Closing Arguments

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  vic-eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  387 comments

Closing Arguments
"Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.

After a series of blunders and a bit of misconduct by the prosecution, combined with a year of biased reporting, the Rittenhouse case will hear final arguments today and then will finally be placed in the hands of the jury. The prosecution's case has been flawed to say the least, but you'd never know it based on certain media accounts.

Therefore, it's time for a review of where the case stands:

1) The prosecution presented Gaige Grasskreutz, a college senior/activist, who was the third man shot by Rittenhouse. Grasskreutz took the stand and after observing the evidence admitted that he actually got shot when he pointed a gun at the head of Kyle Rittenhouse.

2) Another prosecution witness, Ryan Balch, testified that one of the other people shot, Joseph Rosenbaum, said that he intended to kill Rittenhouse. Other witnesses described Rosenbaum as "belligerent" or "hyperagressive."  (Rosenbaum had an interesting record).

3) The prosecution’s own medical expert, Dr. Doug Kelly, appeared to confirm that the forensic evidence of soot injuries on Rosenbaum’s hand could be consistent with Rosenbaum trying to grab the barrel of Rittenhouse's rifle when it was fired.

4) The lead porosecutor committed a glaring constitutional violation by beginning his cross examination of Rittenhouse by commenting on his decision to remain silent. For anyone who doesn't know: you have a Constitutional right to remain silent.

5) The national media has sought to find Rittenhouse guilty in the court of public opinion.


If we have an impartial, unintimidated jury, there can only be one verdict - Acquittal


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

 Some people say that Rittenhouse never should have gone to Kenosha. That should go for those he shot and killed: One was a convicted pedophile who again had raped a child. The other was a serial domestic abuser. Both were part of the mob that chased Rittenhouse.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

Laws only apply to those on the right. From the President, to Congress, to the AG, all the way down the line the left's goal is a two tier justice system. They are trying to turn the US into their very own version of China. 

I heard people blasting Rittenhouse for being armed. Funny how many leftist loons were armed. What were they doing armed at a "peaceful" protest?

I heard people blasting Rittenhouse for violating the curfew. What were all of those on the left doing exactly at the time of tracking and attacking Rittenhouse? They couldn't have been shot if they weren't on the street; and there were far more of the loons than actually were shot by Rittenhouse hounding him.  They just didn't have the balls to attack an armed individual that was able to defend himself. Didn't stop them from urging the morons on that attacked him.

Every last Democrat, including the President, needs to be sued for defamation. The media didn't learn their lesson from the Sandmann settlements; so they can line up for another round of payouts. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1    3 weeks ago

I think everyone has noticed that the same media which rightly criticized those who encouraged riots on Jan. 6 with unsupported claims of electoral fraud ran out and published distorted accounts of this trial. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

You have written about this trial so extensively it makes one wonder how much faith you have in Rittenhouse's complete innocence. If it's so obvious there wouldnt be so much need to hammer on it. 

Kyle Rittenhouse is an oddball. He felt a "calling" to insert himself into a situation that should have been handled by law enforcement authorities. He claims that he just wanted to "help people" but kept a rifle strapped to his chest the entire time so he would have it virtually in a hair trigger posture. 

What I took from this trial is what a weird and disturbing sense of entitlement this kid has. I heard his mother won't even rule out her son doing the same thing again if the situation arises. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
You have written about this trial so extensively it makes one wonder how much faith you have in Rittenhouse's complete innocence. If it's so obvious there wouldnt be so much need to hammer on it. 

If the national media hadn't spun it the way they did, you'd be right.


Kyle Rittenhouse is an oddball.

As opposed to a convicted pedophile, a wife beater and hundreds of leftist thugs.


What I took from this trial is what a weird and disturbing sense of entitlement this kid has.

What I took away was the double standard that the left has completely manipulated for 5 years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago
As opposed to a convicted pedophile, a wife beater and hundreds of leftist thugs.

Was anyone molesting children or beating wives on the night of the incident?  It is completely irrelevant. 

On the other hand Rittenhouse's oddball views of his role in society led to the confrontations that resulted in three people being shot. 

