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.
As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!
Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.
Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...
2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.
In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.
And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...
3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.
If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...
4. I think I am doing pretty well.
You think that because you're stupid.
Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.
I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.
The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.
Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...
1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.
2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.
4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.
Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...
As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.
That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.
That is the way cowards and predators work.
In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.
YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.
Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
Moron, it's no one's burden but yours to prove what you claim.LOLI assume there was an adult in charge of the group.LOLOL1. I don't care what building he was protecting.
It's not that you don't care, it's that you don't know...
2. There was not an adult in charge of the group? It was an unorganized rabble? First I heard that claim. Seems unlikely from what little I saw.
Okay, now you're going full-retard now.
Even if it was an organized action in the street, it fails to adhere to Wisconsin state law...
3. I saw a clip of a man discussing the intentions of the group. Their name doesn't matter to me.
Of course it doesn't, because you don't know. You don't know anything. You're a, well, you're a retard...
1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.
2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.
3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.
4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?
You're such a flaming dumbfuck.
Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.
1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.
2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.
3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.
Fuck your assumptions.
Hey, I admit I am assuming. If you can prove me wrong, do so. Otherwise, FUCK YOU.
You proved yourself wrong, numbnuts. Assumptions are worthless. Facts are all that matters.
No, making assumptions is risky because facts do trump them.
SO, if you have a "fact" to present to trump my assumption, then do so.
Otherwise, stfu.
Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!
Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.
Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...
2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.
In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.
And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...
3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.
If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...
4. I think I am doing pretty well.
You think that because you're stupid.
Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.
I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.
The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.
Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...
1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.
2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.
4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.
Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...
As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.
That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.
That is the way cowards and predators work.
In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.
YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.
Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.
That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.
Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.
You are a loser and an asshole.
And again, no one cares that you're assuming what happened.Moron, it's no one's burden but yours to prove what you claim.LOLI assume there was an adult in charge of the group.LOLOL1. I don't care what building he was protecting.
It's not that you don't care, it's that you don't know...
2. There was not an adult in charge of the group? It was an unorganized rabble? First I heard that claim. Seems unlikely from what little I saw.
Okay, now you're going full-retard now.
Even if it was an organized action in the street, it fails to adhere to Wisconsin state law...
3. I saw a clip of a man discussing the intentions of the group. Their name doesn't matter to me.
Of course it doesn't, because you don't know. You don't know anything. You're a, well, you're a retard...
1. I don't know and don't care. Could have been a lemonade stand for all I care. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.
2. Your point was that he was not a member of a group. Calling me a name, does not support your position, it is you admitting that you cannot support your position. And being a sore loser on top of it.
3. I don't care about the name of the group. The point is that he and the group he was was with had a task that is normally done by the police. Hence real world experience. Very educational.
4. You seem not only unable to refute my point, about this exercise being "educational" for Rittenhouse, ,and thus the gun being legal, but you seem to be pissed off by it. Why are you emotionally invested in gun laws in a midwestern state?
You're such a flaming dumbfuck.
Even if his actions were "educational," it was still illegal for him to be in possession of that weapon. He was not in a course of instruction nor was he under the supervision of an adult when he fired his weapon. Furthermore, according to a witness, he was mishandling the gun and he shot his first victim in the back -- so no, not "educational" either.
1. I assume there was an adult in charge of the group.
2. First time firing a weapon in combat? That his shot placement was a little off, is hardly a failure. Indeed, that supports the "educational" aspect of the exercise.
3. Mishandling? Can you vague that up a little bit? Sounds like bullshit from a butthurt leftard that is sorry that the mob got it's ass kicked by an American Patriot.
Fuck your assumptions.
Hey, I admit I am assuming. If you can prove me wrong, do so. Otherwise, FUCK YOU.
You proved yourself wrong, numbnuts. Assumptions are worthless. Facts are all that matters.
No, making assumptions is risky because facts do trump them.
SO, if you have a "fact" to present to trump my assumption, then do so.
Otherwise, stfu.
I made my assumption and explained my reasoning that led to my conclusion.
You are welcome to argue against my reasoning, or to present evidence, if you have any, that contradicts it.
Until then, you are welcome to go fuck yourself.
Rittenhouse was a member of a group, almost certainly run by an adult, and thus, technically, his possession of the fire arm was legal.
Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!
Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.
Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...
2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.
In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.
And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...
3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.
If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...
4. I think I am doing pretty well.
You think that because you're stupid.
Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.
I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.
The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.
Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...
1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.
2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.
4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.
Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...
As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.
That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.
That is the way cowards and predators work.
In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.
YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.
Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.
That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.
Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.
You are a loser and an asshole.
I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.
So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.
Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.
It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.
SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.
Dumbfuck, the law allows an exception for those "in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision."Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!
Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.
Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...
2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.
In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.
And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...
3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.
If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...
4. I think I am doing pretty well.
You think that because you're stupid.
Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.
I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.
The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.
Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...
1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.
2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.
4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.
Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...
As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.
That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.
That is the way cowards and predators work.
In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.
YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.
Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.
That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.
Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.
You are a loser and an asshole.
The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.
That is something you made up.
That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.
Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?
He was trying to get back to his group and was prevented from doing that by the police.
He learned that from Impeached Trump. If Impeached Trump wins the election, it's an honest election with no fraud. If he loses, then it's fraud ridden enough to illegally give his opponent the victory.So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.
Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.
It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.
SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.
