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks so they rightly are there.


- Just - 37%?


----------



## Lisa558

RetiredGySgt said:


> And 37 percent of all violent crime is committed by blacks so they rightly are there.


Actually, it’s higher than that - 51% of all murders and 53% of all robberies. That’s pretty bad when you consider they are only 14% of the population.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

candycorn said:


> Well, junior, either back up your statement or wallow in shame.  Biden hasn't held state office since the 80's in Delaware if I recall.  He has zero effect on what laws are putting people in jail in whatever red shit hole state you live in.


Never heard of federal laws I guess, are you really that clueless?


----------



## JohnDB

candycorn said:


> Well, junior, either back up your statement or wallow in shame.  Biden hasn't held state office since the 80's in Delaware if I recall.  He has zero effect on what laws are putting people in jail in whatever red shit hole state you live in.


So you are admitting that you are a troll...

I've been busy making candy for Christmas...I really don't have the time to deal with trolls. 

At least you admitted it though...I'll now know not to waste time on you.


----------



## JohnDB

BTW...if anyone wants the recipe for homemade Caramels I got it on the top of my head.


----------



## Resnic

JohnDB said:


> BTW...if anyone wants the recipe for homemade Caramels I got it on the top of my head.



I got one also.

Go buy caramels at the store, unwrap them, put them on a plate, say you made them.


----------



## JohnDB

Resnic said:


> I got one also.
> 
> Go buy caramels at the store, unwrap them, put them on a plate, say you made them.


Not anywhere near the same thing. 

I feel bad for you if you have never had good homemade caramels.  Those things in the store are tasteless by comparison. 

I use real cream and butter and a splash of vanilla (I also made) and the flavor is way better than the store bought variety.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Mr Clean said:


> But that wasn't the case. He knew exactly where he was going.



He knew a convicted child rapist was going to attack him?


----------



## Correll

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He knew a convicted child rapist was going to attack him?



An insane, convicted child rapist. 


We really should focus more on the fact that he was insane, and ask, who was it, that decided that he was ready to be released onto the streets. 


I'd love to see that person interviewed.

But that would require actual reporters.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

DrLove said:


> Keep digging!



Rittenhouse and his lawyer are on the judge's left side.
Who is on the judge's right side?
You can ask a nearby adult if you're still confused about left and right.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He knew a convicted child rapist was going to attack him?


Yes.

That's why he gave his body armor to someone else and said "I don't need it.  I am going to help people."


----------



## Resnic

JohnDB said:


> Not anywhere near the same thing.
> 
> I feel bad for you if you have never had good homemade caramels.  Those things in the store are tasteless by comparison.
> 
> I use real cream and butter and a splash of vanilla (I also made) and the flavor is way better than the store bought variety.



It was a attempt at humor is all. Admittedly a poor attempt.

I never was a fan of caramel. Only time I like it is in turtles candy.


----------



## Correll

Resnic said:


> It was a attempt at humor is all. Admittedly a poor attempt.
> 
> I never was a fan of caramel. Only time I like it is in turtles candy.




My wife sometimes makes homemade caramel for us to dip apples in. There is a difference. Oh, and your joke was funny.


----------



## Resnic

Correll said:


> My wife sometimes makes homemade caramel for us to dip apples in. There is a difference. Oh, and your joke was funny.



Ok, I forgot about apple slices in caramel. That's two times I like caramel. Never had homemade caramel though.


----------



## hadit

candycorn said:


> You're correct. Those were 2 vigilantes....
> 
> So that is two...  Any others?


Sure, anyone who was chasing him and looking to assault or kill him. That includes jump kick guy.


----------



## hadit

bodecea said:


> "Rittenhouse lynch mob".......................


What else do you call it when a mob chases a single person down and assaults him?


----------



## AZrailwhale

bodecea said:


> "All the nights over three months"?         Jacob Blake, who's shooting by Kenosha cops, only happened TWO DAYS before Rittenhouse went on his vigilante rampage............so protests for only TWO DAYS at the most.   Why are you lying?


Those were riots all over the country that summer.


----------



## JohnDB

Resnic said:


> It was a attempt at humor is all. Admittedly a poor attempt.
> 
> I never was a fan of caramel. Only time I like it is in turtles candy.


Ummm....I know how to make those too...and I have the pecans to make that happen. (And know to temper the chocolate first)


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Yes.
> 
> That's why he gave his body armor to someone else and said "I don't need it.  I am going to help people."


Too bad he didn't stick to that.


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Too bad he didn't stick to that.




Wasn't he? And then he got attacked. What part of that don't you get?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Correll said:


> Wasn't he? And then he got attacked. What part of that don't you get?


Nope. Unless you think there was a person in the dumpster.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Looks like they are about to announce the verdict.


----------



## jc456

candycorn said:


> You'd have to admit that some guy who looks like the pillsbury doughboy driving across state lines to use an illegal weapon who kills 2 people because he was scared they were going to take the gun he decided to bring to the party is a bit of a unique event.


what does this mean?  Do you think this is East Germany and people can't drive across state lines?  Rosenbaum was from Texas, how did he get there?


----------



## Correll

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Nope. Unless you think there was a person in the dumpster.




Fair enough. I take it  you are NOT saying that being stopped from burning down a business, makes attacking Rittenhouse justified legally or morally....


----------



## hadit

jc456 said:


> what does this mean?  Do you think this is East Germany and people can't drive across state lines?  Rosenbaum was from Texas, how did he get there?


We're only supposed to be concerned about what Rittenhouse did, not what the rioters were doing. They're above reproach.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

NOT GUILTY!


----------



## DigitalDrifter

SUCK ON IT JOY REID!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hadit said:


> We're only supposed to be concerned about what Rittenhouse did, not what the rioters were doing. They're above reproach.


Stop being a whiny baby. If grosskreutz had shot Kyle, he would be charged too.


----------



## hadit

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop being a whiny baby. If grosskreutz had shot Kyle, he would be charged too.


Still waiting to see someone charged for assaulting Rittenhouse. Still waiting for firearms charges on mob members, especially the yahoo that fired into the air.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hadit said:


> Still waiting to see someone charged for assaulting Rittenhouse. Still waiting for firearms charges on mob members, especially the yahoo that fired into the air.


Well you will be waiting for a while. They would surely not be convicted.


----------



## jc456

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Too bad he didn't stick to that.


stick to what? I don't think he was glue. Magnet maybe, cause he attracted quite a few loonies.


----------



## tahuyaman

Flash said:


> He is a good kid that had to defend himself from a vicious attack by filthy ass Moon Bat thugs and all you Libtards can do is demean him?
> 
> You little shitheads are just as ignorant of Ethics as you are Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science and the Constitution.


Rittenhouse is a troubled teen who was raised in a dysfunctional family.   He apparently didn’t have a solid male role model n his life.


----------



## progressive hunter

tahuyaman said:


> Rittenhouse is a troubled teen who was raised in a dysfunctional family.   He apparently didn’t have a solid male role model n his life.


go away troll


----------



## hadit

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well you will be waiting for a while. They would surely not be convicted.


And therein lies the problem. When the rioters are excused while someone trying to mitigate the damage they cause is arrested and charged, politically correct bias is obvious.


----------



## Resnic

tahuyaman said:


> Rittenhouse is a troubled teen who was raised in a dysfunctional family.   He apparently didn’t have a solid male role model n his life.



Doesn't matter what you type to try and piss off people. He was found not guilty just now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hadit said:


> And therein lies the problem. When the rioters are excused while someone trying to mitigate the damage they cause is arrested and charged, politically correct bias is obvious.


They are not excused. You just don't understand reality. Your right wing paranoid fantasies hold no weight.


----------



## jc456

DigitalDrifter said:


> NOT GUILTY!


Outstanding.  The blind folks in here who can't see self defense, I feel sorry for you that you never have the need for it.


----------



## jc456

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They are not excused. You just don't understand reality. Your right wing paranoid fantasies hold no weight.


they were by demofks.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> Rittenhouse is a troubled teen who was raised in a dysfunctional family.   He apparently didn’t have a solid male role model n his life.


This is you:


----------



## hadit

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> They are not excused. You just don't understand reality. Your right wing paranoid fantasies hold no weight.