If protesters were breaking laws then the police or national guard should have arrested them. It is not up to a 17 year old kid to decide that putting out a dumpster fire was an emergency that required his armed intervention. I believe he pointed his weapon at the protesters/rioters in that used car lot and that is why one of them chased him through the lot. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
Was anyone molesting children or beating wives on the night of the incident? 

They were rioting and damaging property. That is relevant when you chose to examine Rittenhouse's character.


On the other hand Rittenhouse's oddball views of his role in society led to the confrontations that resulted in three people being shot. 

So the lead prosecutor is claiming. We'll see if the jury buys it.


If protesters were breaking laws then the police or national guard should have arrested them. 

No shit!  Yet blue city mayors had them stand down - and that is Rittenhouse's case!


I believe he pointed his weapon at the protesters/rioters in that used car lot and that is why one of them chased him through the lot. 

I don't. No one has testified to that. Nor do I believe that crazed mob needed any excuse to chase anyone. 20 against one is their odds.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
"Was anyone molesting children or beating wives on the night of the incident?  It is completely irrelevant."

Why it is brought up time and time again and in disgusting graphic detail is beyond me because it is indeed completely irrelevant!

You are correct regarding those breaking laws should have been arrested.  It's not up to fat little killers like Rittenhouse to be judge, jury, and executioner.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
You are correct regarding those breaking laws should have been arrested. 

When can we expect that to happen?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Rittenhouse, the killer, was breaking plenty of laws.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.3    3 weeks ago

Any police presence there would have arrested these folks who were breaking the law, if that is what they were doing.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.5    3 weeks ago

That is for the jury to decide; and with the way the case went in court it doesn't look good for those butt hurt leftists that let emotions dictate bringing charges.

If he is acquitted the deranged lunatics on the left will be out rioting again; which is the reason the national guard has been called out. It is already a forgone conclusion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.7    3 weeks ago
and with the way the case went in court it doesn't look good for those butt hurt leftists that let emotions dictate bringing charges.

"At points in the trial the prosecutor seemed to be learning facts at the same time as the jury."....Jonathan Turley

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
They were rioting and damaging property.

The specific people he shot were doing this?  I saw none of that in any of the videos.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

The specific people he shot were threatening him. One assaulted him with a skateboard. Another grabbed the barrel of his gun, A third pointed a gun at his head.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    3 weeks ago

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the trial.  There's plenty of evidence that the serial child molester was setting a dumpster on fire when Rittenhouse approached with a fire extinguisher, enraging the child molester and causing the child molester to chase yet another minor with bad intent. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.10    3 weeks ago
The specific people he shot were threatening him.

That's not what you said that I responded to.  Moving goalposts again?

One assaulted him with a skateboard

Anthony Huber

So one victim brought a skateboard to a gun fight?  Why did he hit him with a skateboard?

Another grabbed the barrel of his gun,

Anthony Huber

So the barrel was pointed at him for him to grab?  Not the brightest thing to do, but what would you do if someone pointed a gun at you?

A third pointed a gun at his head.

Gaige Grosskreutz

He put his hands in the air and then began to move toward Rittenhouse, who then fired one shot, hitting Grosskreutz in the arm, according to the complaint. Grosskreutz was holding a handgun but had his hands up, the complaint says.

No matter how the trial ends the fact remains that Rittenhouse went there looking to get into trouble, and succeeded.  His presence changed nothing in the wider area of what was going on at the time, but his presence did end the lives of 3 men who were NOT threatening anyone else with firearms.

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
2.1.13  zuksam  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.8    3 weeks ago
At points in the trial the prosecutor seemed to be learning facts at the same time as the jury."

Let's face it the only reason for this trial was to try to placate the Left Wing Mob and prevent more property destruction. Anyone with any sense could see who was running away and who was chasing and throw in a video of the chaser saying "Shoot Me N;@@er" and come to the conclusion that it was self defense. As for the second shooting it was entirely on film so there's little question about that being self defense. You'd have to close your eyes pretty damn tight not to see one of the clearest and well documented cases of self defense in many years.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.9    3 weeks ago
"They were rioting and damaging property."
"The specific people he shot were doing this?  I saw none of that in any of the videos."

