Kyle Rittenhouse sued by estate of Joseph Rosenbaum

[hadit]

Rittenhouse then agreed with the prosecutor that he had not purchased the weapon to hunt, or for home protection, again saying he, "thought it looked cool if that's a reason."

November 10, 2021 Kyle Rittenhouse trial and testimony https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-11-10-21/index.html?deeplinkinfo=UniversalLink&adobe_mc=TS%3D1693928354%7CMCMID%3D42230115639647084245050871605998114198%7CMCORGID%3D7FF852E2556756057F000101%40AdobeOrg&iid=cnn-mobile-app

So you accept trial testimony as authoritative when it agrees with your bias but reject it when it disagrees? IOW, do you also accept as authoritative the testimony that Rittenhouse only fired after being attacked?

 

[BS Filter]

You couldn't pass Jr. HS physics.

You get a nose bleed when you put on high heels.

 

[The5thHorseman]

So you accept trial testimony as authoritative when it agrees with your bias but reject it when it disagrees? IOW, do you also accept as authoritative the testimony that Rittenhouse only fired after being attacked?

So you accept trial testimony as authoritative when it agrees with your

Don't get hysterical because I know the facts.

 

[The5thHorseman]

You get a nose bleed when you put on high heels.

I would have no idea....

Did you struggle with that?

 

[Bell Huey]

Ask Bell Huey

1. I have never met you.

2. I would appreciate not being tagged in your non topic discussions and diversions.

Thank you.

 

[The5thHorseman]

1. I have never met you.

2. I would appreciate not being tagged in your non topic discussions and diversions.

Thank you.

Just repost your words...

 

[The5thHorseman]

1. I have never met you.

2. I would appreciate not being tagged in your non topic discussions and diversions.

Thank you.

And do post the rule on tagging

 

[BS Filter]

I would have no idea....

Did you struggle with that?

I know you are, but what am I.

 

[hadit]

Don't get hysterical because I know the facts.

Those "facts" led to a not-guilty verdict. If you had information the police and the prosecution did not have, don't you think you should have gotten it to them BEFORE the trial? You know, when they could do something with it?

Oh, and you didn't answer about accepting the testimony that Rittenhouse only fired AFTER he was attacked. Are you deliberately ignoring that, hoping it will go away?

 

[Hollie]

So you accept trial testimony as authoritative when it agrees with your bias but reject it when it disagrees? IOW, do you also accept as authoritative the testimony that Rittenhouse only fired after being attacked?

There's a great deal of of selective denialism with the Horseman. Only the testimony that fits a role to bolster his specific, predetermined conclusion is allowed. It's all pick and choose, haphazard and ultimately dishonest

 

[BS Filter]

There's a great deal of of selective denialism with the Horseman. Only the testimony that fits a role to bolster his specific, predetermined conclusion is allowed. It's all pick and choose, haphazard and ultimately dishonest

Sounds like a fascist.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Those "facts" led to a not-guilty verdict. If you had information the police and the prosecution did not have, don't you think you should have gotten it to them BEFORE the trial? You know, when they could do something with it?

No...

It was the judge's eagerness to accommodate the defense by restricting testimony.

There's good reason why Rittenhouse couldn't legally buy a handgun. It defies all logic that he can buy a rifle designed for combat because "it looked cool".

 

[Auld Phart]

That's not what you said. You said "The notion of that kid carrying an AR-15 into a riot doesn't pass a giggle test." Which suggests you had a problem with his even possessing a firearm in that situation, firing it notwithstanding. This in turn means you should have a problem with Grosskreutz carrying a firearm into a riot. Yet you excuse his firearm possession.

If you had said ""The notion of that kid firing an AR-15 into a riot doesn't pass a giggle test.", your comment here would make more sense. As it is now, you look like a hypocrite.

This in turn means you should have a problem with Grosskreutz carrying a firearm into a riot. Yet you excuse his firearm possession.

Confusing, because as an ex con, he was not allowed to own a firearm, much less carry one.

 

[The5thHorseman]

There's a great deal of of selective denialism with the Horseman. Only the testimony that fits a role to bolster his specific, predetermined conclusion is allowed. It's all pick and choose, haphazard and ultimately dishonest

Whereas much of yours is qualifying prattle.

 

[hadit]

No...

It was the judge's eagerness to accommodate the defense by restricting testimony.

Yeah, yeah, if the judge disagrees with your vaunted legal opinion, there's something wrong with the judge, not your legal opinion. Where did you get your law degree that you have standing to say the judge is wrong?

There's good reason why Rittenhouse couldn't legally buy a handgun. It defies all logic that he can buy a rifle designed for combat because "it looked cool".

Except the statute applied to guns with a shorter barrel. That's why the charge was thrown out. Come on, this has been public knowledge for a long time, where have you been? It sounds like you're just grabbing old headlines and throwing them out there, hoping something will change the record and that you'll be proven right despite history.

 

[Bell Huey]

Just repost your words...

Not sure what you are talking about.

And do post the rule on tagging

I wasn't calling out a rule. I was asking you to keep me out of your off topic conversations when we are not in the sewer.

 

[Hollie]

No...

It was the judge's eagerness to accommodate the defense by restricting testimony.

There's good reason why Rittenhouse couldn't legally buy a handgun. It defies all logic that he can buy a rifle designed for combat because "it looked cool".

I'm guessing that in addition to being a Nigerian Prince, you're also an acclaimed internet lawyer.

You should immediately file an appeal with the State Bar demanding to perform an independent review of the trial transcripts.

 

[The5thHorseman]

Not sure what you are talking about.


I wasn't calling out a rule. I was asking you to keep me out of your off topic conversations when we are not in the sewer.

You have rules about repeating oneself.

I was asking you to keep me out of your off topic conversations when we are not in the sewer.

That sounds like a rule, Controlly..

 

[The5thHorseman]

I'm guessing that in addition to being a Nigerian Prince, you're also an acclaimed internet lawyer.

You should immediately file an appeal with the State Bar demanding to perform an independent review of the trial transcripts.

Haven't we covered the bit about "fewer words, less of them to eat"?

We're at 92 counts....and counting....pace yourself.

 

[Hollie]

Whereas much of yours is qualifying prattle.

No reason to get angry and emotive. I understand you wish to overturn the jury verdict but appeals to emotion and selective acceptance of the facts surrounding the case doesn't make an argument.