Be sure to let us know when charges are filed against them.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This is you:


That’s dumb. About what I expect from you.


----------



## tahuyaman

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> This is you:


If you call yourself a conservative, you discredit all true conservatives.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> My wife sometimes makes homemade caramel for us to dip apples in. There is a difference. Oh, and your joke was funny.


Not guilty on all counts?  What is wrong with us?


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Not guilty on all counts?  What is wrong with us?


By "us" you mean "people that think like you".
Easy:
You refuse to see facts.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> By "us" you mean "people that think like you".
> Easy:
> You refuse to see facts.


Next time I see a comotion I'll take my gun down to it and have a look.  You bring yours too.  Wild west days are back.  

Can you explain it to me?  I've been up north hunting I am not following closely


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> Can you explain it to me?


The NG verdict?
Thugs assaulted, tried to assault, and possibly tried to kill Rittenhouse; he shot them in self-defense.


----------



## sealybobo

M14 Shooter said:


> By "us" you mean "people that think like you".
> Easy:
> You refuse to see facts.


President Biden said he did not watch the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, but he stands by the verdict and the judicial system.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> President Biden said he did not watch the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, but he stands by the verdict and the judicial system.


Kind of surprising.
Probably trying to avoid a lawsuit.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> Not guilty on all counts?  What is wrong with us?


Obviously, the jury knew more than some of us did, and didn't have a preconceived need to get a guilty verdict.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> Next time I see a comotion I'll take my gun down to it and have a look. You bring yours too. Wild west days are back.




Sounds good to me.  Do you even know which end is the dangerous end?

Either way, we could have a whole football stadium full of armed people, and nothing will ever happen unless SOMEBODY makes it happen.

don't start nothin'
won't be nothin'

But I am glad that you are coming around on the whole....human right to arms thinky.  I know you have hated it until now.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

tahuyaman said:


> If you call yourself a conservative, you discredit all true conservatives.


As a matter of fact, I call myself a liberal.  I often do discredit you neo-cons.  It's not hard.  You kind of do it yourselves.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> Not guilty on all counts?  What is wrong with us?


Yes, what is wrong with you?


----------



## john doe 101

Odd nobody in hear making excuses or coming up with conspiracy theories like some people were yesterday when they were afraid Kyle might be found guilty.  Isnt that odd?


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> As a matter of fact, I call myself a liberal.  I often do discredit you neo-cons.  It's not hard.  You kind of do it yourselves.


You can call yourself anything you want.  Fact is you are no liberal.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

john doe 101 said:


> You can call yourself anything you want.  Fact is you are no liberal.


Fact is, you have no Goddamn clue what a liberal is.  You've been brainwashed to think that Socialism is liberal.

Liberal:


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Sounds good to me.  Do you even know which end is the dangerous end?
> 
> Either way, we could have a whole football stadium full of armed people, and nothing will ever happen unless SOMEBODY makes it happen.
> 
> don't start nothin'
> won't be nothin'
> 
> But I am glad that you are coming around on the whole....human right to arms thinky.  I know you have hated it until now.


Meanwhile I'm hunting right now with a Ruger 450 Bushmaster

Rittenhouse is a Blue Lives Matter enthusiast who went to protests against a police shooting with a military-style rifle that he obtained illegally, falsely told people he was a medic, and ended up killing and hurting people who felt threatened by him. The overwhelmingly white jury appears to have given Rittenhouse the benefit of the doubt, after a trial in which the judge at times appeared to show favorable treatment of the defendant, and in a country in which it’s almost impossible to imagine a Black defendant accused of similar crimes receiving such easy treatment.

Rittenhouse’s series of encounters was only possible in a society with truly harrowing social maladies, including a pathological obsession with guns and a rising culture of right-wing militias. Did Rittenhouse set out to shoot people that night? That question is unanswerable. But the whole situation would never have emerged anywhere but in a deeply ill society.

Here are three takeaways from this trial — and the national conversation surrounding it.

*1. Rittenhouse’s case was about self-defense. And it was hard to argue against.*
whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense when he fired his shots, according to Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.

As she explained in a column for MSNBC prior to the verdict, that that was a very high bar to meet under Wisconsin’s vaguely worded law:

*2. In an America that wasn’t swimming in guns, this would never have happened.*

Rittenhouse’s foremost error was to take a gun to the protest. Being 17 at the time, he was not old enough to buy one (an older friend purchased it for him), and he was not mature enough to wield one. But he took one anyway, and that misjudgment resulted in loss of life that otherwise would never have happened.

*3. Rittenhouse shows the dangers of an alarming vigilante culture.*


----------



## sealybobo

john doe 101 said:


> You can call yourself anything you want.  Fact is you are no liberal.


He went from NeoCon loving Bush to Nazi loving Trumpster.


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Yes, what is wrong with you?


That was very liberal of you.


----------



## M14 Shooter

sealybobo said:


> *2. In an America that wasn’t swimming in guns, this would never have happened.*


You're right.   Rittenhouse would be just another casualty of the #BLMob


sealybobo said:


> Rittenhouse’s foremost error was to take a gun to the protest. Being 17 at the time, he was not old enough to buy one (an older friend purchased it for him), and he was not mature enough to wield one.


The results say otherwise.


sealybobo said:


> *3. Rittenhouse shows the dangers of an alarming vigilante culture.*


Self-defense has nothng to do with vigilantism.


----------



## john doe 101

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Fact is, you have no Goddamn clue what a liberal is.  You've been brainwashed to think that Socialism is liberal.
> 
> Liberal:


Yep, we no longer live in the 18th, 19th, or 20th century.  Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

tahuyaman said:


> Rittenhouse is a troubled teen who was raised in a dysfunctional family.   He apparently didn’t have a solid male role model n his life.



He took out the trash.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Next time I see a comotion I'll take my gun down to it and have a look. You bring yours too. Wild west days are back.



Riots across the nation show those days were back, long before the riots in Kenosha.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> who went to protests against a police shooting with a military-style rifle



Sounds scary!!!
Is that worse than a non-military style rifle?


----------



## Resnic

sealybobo said:


> Meanwhile I'm hunting right now with a Ruger 450 Bushmaster
> 
> Rittenhouse is a Blue Lives Matter enthusiast who went to protests against a police shooting with a military-style rifle that he obtained illegally, falsely told people he was a medic, and ended up killing and hurting people who felt threatened by him. The overwhelmingly white jury appears to have given Rittenhouse the benefit of the doubt, after a trial in which the judge at times appeared to show favorable treatment of the defendant, and in a country in which it’s almost impossible to imagine a Black defendant accused of similar crimes receiving such easy treatment.
> 
> Rittenhouse’s series of encounters was only possible in a society with truly harrowing social maladies, including a pathological obsession with guns and a rising culture of right-wing militias. Did Rittenhouse set out to shoot people that night? That question is unanswerable. But the whole situation would never have emerged anywhere but in a deeply ill society.
> 
> Here are three takeaways from this trial — and the national conversation surrounding it.
> 
> *1. Rittenhouse’s case was about self-defense. And it was hard to argue against.*
> whether the prosecution could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse did not act in self-defense when he fired his shots, according to Barbara McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.
> 
> As she explained in a column for MSNBC prior to the verdict, that that was a very high bar to meet under Wisconsin’s vaguely worded law:
> 
> *2. In an America that wasn’t swimming in guns, this would never have happened.*
> 
> Rittenhouse’s foremost error was to take a gun to the protest. Being 17 at the time, he was not old enough to buy one (an older friend purchased it for him), and he was not mature enough to wield one. But he took one anyway, and that misjudgment resulted in loss of life that otherwise would never have happened.
> 
> *3. Rittenhouse shows the dangers of an alarming vigilante culture.*



You are truly beyond hope and do not belong in this country.


----------



## john doe 101

Resnic said:


> You are truly beyond hope and do not belong in this country.


Who said you do, boy?


----------



## candycorn

Lisa558 said:


> Second, glad you credit me with bringing up a good point as to why we only see whites in trials while blacks who have done much worse are not.


Yeah...I seem to remember OJ being on TV.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Mr Clean said:


> Little Kyle is a perfect example of that.



Coming from you, that means he's a decent human being and a hero, and you just hate that sort of thing.


----------



## FA_Q2

They are already blaming a broken system and racism.  Not really much of a surprise.