No, they weren't.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.14    3 weeks ago

Doesn't matter one penny's worth, it is a clear cut case of self defense, as the prosecution's very own witnesses proved quite admirably.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.15    3 weeks ago
Doesn't matter one penny's worth

So it doesn't matter that the people he shot were law abiding at that moment?  That they only, "allegedly", acted in the manner that got them shot, AFTER encountering Rittenhouse?

it is a clear cut case of self defense

Self defense against a guy with a skateboard, and another guy with a gun, but who wasn't pointing it?  What about the 3rd guy?  No skateboard, no gun....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.16    3 weeks ago

I am really sorry you can't recognize self defense even when the prosecution presents such a strong case for it.

Maybe you can read the trial transcripts and discover what it is I am referring to.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
2.1.18  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago
If protesters were breaking laws then the police or national guard should have arrested them.

Interesting that Tony Evers, the Democrat WI governor, currently has 500 national guard on stand-by in anticipation of the trial's conclusion but didn't bother to deploy them during the 2020 riots and violence, is it not?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
2.1.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.17    3 weeks ago
I am really sorry you can't recognize self defense even when the prosecution presents such a strong case for it.

And I am sorry that you don't recognize when a lethal degree of self defense is appropriate and when it is not.

Maybe you can read the trial transcripts and discover what it is I am referring to.

Since you very very rarely refer to any facts, that is unlikely.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @2.1.19    3 weeks ago
Since you very very rarely refer to any facts, that is unlikely.

If only you could recognize when facts are in your face.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @2.1.18    3 weeks ago
Interesting that Tony Evers, the Democrat WI governor, currently has 500 national guard on stand-by in anticipation of the trial's conclusion but didn't bother to deploy them during the 2020 riots and violence, is it not?

Maybe he actually learned something????

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
2.1.22  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.21    3 weeks ago

Seems so. He's 1/2 way through his four year term, so maybe he's thinking about a successful re-election.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.23  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  zuksam @2.1.13    3 weeks ago

That's why Rittenhouse was overcharged within 48 hours of the shootings.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
2.1.24  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
Rittenhouse, the killer, was breaking plenty of laws.  

And when he is found not guilty, will you apologize for this comment?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
2.2  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
You have written about this trial so extensively it makes one wonder how much faith you have in Rittenhouse's complete innocence. If it's so obvious there wouldnt be so much need to hammer on it. 

You John, have written hundreds of times about Trumps guilt in collusion with the Russians. If his guilt was so obvious you wouldn't have needed to hammer on it so much.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
What I took from this trial is what a weird and disturbing sense of entitlement this kid has.

Although the MSM, other left-wing media, and their disciples falsely tried and convicted Rittenhouse before the trial began, the jury hasn't even deliberated yet. So ... sit tight and wait before accusing him of "entitlement" or anything else. REMEMBER -- Due process is a constitutional right given to every American, even those with whom we disagree or dislike.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
2.4  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

"You have written about this trial..."

Grosskreutz was on TV, talking about his 'would-be murderer' while the trial was on-going but Vic's opinion annoys you. SMMFH.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago
1) The prosecution presented Gaige Grasskreutz, a college senior/activist, who was the third man shot by Rittenhouse. 

Who, after his testimony, went on interviews giving a story that did not match what he had stated in court.

5) The national media has sought to find Rittenhouse guilty in the court of public opinion.

The trouble with these idiots is that 90% of the time they are ill informed and run on feelings instead of fact. (They're wrong)

In a nutshell, the prosecution did a good job making the case for the defense.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3    3 weeks ago
Who, after his testimony, went on interviews giving a story that did not match what he had stated in court.

Wasn't that unbelievable?  I'm guessing that once he graduates college he will seek employment in government.


In a nutshell, the prosecution did a good job making the case for the defense.

They are down to a final closing argument.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago

I can see it now.  "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we provided evidence and proof that Mr. Rittenhouse is guilty of Self Defense".

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
4  Greg Jones    3 weeks ago

Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there that night. Neither should the rioters have been there.

Law enforcement was not allowed to control the violent protestors

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Greg Jones @4    3 weeks ago
Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there that night. Neither should the rioters have been there.

Ahhh, if it hadn't been for the media lying about Jacob Blake!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4    3 weeks ago

The media didn't lie about the killing of Jacob Blake by cops.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    3 weeks ago

They did. They claimed that he was unarmed.

