Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
I stated the truth, that people like you, ie liberals, lie all the time.
As to what lies you have specifically told, I would have to go over your posts to find them. And I can't be bothered.
No, I've stated the obvious. You disagree. So what?
So again you have no proof but just assume you are correct. This seems to be a pattern of yours.
Let me guess. You have seen no proof that the Earth is flat so you will just believe it until someone says it isn’t and forces you to learn?
Is the Earth the center of the Universe?
Idiocy begins with ignorance. It flourishes in minds that do not seek to learn. I can see you are indeed fertile ground for it.
Nope, I did not state nonsense. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it's nonsense. What's nonsensical is your bizarre notion that others are nonsensical because you disagree with them.You stated nonsense. No one in their right mind would agree with you.
In other words, you lied when you accused him of always lying.If this thread continues, at some point you will lie. I will then point it out to you.
That will be my proof.
1. Plenty of people have died in the riots over the last couple of years. Not a lot of concern for most of them. It depends if it serves the narrative. Pretending that Rittenhouse is the bad guy does.
2. Darden was on the wrong side of the politics. Obviously.
I stated the truth, that people like you, ie liberals, lie all the time.
As to what lies you have specifically told, I would have to go over your posts to find them. And I can't be bothered.
Post 2610 awaits your response.I don’t think it does say that. The reason I can argue it is this. The Charges were offered up by the prosecutor. The Grand Jury indicted. Then the charges were reviewed by a Judge as part of the preliminary. The Defense team would have been able to get the charges tossed if you were right.
I believe the Precedents that you aren’t quoting that define what the law actually means negate your insistent argument.
Precedents are determined by the courts who examine the laws and not only the intent of the legislature but how the other laws interact.
So while you insist it is allowed. I doubt it. Because if it was the Judge would have thrown that particular charge out. Now the Defense can argue it before a Jury. And perhaps the Jury might agree. But the jury instructions will be if you think he did this beyond a reasonable doubt you have to find him guilty.
Rittenhouse is charged with homicide and the unlawful possession of a firearm; his conviction of those crimes would be appropriate and warranted.No. Kyle should be convicted because he committed crimes.
^^^Rittenhouse is charged with homicide and the unlawful possession of a firearm; his conviction of those crimes would be appropriate and warranted.
Rittenhouse claims ‘self-defense,’ which is as ridiculous as it is unsupported – not only was Rittenhouse’s safely or life not in jeopardy, but he actively sought out his victims.Except that as I pointed out, plenty of people went to the riot and didn't die. Rosenbaum did something that they did not do, that more directly resulted in his death.
Yet, you can't bring yourself to say it.
Because you are all about putting the man he attacked, in prison for life, for hte crime of defending himself.
^^^Rittenhouse claims ‘self-defense,’ which is as ridiculous as it is unsupported
^^^– not only was Rittenhouse’s safely or life not in jeopardy, but he actively sought out his victims.
^^^Rittenhouse is yet another example of the violent, lawless right.
The bottom line is this: conservatives attempting to defend and lionize Rittenhouse is yet another example of the right’s advocacy of violence and terrorism and their contempt for the rule of law.The bottom line is this: We're all sitting here argument whether or not it was self-defense and whether or not he should be charged with murder, when the reality is that this case is big. So big, in fact, that the everyone involved is going to go out of their way to make sure their "t's" are crossed and their "i's" are dotted. If the prosecutors saw a probability that Rittenhouse would be acquitted, they probably wouldn't have charged him. No prosecutor wants a case this big to go into the "loss" column.
He's not going to be found guilty of only a simple weapons possession charge...
The bottom line is this: conservatives attempting to defend and lionize Rittenhouse is yet another example of the right’s advocacy of violence and terrorism and their contempt for the rule of law.
Post 2,647 awaits yours...Post 2610 awaits your response.
Active shooter? A Guy who shot a convicted Felon attacking him?Yes, trying to disarm an active shooter. As far as grosskreutz, I'm pretty sure he never actually point the handgun at Rittenhouse and he wasn't a felon.
Nope, I did not state nonsense. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean it's nonsense. What's nonsensical is your bizarre notion that others are nonsensical because you disagree with them.
In other words, you lied when you accused him of always lying.
Rittenhouse isn't being tried because he's a bad guy. He's being tried because he killed two people.
Can you agree that Rittenhouse made some poor choices that day?
Everything in this life is not politics. Daren and Marcia Clark lost their case because they were prosecuting this larger than life persona that no one wanted to believe could commit such a crime. It had nothing to do with any political agenda...
Rittenhouse claims ‘self-defense,’ which is as ridiculous as it is unsupported – not only was Rittenhouse’s safely or life not in jeopardy, but he actively sought out his victims.
Rittenhouse is yet another example of the violent, lawless right.