The evidence broke hard for Rittenhouse and the verdict was already pretty likely as easily shown by the media trying to cover their ass the past few days.  If the charges that the prosecutor withheld evidence are true though, there needs to be something done about that.  That is unacceptable.

For MONTHS the media has been calling Rittenhouse a murderer over and over again.  Over and over again they stated that Rittenhouse went there with the intent to kill people.  That such propaganda was blasted out DAILY and that riots were a damn good possibility after the verdict as well yet he was still acquitted of all charges should be an indication of jsut how strong the case actually was.

The the great chagrin of all the idiots here demanding he was a thug murderer.


----------



## sealybobo

Resnic said:


> You are truly beyond hope and do not belong in this country.


Oh fuck you.  I'm a moderate.  To say that to me, you must be an extreme right wing nut job.


----------



## 22lcidw

john doe 101 said:


> You can call yourself anything you want.  Fact is you are no liberal.


You can be liberal and be on the right. The difference is that being responsible for ones actions comes into play and the social programs that pay people off for the same are questionable. We are now going to add more social programs. And they do not get cut once started.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Next time I see a comotion I'll take my gun down to it and have a look.  You bring yours too.  Wild west days are back.
> 
> Can you explain it to me?  I've been up north hunting I am not following closely


That’s what happens at riots. They are violent, they aren’t peaceful protests. Property is damaged, looted and people get hurt. I, like most people are smart enough to stay away from such events. They are danger and there is no expectation of anyone being safe. You want to be a stupid idiot, take your gun and go, that is how stupid people get killed.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Oh fuck you.  I'm a moderate.  To say that to me, you must be an extreme right wing nut job.


When in the hell did you become a moderate? Lol! That is some funny shot you are spewing.


----------



## sealybobo

22lcidw said:


> You can be liberal and be on the right. The difference is that being responsible for ones actions comes into play and the social programs that pay people off for the same are questionable. We are now going to add more social programs. And they do not get cut once started.


My friends and family say I'm not liberal.

My opinions on BLM.  I see both sides but tend to argue for the left.
Global warming is real
Unions are good
Social Security and Medicare are good
Get vaccinated
Undo all the tax breaks for the rich and corporations.  Roll back the Reagan tax cuts not just the Bush and Trump ones.
Go after illegal employers who hire illegals.

Are you mad at Colin Kappernick for taking a knee?  Then you aren't a liberal.


----------



## Papageorgio

john doe 101 said:


> You can call yourself anything you want.  Fact is you are no liberal.


You are a lefty, you are not a liberal.


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> You want to be a stupid idiot, take your gun and go, that is how stupid people get killed.


Exactly.  So you agree Rittenhouse is stupid and his stupidity got people killed.


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> You are a lefty, you are not a liberal.


What's a liberal?  I've been a liberal for 40 years suddenly I'm not?  

It's like when Republicans tried to change what fascism means.  They said they weren't the fascists we were.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> Exactly.  So you agree Rittenhouse is stupid and his stupidity got people killed.


Not only have I said he should not have been there but anyone else at the riot should not have been there and no one would have had damaged property, been looted or hurt.

They are all stupid that night Rittenhouse, other rioters, including those that got killed. Had they not tried to harm Rittenhouse, I doubt they would have been killed. Just stupid people doing stupid things. Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as anyone else.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> He went from NeoCon loving Bush to Nazi loving Trumpster.


I have always maintained that I am a REAL liberal, unlike the fake liberal authoritarian commies who claim to be liberals.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> What's a liberal?  I've been a liberal for 40 years suddenly I'm not?
> 
> It's like when Republicans tried to change what fascism means.  They said they weren't the fascists we were.


You are no liberal, I know liberals and you are a lefty. There are liberals on this board but most are right or left, very few liberals or conservative.


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> Not only have I said he should not have been there but anyone else at the riot should not have been there and no one would have had damaged property, been looted or hurt.
> 
> They are all stupid that night Rittenhouse, other rioters, including those that got killed. Had they not tried to harm Rittenhouse, I doubt they would have been killed. Just stupid people doing stupid things. Rittenhouse had as much right to be there as anyone else.


It's a slippery slope.  It's sad that what went down was legal.  Like I said before if it were a bunch of muslims or blacks running around with guns and someone got shot I think people would feel much differently.  This smells of white priviledge.


----------



## Papageorgio

sealybobo said:


> It's a slippery slope.  It's sad that what went down was legal.  Like I said before if it were a bunch of muslims or blacks running around with guns and someone got shot I think people would feel much differently.  This smells of white priviledge.


There was no case, I would feel that way no matter what. I’m not sure how race fits in. White boy kills two white boys and wounds another white boy. Not sure who got the white privilege fits in where everyone is white.

Bring in race is a typical left move, retarded but expected.


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I have always maintained that I am a REAL liberal, unlike the fake liberal authoritarian commies who claim to be liberals.


What about the vaccine?  Do you defend people who are unvaccinated?
What about global warming?  Is it fake?
What about the election?  Was it rigged?
Did you like Reagan?
What do you think about trannies in women's bathrooms?
Do you want to go after illegal employers who hire illegals?  Not just a slap on the wrist.
Do you like unions?

You just want to change what Liberal means.  Next you'll tell us you're a progressive not a conservative.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> My friends and family say I'm not liberal.


I say you're not liberal.  I am. 



sealybobo said:


> My opinions on BLM. I see both sides but tend to argue for the left.


Not sure what you consider the "left" to be on that subject.


sealybobo said:


> Global warming is real


Man-made climate change is insignificant, at best.  It's a scam to tax the fuck out of everybody.


sealybobo said:


> Social Security and Medicare are good


...are bankrupt Ponzi schemes.


sealybobo said:


> Get vaccinated


Nope. 


sealybobo said:


> Undo all the tax breaks for the rich and corporations. Roll back the Reagan tax cuts not just the Bush and Trump ones.


No federal income taxes.  Go back to the stamp or an 8% sales tax on non-necessary goods/services, and shrink that bitch back to 1791.


sealybobo said:


> Go after illegal employers who hire illegals.


...in addition to a 40 foot wall and mote from Port Isabell to 100 miles west of Laredo.


sealybobo said:


> Are you mad at Colin Kappernick for taking a knee? Then you aren't a liberal.


No, but I am certainly confused as to why I should give a fuck about his stupid protest.  He is a top 0.5% earner.  Hardly oppressed.  But, he has the right to express himself, good or bad.


----------



## sealybobo

Papageorgio said:


> There was no case, I would feel that way no matter what. I’m not sure how race fits in. White boy kills two white boys and wounds another white boy. Not sure who got the white privilege fits in where everyone is white.
> 
> Bring in race is a typical left move, retarded but expected.


No I'm serious.  If white guys run around with guns, it's different than when blacks do it or if Muslims did it.  

13 guns confiscated after Greektown brawl​
Let's see if the guys with guns in this Greektown event walk free.  And they didn't even kill anybody.  In your guys world, if there is a fight and one person shoots some people, he was justified in shooting in self defense.

The 13 people who brought guns to this Greektown fight should have all used their guns and killed whoever they were fighting in self defense and got off like Rittenhouse, although I doubt they'd get the same treatment.  In fact I don't recall Republicans defending these Greek Town brawlers who had guns on them.  









						Detroit police assaulted, multiple arrested, and 13 guns confiscated after Greektown brawl
					

A video posted on social media showed a chaotic scene as police, vastly outnumbered by those fighting, tried to break up the brawl.




					www.fox2detroit.com


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I say you're not liberal.  I am.
> 
> 
> Not sure what you consider the "left" to be on that subject.
> 
> Man-made climate change is insignificant, at best.  It's a scam to tax the fuck out of everybody.
> 
> ...are bankrupt Ponzi schemes.
> 
> Nope.
> 
> No federal income taxes.  Go back to the stamp or an 8% sales tax on non-necessary goods/services, and shrink that bitch back to 1791.
> 
> ...in addition to a 40 foot wall and mote from Port Isabell to 100 miles west of Laredo.
> 
> No, but I am certainly confused as to why I should give a fuck about his stupid protest.  He is a top 0.5% earner.  Hardly oppressed.  But, he has the right to express himself, good or bad.