BTW, he wasn't killed.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
4.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    3 weeks ago
The media didn't lie about the killing of Jacob Blake by cops. 

WAIT!!!!  WTF are you talking about.  He's not dead.

And you accuse others of passing false information.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.2    3 weeks ago
He's not dead.

Since he was shot 7 times in the back at point blank range that probably qualifies as a miracle. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

I think you are confused. They are talking about Jacob Blake

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    3 weeks ago
"He's not dead."
"Since he was shot 7 times in the back at point blank range that probably qualifies as a miracle."

Sounds like the racist cops tried their best to kill him or paralyze him.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    3 weeks ago
The media didn't lie about the killing of Jacob Blake by cops.

Oh, so the media didn't report he died?

Hallelujah, at least they got something right about the case.

Why are you spreading the lie that he died?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
4.2.8  Jasper2529  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

Oops!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

I made an error when I said Blake was dead.  I guess some will harp on that relentlessly.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

"Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.

What does the Zimmerman case have to do with this killer Rittenhouse?  

Both are killers.  Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.

Rittenhouse is just a killer, plain and simple.  He shouldn't have been there - he wasn't doing anything to help anyone - he wasn't asked to guard or protect any property or anyone.  He just wanted to shoot someone.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 weeks ago
Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.

Is that what the jury said?


He shouldn't have been there

Who should have been there?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 weeks ago

George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin.  Martin realized what was happening and confronted Zimmerman and a fight ensued.  Because he was losing the fight Zimmerman feared for his life and shot and killed Martin. The idea that Zimmerman was "innocent" is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

I'm asking what the jury said?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

Zimmerman was on his way off the gated condo complex to go to the store. While he was driving towards the gate he noticed someone emerging from between two houses.  This was a young black man in a hoodie, Trayvon Martin, who was breaking no law and doing nothing suspicious other than walking. Zimmerman began to trail Martin in his car at very slow speed for at least a quarter of a mile. Martin saw someone stalking him in this way and reacted by confronting Zimmerman after Zimmerman exited his car to continue stalking Martin on foot.  Zimmerman had been told by the police to stay in his car. 

Zimmerman was anything but an innocent participant. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

"The idea that Zimmerman was "innocent" is ridiculous."

Ya!  Indeed.  He killed an innocent young man for no reason whatsoever.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
Zimmerman had been told by the police to stay in his car. 

Not what the 911 transcriptions say however..

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher:  Okay, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman:  Okay.
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

It's the same thing for heaven's sakes.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

Zimmerman thought he was justified in stalking Martin because he thought Martin was "suspicious".  Martin was doing NOTHING wrong. 

This is one of the reasons we have Black Lives Matter today. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

Ah, the famous 911 call NBC edited to make Zimmerman sound like a racist. 

Time and time again, the media stirs up the leftist base with lies that never go away. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
Martin saw someone stalking him in this way and reacted by confronting Zimmerman after Zimmerman exited his car to continue stalking Martin on foot. 

For accuracy's sake: Zimmerman got out of the car to see a house number so he could tell police his exact location and on the way back to his car  Martin attacked him. Martin was shot while scuffling over Zimmerman's gun. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.9    3 weeks ago

George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin. He thought it was appropriate to do so. 

It is one of the reasons we have black lives matter today. 

Only an idiot does not accept that Zimmerman stalked Martin. He followed him, at extremely slow speed, from his car, for at least a quarter of a mile. Martin saw him and assumed he was in danger. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
5.1.11  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

Jury didn't agree with you. Despite Obama as his DOJ & AG's strong arm tactics. 

Martin was a real nice gang banger.

Other items taken from Martin’s phone included text-message discussions of drugs and pictures of a gun and marijuana plants.

The evidence, George Zimmerman’s attorneys say, paints a different picture of the 17-year-old than the one portrayed by his family and supporters. Lead defense attorney Mark O’Mara says he will try to use the evidence if prosecutors attempt to attack Zimmerman’s character during his trial on second-degree murder charges, set to begin next month.

Also Thursday, O’Mara filed a request that his client’s trial be delayed.