Nope, he was not under adult supervision when he used the weapon. Your entire made up defense, which is so moronic, his actual defense is not using that nonsense, is blown up by your own admission that he used his weapon while NOT under adult supervision.As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.1. I presented my reasoning, and your answer was to obsess on the name of the group. LOL!!!
Because your premise was that he was a member of a group, and he wasn't. He was just there.
Walking next to a trumpet player in a parade doesn't make you part of the marching band...
2. An "armed street mob", that organized and went to a place of unrest and successfully defended a building from rioters. I'm not sure why you feel that you should, or have any grounds to disrespect them.
In the eyes of the law, yes, it's an armed mob.
And I've never once disrespected them. I actually suppport what they did. But I'm also smart enough to know that actions have consequences...
3. I don't care about the NAME of the group. Or if it even has one.
If you can't name the group, then you can't identify the group he was with. And, if you can't identify the group he was with, there's no reason in the world to believe he was with one...
4. I think I am doing pretty well.
You think that because you're stupid.
Rittenhouse probably believed he walk away unscathed.
I was in a bar the other night when a fight broke out. Some guy started smacking his old lady; no idea what for. Well, this other guy saw it happen, walked over to the guy who smacked his girlfriend, and beat the ever-living shit out of him. Hey, you just don't raise a hand to a woman, and the shithead boyfriend found that out pretty quickly.
The police showed up, took some statements, and then proceeded to arrest the shithead boyfriend and the guy who kicked the shithead boyfriend's ass. Guy #2 was well aware that he'd be arrested, but he did what he felt was right.
Doing the "right thing" doesn't always absolve you of potential ramifications...
1. He was not there alone, he was a member of a group.
2. A mob is a large crowd of people, normally, intent on causing trouble. I doubt the group Rittenhouse was with was large enough to call a "large crowd" and they were there with the intent of PREVENTNING trouble. I'm not sure why you have a problem with that.
3. Except that it has been widely reported that there was a group there, protecting the building, and I saw a clip of a member of the group, explaining their intentions. YOur denial of this common knowledge is very strange.
4. That is because we live in a society that has lost the ability to discriminate between right and wrong and are now reduced to following the letter of the law like mindless bots, or lawyers.
Great, point out those "group members" in the videos where he's using his gun and shooting people...
As you know, he left the group to do something and was then prevented from rejoining his group by the police. Thus he was by himself.
That is undoubtedly why the mob choose to attack HIM, instead of the group defending the building.
That is the way cowards and predators work.
In a sane society, the police would be investigating the phone records of everyone they could from that night. I would bet money that the mob had spotters set up, to vector in the attack squad on any good targets, such as a minor separated from the group.
YOu are a vile and dishonest piece of shit.
Then he wasn't under adult supervision when he made that "educational" video you idiotically comported qualifies him as participating in a "course of instruction with adult supervision."
You lose yet again because you're a loser.
The group, or the person in charge of it, dropped the ball in not noticing that one of their own had been separated from them.
That is a strike against them. But that does not change the fact that, technically, that this exercise was educational for Rittenhouse and thus his possession of the gun was legal.
Indeed, learning to not trust your group or leader to keep track of you, without any communication equipment, is a lesson that any cop should know.
You are a loser and an asshole.
The law does not mention that he had to be constantly supervised.
That is something you made up.
That his defense is not going with it, does not make it not true.
Are you claiming that the group was composed of and led solely by minors?
Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.
So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.
Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.
It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.
SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.
"no, I'm not going to respect any verdict other than a full acquittal."So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.
Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.
It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.
SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.
I have seen the video of Rittenhouse being attacked by the mob and defending himself.
Barring new and very convincing evidence that somehow out weights the obvious self defense of being chased by a violent mob, a mob that continues to attack him, even after he shot two people,
no, I'm not going to respect any verdict other than a full acquittal.
Manslaughter actually happened.So you have the game all rigged up for yourself. If acquitted, the decision is legit. If not, everyone is incompetent and corrupt. I guess we're done, here. No point in having a discussion with someone who thinks this way.Neat! Tantrum over? Good. Moving on...I have a sneaking suspicion you get called racist more than the average person. Gonna have a tantrum? Okay, get it over with.Wrong. He was found not guilty because they could not prove he was guilty. Not enough evidence.George Zimmerman was found not guilty because his shooting was obviously self defense.
Which may jave been self defense, as the child defended himself from the armed stalker making deadly threats with a deadly weapon.There was an eye witness that saw Martin beating the crap out of him, "MMA style", while Zimmerman screamed for help.
But anyway, i have no desire to hear your 100 white wing Trayvon Martin talking points.
Of course Rittenhouse's defense will be self defense.
Oh, the WACE CARD. What a shocker.
You are a wace baiting asshole and a fucking retard.
Standard lib tactic. Insult someone, and when they insult you back, act like them being angry with you, is because of a problem with them, instead them responding appropriately to an asshole.
IE YOU.
My response to you game, is.
FUCK YOU.
The prosecutors apparently think they can get a conviction of 1st degree murder.
Depending on how unfair the trial is, they might be right.
It would be a tremendous injustice and he would join the ranks of the political prisoners in this country.
SOmeday, karma is going to come knocking on your door, lefty. And she will be a bitch.
I have seen the video of Rittenhouse being attacked by the mob and defending himself.
Barring new and very convincing evidence that somehow out weights the obvious self defense of being chased by a violent mob, a mob that continues to attack him, even after he shot two people,
no, I'm not going to respect any verdict other than a full acquittal.