You're not a liberal bro.  Go back to the other side where you belong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> What about the vaccine? Do you defend people who are unvaccinated?


I support the right to choose.  You, know....the liberal position?


sealybobo said:


> What about global warming? Is it fake?


Has nothing to do with liberalism, but if you support authoritarianism to stop it (real or fake) you are no liberal.


sealybobo said:


> What about the election? Was it rigged?


Has nothing to do with liberalism. This also confirms that you don't even know what it means to be a liberal.


sealybobo said:


> Did you like Reagan?


Fuck no, but not for the reason you think. 


sealybobo said:


> What do you think about trannies in women's bathrooms?


No bathroom should expose anyone to anyone else.  Unisex bathrooms.  If the arrangements are such that someone will be exposed to someone else, it needs to me modified.  But, I am not in favor of any sort of government action on that.  What are they going to do? Stand at the door and check genitalia?  


sealybobo said:


> Do you want to go after illegal employers who hire illegals? Not just a slap on the wrist.


100%, but also a huge wall from Port Isabell to 100 miles west of Laredo.


sealybobo said:


> Do you like unions?


To an extent and not by government force.  Collective bargaining is useful...to an extent.  


sealybobo said:


> You just want to change what Liberal means. Next you'll tell us you're a progressive not a conservative.


No, it is YOU FUCKERS who have changed the meaning of liberal.   Thomas Jefferson was a liberal.  You....aren't.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> You're not a liberal bro.  Go back to the other side where you belong.


No, YOU are not a liberal.  You quit hijacking my label.  You're a fucking commie authoritarian who is using the word to make people believe you're not a fucking commie.


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, YOU are not a liberal.  You quit hijacking my label.  You're a fucking commie authoritarian who is using the word to make people believe you're not a fucking commie.


All you cons called me a liberal in the 90's, 2000's, 2010's.  Fuck you suddenly I'm not a liberal you are?  HA.  Nice try.


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> No I'm serious.  If white guys run around with guns, it's different than when blacks do it or if Muslims did it.
> 
> 13 guns confiscated after Greektown brawl​
> Let's see if the guys with guns in this Greektown event walk free.  And they didn't even kill anybody.  In your guys world, if there is a fight and one person shoots some people, he was justified in shooting in self defense.
> 
> The 13 people who brought guns to this Greektown fight should have all used their guns and killed whoever they were fighting in self defense and got off like Rittenhouse, although I doubt they'd get the same treatment.  In fact I don't recall Republicans defending these Greek Town brawlers who had guns on them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detroit police assaulted, multiple arrested, and 13 guns confiscated after Greektown brawl
> 
> 
> A video posted on social media showed a chaotic scene as police, vastly outnumbered by those fighting, tried to break up the brawl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fox2detroit.com


....

You do realize that this has nothing similar to the Rittenhouse case or what occurred that night?  Nothing at all.

No,  I bet you actually do not realize that.  If the extent of your insight to the matter is 'that guy had gun and that guy had gun so same thing' then you are being obtuse on purpose.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> All you cons called me a liberal in the 90's, 2000's, 2010's.  Fuck you suddenly I'm not a liberal you are?  HA.  Nice try.


Not me, motherfucker.  I was pissed that you fuckers had to change your label from communist to progressive to socialist to liberal and back to progressive because your ideology is so fucking rotten that you must escape the stigma.

You are not, nor have you ever been liberal. 

You fucking commie.


----------



## struth

Mr Clean said:


> But that wasn't the case. He knew exactly where he was going.


so?  do i not have a right to walk i. the bad side of town without getting attacked?   what you saying is., the bad people acting badly in the bad part of town get a free pass?  that’s just silly


----------



## sealybobo

FA_Q2 said:


> ....
> 
> You do realize that this has nothing similar to the Rittenhouse case or what occurred that night?  Nothing at all.
> 
> No,  I bet you actually do not realize that.  If the extent of your insight to the matter is 'that guy had gun and that guy had gun so same thing' then you are being obtuse on purpose.


What's the diff?  A fight broke out.  Kyle brought a gun to that shit storm too.  Trouble started.  So he blasted someone who attacked him.  The 13 guys who had guns in Detroit were being attacked too.  They should have all legally pulled out their guns and started shooting their opponents.  Then cried like Rittenhouse and see if a jury would feel the same about them.

Well you see what had happened your honor was


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Not me, motherfucker.  I was pissed that you fuckers had to change your label from communist to progressive to socialist to liberal and back to progressive because your ideology is so fucking rotten that you must escape the stigma.
> 
> You are not, nor have you ever been liberal.
> 
> You fucking commie.


Are you more a Reagan Liberal, Bush Liberal or Trump Liberal?


----------



## struth

candycorn said:


> Complete hogwash.


xiden’s 94 crime bill.


----------



## lantern2814

john doe 101 said:


> Neither Kyle's verdict or the governor of VA affects my life.  Seemingly it does yours.


No, they just made you look like the asshole you are. Keep backpedaling. I’m just enjoying mopping the floor with you.


----------



## candycorn

struth said:


> xiden’s 94 crime bill.


Which did what exactly to contribute to the number of people in State jails?


----------



## lantern2814

tahuyaman said:


> That’s exactly what you guys have done.  With you guys it’s personal.    None of you people should ever get close to being on any jury in any circumstance.


Again showing how little you know. Defending a principle or a right isn’t necessarily personal. What’s personal is how people like you have denigrated this kid for exercising his right to self defense. It’s people like YOU who should never have a person’s future rest on your feelings.


----------



## struth

candycorn said:


> Which did what exactly to contribute to the number of people in State jails?


google is your friend…but it saw a surge in similar bills in places like Cali and NY 

there have been numerous articles and studies about how “racial jungle” joe’s racist bill harmed minorities and was designed to do just that.


----------



## lantern2814

tahuyaman said:


> That’s it.  The views of the Rittenhouse  fan club is based on an opposition to BLM.


No you retard, it’s an opposition to burning, looting, and murdering. Cry some more. NOT GUILTY on ALL counts.


----------



## candycorn

struth said:


> google is your friend…but it saw a surge in similar bills in places like Cali and NY
> 
> there have been numerous articles and studies about how “racial jungle” joe’s racist bill harmed minorities and was designed to do just that.


So you got nothing.  Cool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Which did what exactly to contribute to the number of people in State jails?



Did Biden contribute to the number of people in federal prison?


----------



## struth

candycorn said:


> So you got nothing.  Cool.


just reality.

looks your a nut job that tried to lynch a 17 year old boy because he defended himself from demafascist storm troopers…why would i expect you to accept this simple fact about your cult leader’s racist crime bill?  heck given your history, even if you saw the facts you’d say they deserved it then 

run a long cult boy


----------



## lantern2814

bodecea said:


> So many rumors from so many people who have NO access to this jury.................


All we need to know is NOT GUILTY on ALL counts. Making you and every leftard here cry.


----------



## lantern2814

bodecea said:


> "All the nights over three months"?         Jacob Blake, who's shooting by Kenosha cops, only happened TWO DAYS before Rittenhouse went on his vigilante rampage............so protests for only TWO DAYS at the most.   Why are you lying?


Hey dumbfuck, there were riots all over the country for a long while before another criminal going for a weapon to fight cops got his. Now go away and cry harder.


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> What's the diff?  A fight broke out.  Kyle brought a gun to that shit storm too.  Trouble started.  So he blasted someone who attacked him.  The 13 guys who had guns in Detroit were being attacked too.  They should have all legally pulled out their guns and started shooting their opponents.  Then cried like Rittenhouse and see if a jury would feel the same about them.
> 
> Well you see what had happened your honor was
> 
> View attachment 566270


What was different?  That is a pointless endevor.  Lets address what was the same: 

1. there were guns present
2.  


Nope, that is it.  Oh wait, 

2.  they were on planet earth.

There, that's 2 things.
They were not even operating under the same legal structure.  Why don't we compare this to an old lady crossing the road?  It would be just as relevant.


----------



## lantern2814

bodecea said:


> "The only person with a good heart and decent values at the Kenosha riot was".................the thug murderer.   This is a good look at rightwing values, isn't it?


Your support of a domestic abuser and pedophile is noted again. This is a good look at leftard “ values”.