Much of the new evidence disclosed Thursday in filings by Zimmerman’s attorneys comes from Martin’s cell phone, including photos showing a semiautomatic pistol and ammunition and small marijuana plants growing in pots.

In another picture, Martin is pictured making obscene gestures in an apparent self-portrait. Others show him with friends and in other settings.

The text messages include a conversation from November 2011 in which he appears to say his mother has kicked him out of the house after “da police caught me outta skool.”

“So you just turning into a lil hoodlum,” the person with whom he is texting says.

“Naw, I’m a gangsta,” the text message read.

In other messages, text message exchanges appear to be discussing guns.

“U wanna share a .380 w/ (blacked out),” one text message sent from Martin’s phone reads.

Thought that Zimmerman was gay- which is part of the reason he attacked Zimmerman. 

George Zimmerman trial witness Rachel Jeantel has told CNN’s Piers Morgan that Trayvon Martin believed that George Zimmerman might have been a gay rapist and following him to sexually assault him.

‘I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist,’ Jeantel told Morgan.

‘People need to understand, he didn’t want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend’s house … his little brother was there.’

‘After I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man … who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep[ed] out?

Martin had called Jeantel to ask her for advice about what to do after he realized he was being followed by Zimmerman.

Zimmerman, who was acquitted of the shooting of 17-year-old Martin under Florida’s controversial ‘stand your ground’ law, testified that Martin had struck him first when he confronted him.

The left do love their criminals; so long as they have the correct political leanings that is.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.11    3 weeks ago

Every single word you just typed is irrelevant to the fact that Zimmerman was stalking Martin that night. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.11    3 weeks ago
testified that Martin had struck him first when he confronted him.

Convenient, since the other person in the fight was dead. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
5.1.14  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.12    3 weeks ago

Your denial of facts is irrelevant. Martin was not some sweet innocent kid. He could have easily deescalated the situation and not attacked Zimmerman; but being the gang banging homophobe he was seize the target of opportunity.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
5.1.15  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.13    3 weeks ago

Convenient that the left loves to defend gang banging homophobes.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.17  Snuffy  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.14    3 weeks ago
He could have easily deescalated the situation

As I remember, even his girlfriend testified that he was home at his fathers fiancee's home when he turned back to find Zimmerman...   should have just gone inside.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.17    3 weeks ago

Kind of hard to believe anyone is still debating that old case.

Zimmerman was found not guilty, and that destroyed the narrative the media and left-wing pundits were pushing.

Pissed them off no end.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

"Zimmerman was on his way off the gated condo complex to go to the store. While he was driving towards the gate he noticed someone emerging from between two houses.  This was a young black man in a hoodie, Trayvon Martin, who was breaking no law and doing nothing suspicious other than walking. Zimmerman began to trail Martin in his car at very slow speed for at least a quarter of a mile. Martin saw someone stalking him in this way and reacted by confronting Zimmerman after Zimmerman exited his car to continue stalking Martin on foot.  Zimmerman had been told by the police to stay in his car. 

Zimmerman was anything but an innocent participant"

256194404_10225038082477354_6475172990336567530_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_rgb565=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=xdQ7_y9UAXwAX_JulnI&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=777ea5a542040a80345b455cc1eabd50&oe=6197AD33

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.14    3 weeks ago
"Your denial of facts is irrelevant. Martin was not some sweet innocent kid. He could have easily deescalated the situation and not attacked Zimmerman; but being the gang banging homophobe he was seize the target of opportunity."

That is really ignorant and not true, like the majority of your comments.  .  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.17    3 weeks ago

Wow, y'all are just making up hateful shit as you go . . . . . . 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
5.1.22  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.5    3 weeks ago
Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah. Dispatcher:  Okay, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman:  Okay.

Funny how some think that a dispatcher has the power to tell anyone ANYTHING like "Stay in your car or else....." especially when they have no power. They aren't LEO's FFS.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.23  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.21    3 weeks ago

Please explain what I made up or what is hateful about what I posted.  Otherwise just stop responding to me 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.23    3 weeks ago

I'll respond to whoever I like and there's nothing you can do about it.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.25  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.24    3 weeks ago

In other words you have nothing to back up what you say, you are just trolling.  bye bye

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
5.1.26  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

Do you mean ruled?  Jurors are rarely allowed to speak except the one who reads their verdict.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
5.1.27  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.19    3 weeks ago

WOW!!! What a fucking stupid and illiterate meme.

Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman and bashed his head into the concrete.

Zimmerman defended himself and blew a nice big hole in Martin.

Martin no longer attacks and bashes people's heads in.

The world is a better place.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.28  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @5.1.27    3 weeks ago

Why did George Zimmerman stalk Trayvon Martin? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
5.1.29  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.28    3 weeks ago

Because the dead little shit was cutting through people's yards and Zimmerman, being the neighborhood watch, or at the least, a concerned citizen, did the right thing and followed the little dead shit while he was speaking to the cops.

There had been reports of recent break ins in that neighborhood.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.30  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @5.1.29    3 weeks ago

Trayvon Martin had been at a convenience store a couple blocks down from the condo complex. On the way back home he cut through an opening between two houses, as many other people who lived there have done. It was, you know, a short cut. 

No reason to to slow speed stalk someone from your car. 

Now you have black lives matter annoying you, hopefully forever. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.30    3 weeks ago

Trayvon dead, Zimmerman found not guilty.

Rehashing the past won't change it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.32  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.25    3 weeks ago

Nope, that would be you.  bye bye

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.33  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.28    3 weeks ago

You hear that dog whistle loud and clear don't you John and that ignorant hateful shit?  That Trayvon deserved to die for nothing because some impotent wannabe neighbordhood watch dick shot him for no reason.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.30    3 weeks ago

So he deserved to die.  Man those dog whistles are deafening.  

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
5.1.35  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.33    3 weeks ago
some impotent wannabe neighbordhood watch dick shot him for no reason.  

Yea. except that attacking and bashing someone's head in the concrete is a damn good reason to put a slug in someone's chest.

Zimmerman did the right thing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.36  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.34    3 weeks ago

More death wishing from our tolerant alleged conservatives and those hateful racist dogwhistles.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 weeks ago

Trayvon was just walking home with a bag of skittles and a bottle of iced tea.  Zimmerman killed that kid for no reason whatsoever.  Zimmerman had no reason to execute this young man who was just heading back to his family's house.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @5.2    3 weeks ago

He could have been Barack Obama's son.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
5.2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.2.1    3 weeks ago

Wow, they still can't get over Zimmerman/Martin or even Obama's pal, the racist Cambridge prof. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.2.2    3 weeks ago
Wow, they still can't get over Zimmerman/Martin or even Obama's pal, the racist Cambridge prof. 

Kind of strange that progressives insist on living in the past.....................lol.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.2.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.2.2    3 weeks ago

All incidents that the media hyped up and Barrack Obama reacted to.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.2.2    3 weeks ago
"Wow, they still can't get over Zimmerman/Martin or even Obama's pal, the racist Cambridge prof."

WTF are you talking about?  This entire 'article' is titled:

"Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jasper2529 @5.2.2    3 weeks ago

"Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.

How ridiculous when this how 'article' is based on the above title.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
5.2.7  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.5    3 weeks ago
WTF are you talking about?  This entire 'article' is titled: "Much like the Rittenhouse case," Reid explained, "the Zimmerman case was fundamentally about American vigilantism.

You'll have to ask racist Marxist Joy Reid. She's obviously still obsessing about Zimmerman for the past 9 years.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.2    3 weeks ago

perhaps you've heard by now that Zimmerman was put on trial and was not convicted.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
5.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @5    3 weeks ago
Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.

So you're going to ignore the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.3    3 weeks ago

Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
5.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.1    3 weeks ago
So you're going to ignore the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman?  

I'll ask again - So you're going to ignore the part where Martin attacked Zimmerman?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.3.2    3 weeks ago
Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
5.3.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.3    3 weeks ago

So you are going to ignore proven facts of the situation.  Not surprising with your track record here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.3.5  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.3.4    3 weeks ago

NO one here defending either of these killers has provided any facts, proven or otherwise.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.3.1    3 weeks ago
Zimmerman killed some innocent kid for no reason.

That certainly is far from what the jury who actually heard and listened to testimony determined.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

KENOSHA, Wisconsin — Attorneys are set to make closing arguments at Kyle Rittenhouse’s trial in the shootings of three men during street unrest in Wisconsin.