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Did Biden contribute to the number of people in federal prison?


Probably....  hopefully.


----------



## candycorn

struth said:


> just reality.
> 
> looks your a nut job that tried to lynch a 17 year old boy because he defended himself from demafascist storm troopers…why would i expect you to accept this simple fact about your cult leader’s racist crime bill?  heck given your history, even if you saw the facts you’d say they deserved it then
> 
> run a long cult boy


Again, you got nothing.  Cool.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

candycorn said:


> Probably....  hopefully.



Where they disproportionally black?


----------



## candycorn

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Where they disproportionally black?


Not sure.


----------



## sealybobo

FA_Q2 said:


> What was different?  That is a pointless endevor.  Lets address what was the same:
> 
> 1. there were guns present
> 2.
> 
> 
> Nope, that is it.  Oh wait,
> 
> 2.  they were on planet earth.
> 
> There, that's 2 things.
> They were not even operating under the same legal structure.  Why don't we compare this to an old lady crossing the road?  It would be just as relevant.


So the people in Detroit who had guns need to wise up.  Bring bigger guns.  Get into an altercation in the casino, say, "let's take this outside" go to your car, get a gun and shoot the guy coming to fight you in the name of self defense.

There's a lot that's similar to these two cases.  People brought guns out with them and they used them when things got hot.  Seems the ghetto has to play by different rules here.

Every shooting in Chicago is justified.  Him or me.  Don't worry about all the killings in Chicago.  All justified.  Problem solved.  Self defense.  

Same story as Rittenhouse.  They were coming at me and I had no choice.


----------



## JWBooth




----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

JWBooth said:


> View attachment 566473


Wendy Rittenhouse is at least twice as proud of Kyle as most mothers are of their children.

Kyle doubled his Johnny Ramone quota.


----------



## WEATHER53

Justice is done
Venting is started.


----------



## john doe 101

lantern2814 said:


> No, they just made you look like the asshole you are. Keep backpedaling. I’m just enjoying mopping the floor with you.


Backpedaling from what?  That I repeatedly said there was a 70% Kyle would be found innocent of all charges?  Stop embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

WEATHER53 said:


> Justice is done
> Venting is started.


...and commies are dead.

What a great week.


----------



## airplanemechanic

Unedited video of the KR shootings. He obviously was attacked and was running for his life when he was attacked from behind.

150% self defense.  They say it's "graphic" but its too dark to see anything but someone falling down.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> Exactly.  So you agree Rittenhouse is stupid and his stupidity got people killed.


Are you not forgetting the stupids that were already there and willing to be a vigilante (lynch) mob?


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> So the people in Detroit who had guns need to wise up.  Bring bigger guns.  Get into an altercation in the casino, say, "let's take this outside" go to your car, get a gun and shoot the guy coming to fight you in the name of self defense.
> 
> There's a lot that's similar to these two cases.  People brought guns out with them and they used them when things got hot.  Seems the ghetto has to play by different rules here.
> 
> Every shooting in Chicago is justified.  Him or me.  Don't worry about all the killings in Chicago.  All justified.  Problem solved.  Self defense.
> 
> Same story as Rittenhouse.  They were coming at me and I had no choice.


"There's a lot that's similar to these two cases.  People brought guns out with them and they used them when things got hot"

And yet, once again, the ONLY thing you can show that is similar is that there were guns.  That's it.  Not a single other demonstrable connection.  INCLUDING THE LAWS THEY WERE OPERATING UNDER.

How disingenuous can you get.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

airplanemechanic said:


> Unedited video of the KR shootings. He obviously was attacked and was running for his life when he was attacked from behind.
> 
> 150% self defense.  They say it's "graphic" but its too dark to see anything but someone falling down.


I am so glad he shot those motherfuckers.  

My they rot in peace.

Let there be more.


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I am so glad he shot those motherfuckers.
> 
> My they rot in peace.
> 
> Let there be more.


When white people find Black protesters scary, and white vigilantes heroic, where does that leave the legal concept of ‘reasonable belief’?

However, under Wisconsin’s self-defense statutes, Rittenhouse was allowed to use deadly force, even if he provoked the 25 August attack, if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to prevent his own death. Even though he traveled to the city and walked into a chaotic scene with a killing machine.

Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot. So, why is it reasonable to believe Rittenhouse needed a killing machine to protect himself against the “evil thugs” who were not shooting and killing people?

Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by. Think about how much privilege one must have for their feelings to become an actual law that governs the actions of people everywhere.

While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out, there’s also no doubt that Rittenhouse was venturing into one of the scariest, most dangerous situations those white jurors could imagine: a Black Lives Matter protest. It is easy to see how, for Rittenhouse and jurors, the victims were part of the frightening mob of “evil thugs”.

In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.

Understanding the innate fear of Blackness embedded in the American psyche does not require legal scholarship or a judge’s explanation. This belief shapes public perception, politics and the entire criminal justice system. And it is indeed a privilege only afforded to whiteness.

It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life, but Rittenhouse was allowed to waltz past officersfrom the same police department carrying a killing machine during chaotic protests. They did not see the gun-toting teenager as a threat. He is not Black. He was not scary.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> When white people find Black protesters scary, and white vigilantes heroic, where does that leave the legal concept of ‘reasonable belief’?
> 
> However, under Wisconsin’s self-defense statutes, Rittenhouse was allowed to use deadly force, even if he provoked the 25 August attack, if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to prevent his own death. Even though he traveled to the city and walked into a chaotic scene with a killing machine.
> 
> Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot. So, why is it reasonable to believe Rittenhouse needed a killing machine to protect himself against the “evil thugs” who were not shooting and killing people?
> 
> Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by. Think about how much privilege one must have for their feelings to become an actual law that governs the actions of people everywhere.
> 
> While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out, there’s also no doubt that Rittenhouse was venturing into one of the scariest, most dangerous situations those white jurors could imagine: a Black Lives Matter protest. It is easy to see how, for Rittenhouse and jurors, the victims were part of the frightening mob of “evil thugs”.
> 
> In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.
> 
> Understanding the innate fear of Blackness embedded in the American psyche does not require legal scholarship or a judge’s explanation. This belief shapes public perception, politics and the entire criminal justice system. And it is indeed a privilege only afforded to whiteness.
> 
> It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life, but Rittenhouse was allowed to waltz past officersfrom the same police department carrying a killing machine during chaotic protests. They did not see the gun-toting teenager as a threat. He is not Black. He was not scary.



*Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot.*

Before four criminals attacked him, no one else had been shot.

*While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out,*

No doubt?

*In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.*

Why would anyone in America be scared of black people?

*It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life,*





No reason to fear that knife, eh?
No reason to stop the guy from stealing the car and kidnapping the kids?
It's not like he had a restraining order, or a history of domestic abuse, right?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> When white people find Black protesters scary, and white vigilantes heroic, where does that leave the legal concept of ‘reasonable belief’?


Race is only relevant because you fucking commies need a class war to start your cocksucking revolution, and there are no classes in America, si you've turned to racial division.



sealybobo said:


> however, under Wisconsin’s self-defense statutes, Rittenhouse was allowed to use deadly force, even if he provoked the 25 August attack, if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to prevent his own death. Even though he traveled to the city and walked into a chaotic scene with a killing machine


First off, name the type and caliber of firearm that is not a killing machine.

No provocation.  Zero.  None. 



sealybobo said:


> Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot.


Why the fuck is that relevant?  I know you idiot think that's a good point, but how does that help your case?  'Splain it to the class (this should be funny).



sealybobo said:


> Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by


You mean......REALITY??


sealybobo said:


> In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.


 
No it's not.  They ain't scary.  Sorry.  


sealybobo said:


> It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life, but Rittenhouse was allowed to waltz past officersfrom the same police department carrying a killing machine during chaotic protests. They did not see the gun-toting teenager as a threat. He is not Black. He was not scary


You don't know the facrs.

First off, let me stab you a few hundred times with a pocket knife.  But, its not the mere possession of a weapon that makes a person dangerous. Yelling, pointing it at people who are not a threat themselves, refusing to obey police orders to drop the weapon.  These are the relevant factors.

Again, you don't know shit and neither did the thousands of idiots who rioted in Kenosha.  Jacob Black was trying to fuck with his ex.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> Not guilty on all counts?  What is wrong with us?



The dude was chased by a mob and defended himself. Seriously, it should not have been brought to trial. 

You need to look past your... you know what, try this.


*CHECK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS. *


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> When white people find Black protesters scary, and white vigilantes heroic, where does that leave the legal concept of ‘reasonable belief’?
> 
> However, under Wisconsin’s self-defense statutes, Rittenhouse was allowed to use deadly force, even if he provoked the 25 August attack, if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to prevent his own death. Even though he traveled to the city and walked into a chaotic scene with a killing machine.
> 
> Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot. So, why is it reasonable to believe Rittenhouse needed a killing machine to protect himself against the “evil thugs” who were not shooting and killing people?
> 
> Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by. Think about how much privilege one must have for their feelings to become an actual law that governs the actions of people everywhere.
> 
> While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out, there’s also no doubt that Rittenhouse was venturing into one of the scariest, most dangerous situations those white jurors could imagine: a Black Lives Matter protest. It is easy to see how, for Rittenhouse and jurors, the victims were part of the frightening mob of “evil thugs”.
> 
> In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.
> 
> Understanding the innate fear of Blackness embedded in the American psyche does not require legal scholarship or a judge’s explanation. This belief shapes public perception, politics and the entire criminal justice system. And it is indeed a privilege only afforded to whiteness.
> 
> It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life, but Rittenhouse was allowed to waltz past officersfrom the same police department carrying a killing machine during chaotic protests. They did not see the gun-toting teenager as a threat. He is not Black. He was not scary.


You're certainly desperate to make this a race thing, aren't you? The bottom line remains, a white guy shot some white guys. The only big black scary thing involved was the gun.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> When white people find Black protesters scary, and white vigilantes heroic, where does that leave the legal concept of ‘reasonable belief’?
> 
> However, under Wisconsin’s self-defense statutes, Rittenhouse was allowed to use deadly force, even if he provoked the 25 August attack, if he “reasonably believed” it was necessary to prevent his own death. Even though he traveled to the city and walked into a chaotic scene with a killing machine.
> 
> Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot. So, why is it reasonable to believe Rittenhouse needed a killing machine to protect himself against the “evil thugs” who were not shooting and killing people?
> 
> Only white people’s perceptions are made into a reality that everyone else must abide by. Think about how much privilege one must have for their feelings to become an actual law that governs the actions of people everywhere.
> 
> While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out, there’s also no doubt that Rittenhouse was venturing into one of the scariest, most dangerous situations those white jurors could imagine: a Black Lives Matter protest. It is easy to see how, for Rittenhouse and jurors, the victims were part of the frightening mob of “evil thugs”.
> 
> In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.
> 
> Understanding the innate fear of Blackness embedded in the American psyche does not require legal scholarship or a judge’s explanation. This belief shapes public perception, politics and the entire criminal justice system. And it is indeed a privilege only afforded to whiteness.
> 
> It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life, but Rittenhouse was allowed to waltz past officersfrom the same police department carrying a killing machine during chaotic protests. They did not see the gun-toting teenager as a threat. He is not Black. He was not scary.




An angry, violent mob attacking you, is not scary by "white people’s perceptions " but by anyone's perceptions. 


Because, in point of FACT, being attacked by an angry violent mob, is very dangerous. Fear is the rational response. 


Rittenhouse, before he was attacked, used that rifle to DETER violence and aggression. That was the plan. The group he was with stood there and defended that property. 


It was only when Rittenhouse was ALONE, that the mob felt that it could take him and attacked. 


Without the CHOICES AND ACTIONS of the mob, Rittenhouse would have never fired that rifle. It would not have been a "killing machine" but a "deterring violence and arson" machine. 


The choice that changed that, and the RESPONSIBILITY for that, was on the rioters that attacked Rittenhouse. 


America today, is a BETTER society, with more JUST laws, because of this verdict, then if it went the other way.


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> When white people find Black protesters scary, and white vigilantes heroic, where does that leave the legal concept of ‘reasonable belief’?


We will talk about that when it happens.

That you cannot separate this from race, as you have demonstrated over and over again in this thread, is because you are a racist, not everyone around you.  

When color is ALL you can see and all you can base your argument around, even to the point that an altercation involving exactly zero people that were not white AND the *ONLY *indication of racism from ANYONE WHATSOEVER what one of the guys getting shot yelling n***** at Rittenhouse.  

It is fucking amazing that the racial essentialists, the ones that declare virtually everything to be racist including 'punctuality' and 'hard work' are openly defending the only racist here or simply pretending he does not exist.  You are one of these idiots, stop demanding everything is always and forever about race - the VAST majority of people in this country of all persuasions just do not give a rats ass about race at all.


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Before Rittenhouse killed two people and wounded another, no one else had been shot.*
> 
> Before four criminals attacked him, no one else had been shot.
> 
> *While there is no doubt about the value of the white lives Rittenhouse snuffed out,*
> 
> No doubt?
> 
> *In America, it is reasonable to believe that Black people are scary.*
> 
> Why would anyone in America be scared of black people?
> 
> *It’s why police officer Rusten Sheskey was not charged with a crime for shooting Jacob Blake seven times in the back and the side. Blake’s pocketknife made Sheskey fear for his life,*
> 
> View attachment 566696
> 
> No reason to fear that knife, eh?
> No reason to stop the guy from stealing the car and kidnapping the kids?
> It's not like he had a restraining order, or a history of domestic abuse, right?


It's just weird a 17 year old white kid can run around with a high powered gun and the white cops don't care but blacks get killed for carrying box cutters.


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> It's just weird a 17 year old white kid can run around with a high powered gun and the white cops don't care but blacks get killed for carrying box cutters.




The cops correctly identified that the 17 year old white kid was not the problem. Indeed, he was part of the solution. 


If that is weird to you, maybe you need to check your assumptions.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> The cops correctly identified that the 17 year old white kid was not the problem. Indeed, he was part of the solution.
> 
> 
> If that is weird to you, maybe you need to check your assumptions.


Bad precedent.  In the next protest, how many will go armed?  Just hoping someone gets squirly with them.  Or triggers someone to get upset in hopes they can shoot.  I hope the next event is a Trump rally and a bunch of black gunmen show up to "make sure things don't get out of control".


----------



## Correll

sealybobo said:


> Bad precedent.  In the next protest, how many will go armed?  Just hoping someone gets squirly with them.  Or triggers someone to get upset in hopes they can shoot.  I hope the next event is a Trump rally and a bunch of black gunmen show up to "make sure things don't get out of control".




Kyle was not the only one armed. Bicep man had a gun. There was another one who was firing into the air, just before Rosenbaum got shot. And on the tape there were other shots ringing out.


This has been escalating for a long time now. Blaming the most recent person attacked, is not fair. 


You don't like it? Stop supporting the groups that are driving the violence. Stop supporting their justifications for their violence. Stop voting in politicians that order the police to stand down, or even help them.


----------



## sealybobo

Correll said:


> Kyle was not the only one armed. Bicep man had a gun. There was another one who was firing into the air, just before Rosenbaum got shot. And on the tape there were other shots ringing out.
> 
> 
> This has been escalating for a long time now. Blaming the most recent person attacked, is not fair.
> 
> 
> You don't like it? Stop supporting the groups that are driving the violence. Stop supporting their justifications for their violence. Stop voting in politicians that order the police to stand down, or even help them.


You guys are trying to squash protests.  Very unamerican.  Threatening protesters with guns today.  Dogs in the 60's.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> It's just weird a 17 year old white kid can run around with a high powered gun and the white cops don't care but blacks get killed for carrying box cutters.


Prior to the angry black dude killing a bunch of cops here in Dallas at the BLM protests (Micah Johnson), MANY black guys were lawfully marching with AR15s and AK variants.  The only people shot were cops (by Micah).

So, take your bullshit narrative and shove it up your ass.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> You guys are trying to squash protests.  Very unamerican.  Threatening protesters with guns today.  Dogs in the 60's.


Protests?  Nice spin.

Nobody tries to stop protests and your lying ass knows good and goddamn well the assholes in Kenosha were NOT protesting.  They were destroying property and trying to start fires.