The arguments Monday morning will be the last word of some two weeks of courtroom drama before a jury begins deliberating in a case that underscored Americans’ bitter divisions on issues of guns, protests and policing.

Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time, faces charges ranging from an intentional homicide charge that could mean life in prison to an underage weapons charge that could mean just a few months in jail.

The prosecution has sought to portray Rittenhouse as a teenage vigilante who illegally possessed the gun and acted criminally and recklessly.

Defense lawyers -- backed up by the defendant's riveting and emotional testimony -- argued that he acted in self-defense.

After closing arguments, the jury will get the case.

The panel will consider five felony counts and the misdemeanor weapons charge against Rittenhouse. Using an AR-15-type rifle, he killed Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, 27, during street demonstrations over the police shooting of Jacob Blake.

Here are the counts the jury will weigh after Kenosha County Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder instructs them on the law:

First-degree reckless homicide, use of a dangerous weapon

Count 1 states that Rittenhouse recklessly caused the death of Rosenbaum under circumstances that showed utter disregard for human life.

The judge denied a prosecution request for the jury to also be instructed on second-degree reckless homicide.

Rittenhouse testified he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot Rosenbaum after the man threw a plastic bag at him and chased him.

"I didn't do anything wrong. I defended myself," he testified.

Under cross, Rittenhouse said that he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed. He said he pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum in an attempt to deter him and acknowledged that was dangerous.

"If I would have let Mr. Rosenbaum take my firearm from me, he would have used it and killed me with it and probably killed more people," he testified.

Rittenhouse broke down in tears at one point, leading to a short break.

"I think it was a game changer to put him on the stand," legal analyst Joey Jackson said. "Number one, you humanize him... More important, number two, he explained his uses of force."

Rittenhouse's testimony couldn't have been scripted any better, criminal defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh said.

The "biggest issue" is whether the jury finds Rittenhouse credible, he said. "Secondly, do they believe then that it equals he reasonably feared death or great bodily harm?"

Wisconsin law allows the  use of deadly force  only if "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

"Whether he engaged in self defense and did so reasonably and thought his life was in immediate danger ... that's what the jury has to assess ultimately," Jackson said of Rittenhouse.

Prosecutors also requested the jury be given instruction on provocation. They argued Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by raising his gun and pointing it at somebody, which led to the victim running after him.

The judge agreed to allow that the panel consider whether Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum into attacking him -- thus negating self-defense.

Ellie Honig, a legal anaylst and a former prosecutor, said the provocation instruction was an important win for the prosecution.

Honig said the instruction allows prosecutors to argue "the defendant went too far, used deadly force when it wasn't reasonably necessary" and that he "provoked the attack, and hence cannot argue self-defense."

First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon

Count 2 states that Kyle Rittenhouse recklessly endangered the safety of Richard McGinniss -- a journalist with the conservative Daily Caller -- under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.

The state asked that the jury also be instructed on second-degree recklessly endangering safety. Schroeder said he was inclined to give the additional instruction on the lesser charge.

The judge told Rittenhouse that presenting lesser offenses lowered the possibility of a second trial but increased the risk of a conviction.

Allowing jurors to weigh less serious charges could help the prosecution.

"A lot of times ... the jury gets into a heated discussion about whether he's guilty or not guilty of intentional conduct," said legal analyst and former prosecutor Paul Callan.

"And they compromise on a lesser charge when they have one available. If they don't have one available, it's either guilty of one of the higher charges or not guilty."

First-degree intentional homicide, use of a dangerous weapon

Count 3 states that Rittenhouse did cause the death of Huber, with intent to kill him. It's the most serious charge he faces, with a mandatory life sentence. Huber swung his skateboard at Rittenhouse after Rosenbaum was fatally shot.

Prosecutors asked that the jury also be instructed on second-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless homicide and second-degree reckless homicide.

Defense attorneys objected to second-degree reckless homicide. The judge said he "embraced" the defense's argument. But he will likely allow lesser charges of second-degree intentional homicide and first-degree reckless homicide.

"I think the jury is going to want to hold him responsible for something in this case," former prosecutor Mark O'Meara said. "Then giving the lesser is an opportunity for the jury to hold him responsible but at a much lower charge than the intentional homicide or even the reckless homicide."