Your lame-ass attempt to conflate this rioting with peaceful 1960s civil rights marches is beyond pathetic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> It's just weird a 17 year old white kid can run around with a high powered gun and the white cops don't care but blacks get killed for carrying box cutters.



Which blacks get killed for carrying box cutters?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> You guys are trying to squash protests.



The mostly peaceful protests?


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> You guys are trying to squash protests.  Very unamerican.  Threatening protesters with guns today.  Dogs in the 60's.


Nobody threatened a protestor. Somebody DID shoot some rioters who were trying to kill him.


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Protests?  Nice spin.
> 
> Nobody tries to stop protests and your lying ass knows good and goddamn well the assholes in Kenosha were NOT protesting.  They were destroying property and trying to start fires.
> 
> Your lame-ass attempt to conflate this rioting with peaceful 1960s civil rights marches is beyond pathetic.


I remind me of Trump supporters who tried to say there was no riot at the Capitol.


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> I remind me of Trump supporters who tried to say there was no riot at the Capitol.


And yet you continue even when the idiocy is so plain you even see it yourself!

Wow.


----------



## sealybobo

FA_Q2 said:


> And yet you continue even when the idiocy is so plain you even see it yourself!
> 
> Wow.


All I know is that what Kyle did was wrong.  Or should be wrong.  If not, we need to change our laws.  He knew trouble was brewing.  He took his gun to that trouble.  He murdered 2 and injured 1.  That should be wrong.  

America's Gun Culture is something that amazes the rest of the world and half of us here at home.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> All I know is that what Kyle did was wrong. Or should be wrong. If not, we need to change our laws.


That's your problem.  You don't see who was REALLY at fault here.  You may never see it, because you are nothing but a parrot of left-wing media and you refuse to think for yourself.  You have no business deciding what is wrong.


sealybobo said:


> He knew trouble was brewing. He took his gun to that trouble. He murdered 2 and injured 1. That should be wrong.


Your left-wing media parrot spin is inconsistent with the facts, but it doesn't matter what he knew going in.  Again, you have no capacity to understand this situation and therefore no business deciding what is wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That's your problem.  You don't see who was REALLY at fault here.  You may never see it, because you are nothing but a parrot of left-wing media and you refuse to think for yourself.  You have no business deciding what is wrong.
> 
> Your left-wing media parrot spin is inconsistent with the facts, but it doesn't matter what he knew going in.  Again, you have no capacity to understand this situation and therefore no business deciding what is wrong.


No I get it.  I see trouble brewing in the next state over.  I take my gun and insert myself in the trouble.  I shoot anyone who touches me.

I'm going to the next Trump rally with my Biden/Kamala 2024 hat on.  Fully loaded.  Don't anyone get triggered or else I'll pull my trigger.  I'm just there exercising my 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> No I get it. I see trouble brewing in the next state over. I take my gun and insert myself in the trouble. I shoot anyone who touches me.


Your facts are completely fucked up.  You don't get it.


sealybobo said:


> I'm going to the next Trump rally with my Biden/Kamala 2024 hat on. Fully loaded. Don't anyone get triggered or else I'll pull my trigger. I'm just there exercising my 2nd amendment rights.


Good for you.  I support you in exercising your 2A right.  Nothing wrong with being armed.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> No I get it.  I see trouble brewing in the next state over.  I take my gun and insert myself in the trouble.  I shoot anyone who touches me.
> 
> I'm going to the next Trump rally with my Biden/Kamala 2024 hat on.  Fully loaded.  Don't anyone get triggered or else I'll pull my trigger.  I'm just there exercising my 2nd amendment rights.


And if someone bashes you in the head with a skateboard and drop kicks you while you're down, you would likely be found not guilty of murder if you shot them.


----------



## sealybobo

sealybobo said:


> No I get it.  I see trouble brewing in the next state over.  I take my gun and insert myself in the trouble.  I shoot anyone who touches me.
> 
> I'm going to the next Trump rally with my Biden/Kamala 2024 hat on.  Fully loaded.  Don't anyone get triggered or else I'll pull my trigger.  I'm just there exercising my 2nd amendment rights.


I'm going to a Trump rally where the people entering won't have guns because they can't bring them in.  I'll dress like a tranny in a burka.  That aught to trigger them to come at me.

What's under the burka?




Gofayou


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> I'm going to a Trump rally where the people entering won't have guns because they can't bring them in.  I'll dress like a tranny in a burka.  That aught to trigger them to come at me.
> 
> What's under the burka?
> 
> View attachment 567551
> Gofayou


And if someone bashes you in the head with a skateboard and drop kicks you while you're down, you would likely be found not guilty of murder if you shot them.


----------



## sealybobo

hadit said:


> And if someone bashes you in the head with a skateboard and drop kicks you while you're down, you would likely be found not guilty of murder if you shot them.


You don't have to be bashed in the head first to invoke stand your ground.  In fact if any Trump supporter comes within my bubble where I feel uncomfortable, watch out.  They better act completely respectful towards me.  They can say whatever they want but don't come at me in an angry manner or else I will defend myself.





She scared me.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> You don't have to be bashed in the head first to invoke stand your ground.  In fact if any Trump supporter comes within my bubble where I feel uncomfortable, watch out.  They better act completely respectful towards me.  They can say whatever they want but don't come at me in an angry manner or else I will defend myself.
> 
> View attachment 567553
> 
> She scared me.


And you'll put yourself at the mercy of 12 jurors, some of which will be TRUMP! supporters. If they determine you weren't really acting in self-defense but was just being a jerk, you'll do time. In short, you're trying to take a legitimate case of self-defense, Kyle Rittenhouse, and take it too ridiculous extremes. Look, we know you're butt hurt that he wasn't locked up for the rest of his life, but you're really out in left field with this one. Others can see each case is different, apparently you, not so much.


----------



## sealybobo

hadit said:


> And you'll put yourself at the mercy of 12 jurors, some of which will be TRUMP! supporters. If they determine you weren't really acting in self-defense but was just being a jerk, you'll do time. In short, you're trying to take a legitimate case of self-defense, Kyle Rittenhouse, and take it too ridiculous extremes. Look, we know you're butt hurt that he wasn't locked up for the rest of his life, but you're really out in left field with this one. Others can see each case is different, apparently you, not so much.


I will be justified when I shoot.  Someone will come at me in an angry way and grab the barrel of my gun.  BOOM.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> I will be justified when I shoot.  Someone will come at me in an angry way and grab the barrel of my gun.  BOOM.


Sure, go with that. You can use your one phone call to tell us all about it.


----------



## sealybobo

hadit said:


> Sure, go with that. You can use your one phone call to tell us all about it.


It will be legit.  I'm sure I can trigger someone


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> I'm going to a Trump rally where the people entering won't have guns because they can't bring them in.  I'll dress like a tranny in a burka.  That aught to trigger them to come at me.
> 
> What's under the burka?
> 
> View attachment 567551
> Gofayou


You are completely unhinged and ass hurt.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> You don't have to be bashed in the head first to invoke stand your ground.  In fact if any Trump supporter comes within my bubble where I feel uncomfortable, watch out.  They better act completely respectful towards me.  They can say whatever they want but don't come at me in an angry manner or else I will defend myself.
> 
> View attachment 567553
> 
> She scared me.


Goddamn, you are so fucking ass hurt.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

sealybobo said:


> Someone will come at me in an angry way and grab the barrel of my gun. BOOM.


Do you think someone coming at you in an angry way and grabbing your gun is a threat to your life?


----------



## sealybobo

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Do you think someone coming at you in an angry way and grabbing your gun is a threat to your life?


Of course it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> Of course it is.



Are you going to murder them?


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Are you going to murder them?


I would never murder anyone.  Kill, maybe.  In self defense.  They went for my gun.  I felt threatened.  

But as a juror you won't buy it if I shot a white kid.  Black kid, you'd get that fear but not fear of a white kid coming at me.  We all know better.

That's ok.  I might be a juror one day too.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> I would never murder anyone.  Kill, maybe.  In self defense.  They went for my gun.  I felt threatened.
> 
> But as a juror you won't buy it if I shot a white kid.  Black kid, you'd get that fear but not fear of a white kid coming at me.  We all know better.
> 
> That's ok.  I might be a juror one day too.



*I would never murder anyone. Kill, maybe. In self defense. *

Hmmmm.....

*But as a juror you won't buy it if I shot a white kid.*

Or two white criminals?


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I would never murder anyone. Kill, maybe. In self defense. *
> 
> Hmmmm.....
> 
> *But as a juror you won't buy it if I shot a white kid.*
> 
> Or two white criminals?


I think if a white shooter shoots a white person, they'll go to jail.  Unless you paid the victims as pedophiles and liberals then you might reconsider.  

It's got to be an Arab, Black or Hispanic for you to allow a white person to murder. 

Look at that white woman cop who shot the black guy in his own home.  A lot of you wanted her to get off.  It was a mistake.  She was scared when she walked in to what she thought was her own home and she shot.  Not because he was attacking her.  He was sitting in his PJ's on the couch watching TV.  And you wanted to let her walk.  Why?  Our fear of black men.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> I would never murder anyone.  Kill, maybe.  In self defense.  They went for my gun.  I felt threatened.
> 
> But as a juror you won't buy it if I shot a white kid.  Black kid, you'd get that fear but not fear of a white kid coming at me.  We all know better.
> 
> That's ok.  I might be a juror one day too.


I keep telling you, those foil mind reading helmets don't work.


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I would never murder anyone. Kill, maybe. In self defense. *
> 
> Hmmmm.....
> 
> *But as a juror you won't buy it if I shot a white kid.*
> 
> Or two white criminals?


Sometimes you can run out of privilege.









						When Your Privilege Runs Out: Amber Guyger’s Appeal Denied for the Second Time In Three Months, Judge Upholds Her Sentence for Botham Jean’s Slaying
					

A second appeal made on behalf of Amber Guyger, the former Dallas police officer that was convicted of killing Botham Jean in his home, has […]




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> I think if a white shooter shoots a white person, they'll go to jail.  Unless you paid the victims as pedophiles and liberals then you might reconsider.
> 
> It's got to be an Arab, Black or Hispanic for you to allow a white person to murder.
> 
> Look at that white woman cop who shot the black guy in his own home.  A lot of you wanted her to get off.  It was a mistake.  She was scared when she walked in to what she thought was her own home and she shot.  Not because he was attacking her.  He was sitting in his PJ's on the couch watching TV.  And you wanted to let her walk.  Why?  Our fear of black men.



*I think if a white shooter shoots a white person, they'll go to jail.*

Or not.

*Unless you paid the victims as pedophiles*

Or if the perps aren't victims but are actually pedophiles actually trying to murder someone.


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I think if a white shooter shoots a white person, they'll go to jail.*
> 
> Or not.
> 
> *Unless you paid the victims as pedophiles*
> 
> Or if the perps aren't victims but are actually pedophiles actually trying to murder someone.


So Kyle stopped pedophiles who were in the process of trying to murder someone?  Get real.  This is so sad.  You guys will defend the most horrible things.  I bet you'd support the guy


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

sealybobo said:


> So Kyle stopped pedophiles who were in the process of trying to murder someone?  Get real.  This is so sad.  You guys will defend the most horrible things.  I bet you'd support the guy



Trying to murder Kyle.
You're the guy defending the pedophile attempted murderer.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

hadit said:


> Be sure to let us know when charges are filed against them.


I am not the prosecutor or the Kenosha police, so you are incoherently babbling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana

Clearly Rosenbaum should have brought a rifle and just shot the kid in self defense. Same for the other two.


----------



## hadit

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I am not the prosecutor or the Kenosha police, so you are incoherently babbling.


You don't have to be either to know if charges are filed. Are you sure you know what you're talking about?


----------



## sealybobo

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Trying to murder Kyle.
> You're the guy defending the pedophile attempted murderer.


Of course if it’s true it makes me care less about that victim but I still don’t like it that what Kyle did was legal.


----------



## FA_Q2

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Clearly Rosenbaum should have brought a rifle and just shot the kid in self defense. Same for the other two.


Except it would not have been in self defense as Rittenhouse never attacked them.  But you know this and simply choose to pretend you don't.

That is when Rittenhouse had the legal power to act in self defense, the moment He was attacked.  And then, while retreating, he was attacked again and again had to act in self defense.  Perhaps attacking people is not a good idea.

It might get you killed.


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> He murdered 2 and injured 1.


That is objectively a lie.  Flat out.


----------



## FA_Q2

sealybobo said:


> Of course if it’s true it makes me care less about that victim but I still don’t like it that what Kyle did was legal.


And you appear to not be able to understand that how much you 'care' about anything or do not 'like' something is absolutely immaterial to what they law is or should be.


----------



## sealybobo

FA_Q2 said:


> That is objectively a lie.  Flat out.


I agree.  I saw all three went after him and grabbed for his gun.  They got themselves killed.  I still don't think it was right he went there with a gun.  We need to change our gun laws so what he did wasn't legal.  To bring a gun to a riot?  You aren't a cop.  It's not your neighborhood.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Clearly Rosenbaum should have brought a rifle and just shot the kid in self defense. Same for the other two.



Clearly, "self-defense" is yet another one of those pesky word things that your shriveled brain stem can't comprehend.


----------



## sealybobo

Cecilie1200 said:


> Clearly, "self-defense" is yet another one of those pesky word things that your shriveled brain stem can't comprehend.


If I take a gun to the most dangerous part of Detroit and walk around until someone bothers me, was I looking for trouble?

I guess in a way I should be free to walk around anywhere in America and defend myself if I'm attacked.

Just seems like Kyle was looking for trouble and that's not cool.  

And his mother has to be the worst mother ever to drive him to a riot and drop him off with a rifle.  What a (rhymes with bunt)


----------



## DukeU

sealybobo said:


> I agree. I saw all three went after him and grabbed for his gun. They got themselves killed. I still don't think it was right he went there with a gun. We need to change our gun laws so what he did wasn't legal. To bring a gun to a riot? You aren't a cop. It's not your neighborhood.





sealybobo said:


> Just seems like Kyle was looking for trouble and that's not cool.
> 
> And his mother has to be the worst mother ever to drive him to a riot and drop him off with a rifle. What a (rhymes with bunt)



So, people should just let the rioters and criminals rule the streets?

Why is the actions of the rioters excused? They are the ones who shouldn't have been there.

Kyle was trying to protect PRIVATE property. Period.

If more people had the kind of guts Kyle has, criminals would think twice before taking to the streets in search of violence and crime.


----------



## AZrailwhale

sealybobo said:


> You guys are trying to squash protests.  Very unamerican.  Threatening protesters with guns today.  Dogs in the 60's.


No we aren’t trying to squash protests.  Protests are legal and conservatives support them.  We want to squash RIOTS.   When the first rock is thrown, your legal protest becomes illegal and needs to be broken up by whatever level of violence is necessary,  it could be water cannon, sonic weapons , tear gas, or even vomiting agent.  In extreme cases rubber bullets or lethal ammunition could be appropriate.


----------



## sealybobo

DukeU said:


> So, people should just let the rioters and criminals rule the streets?
> 
> Why is the actions of the rioters excused? They are the ones who shouldn't have been there.
> 
> Kyle was trying to protect PRIVATE property. Period.
> 
> If more people had the kind of guts Kyle has, criminals would think twice before taking to the streets in search of violence and crime.


Maybe you’re right.


----------



## sealybobo

AZrailwhale said:


> No we aren’t trying to squash protests.  Protests are legal and conservatives support them.  We want to squash RIOTS.   When the first rock is thrown, your legal protest becomes illegal and needs to be broken up by whatever level of violence is necessary,  it could be water cannon, sonic weapons , tear gas, or even vomiting agent.  In extreme cases rubber bullets or lethal ammunition could be appropriate.


By private citizens? Militias? We are entering new times. Perhaps it will work.


----------



## AZrailwhale

sealybobo said:


> By private citizens? Militias? We are entering new times. Perhaps it will work.


The police should do it, but if the renegebon their duty, people have the right to protect themselves.


----------



## sealybobo

AZrailwhale said:


> The police should do it, but if the renegebon their duty, people have the right to protect themselves.


Looks like Kyle may have learned his lesson

Kyle Rittenhouse revealed that he is having his AR-15, which was used in self-defense after he was attacked at a Black Lives Matter rally, destroyed.


----------