First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon

Count 4 states that Rittenhouse did recklessly endanger the safety of an unknown male, referred to as "jump kick man" in court, under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.

The man jumped at Rittenhouse at one point, trying to kick him and the teen opened fire. "I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn't fire," he said.

Rittenhouse fired at the man twice and missed.

Attempted first-degree intentional homicide, use of a weapon

Count 5 states that Rittenhouse attempted to cause the death of Grosskreutz, with intent to kill him.

After shooting Huber, Rittenhouse testified, he saw Grosskreutz lunge at him and point a pistol at his head. Rittenhouse shot him, he testified. Grosskreutz was wounded.

Grosskreutz testified that he pulled out his own firearm because he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter.

Grosskreutz said he and a crowd followed Rittenhouse, who had just fatally shot another man. Rittenhouse fell to the ground, fired twice at an unknown person and then fatally shot Huber.

Grosskreutz, just feet away, put his hands in the air, videos show. He testified he   then saw Rittenhouse rerack his weapon -- a motion that loads it for gunfire.

Prosecutors asked for lesser charges of attempted second-degree intentional homicide, first-degree reckless endangerment and second-degree reckless endangerment. Schroeder said he was inclined to agree with the prosecution.

Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18

Count 6, a misdemeanor, states that Rittenhouse was under 18 years old with a dangerous weapon.

Aside from the evidence presented at trial and the instructions on the law, the personal views of jurors and the polarizing nature of the case could also come into play.

"It's a very difficult case," said Laura Coates, a legal analyst and a former federal prosecutor. "You cannot extract and divorce from the political, the sociological, the cultural, the actual everyday conversations ... It's very difficult to just look at this from the idea of -- was this person entitled to self-defense? There are so many different aspects of it. The jury is going to have to whittle that down."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago
First-degree recklessly endangering safety, use of a dangerous weapon

Count 4 states that Rittenhouse did recklessly endanger the safety of an unknown male, referred to as "jump kick man" in court, under circumstances that show utter disregard for human life.

The man jumped at Rittenhouse at one point, trying to kick him and the teen opened fire. "I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn't fire," he said.

Rittenhouse fired at the man twice and missed.

I think this is the most likely guilty count. 

And this one

Possession Of A Dangerous Weapon By A Person Under 18

Count 6, a misdemeanor, states that Rittenhouse was under 18 years old with a dangerous weapon.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
"I thought if I were to be knocked out, he would have stomped my face in if I didn't fire," he said.

This does not strike me as justification for trying to kill someone. Rittenhouse says that he "felt" that if the man had successfully "knocked him out" the man would have killed him. There is no evidence of such a conclusion. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago

That last one for sure.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago

Your Count 6 is now in doubt - if that rifle is regarded as a long barreled rifle.

I told you it was a complicated law!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.3    3 weeks ago

Count 6 dismissed and not for jury consideration....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.4    3 weeks ago

Correct!  We are down to 5 counts.

Another staggering blow for the prosecution.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago
to an underage weapons charge that could mean just a few months in jail.

Is that all the prosecution has left?   The Wisconsin law is complicated and very generous in terms of self defense. 

It will be very interesting.

Fox News now turns to trial coverage......

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7  Tessylo    3 weeks ago

It wasn't self defense.

Faux 'news' - LOL!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @7    3 weeks ago
It wasn't self defense.

I'm going to wait for the jury.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    3 weeks ago

When they don't get the verdict they want, the jury will be stupid, wrong, racist, exude white privilege, etc, etc, ..... wait for it, wait for it .....

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

I'm sure. We'll be hearing from the race lady on MSNBC, who already called Rittenhouse a "vigilante."

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    3 weeks ago

Most mass media reporters are clueless asshats these days.

Completely out of touch with reality.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.1    3 weeks ago
When they don't get the verdict they want, the jury will be stupid, wrong, racist, exude white privilege, etc, etc,

Kind of like when you don't get the results you want, the election was stolen, fraudulent, etc., etc., etc.?

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
7.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.4    3 weeks ago

Reliving 2016 are you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @7.1.5    3 weeks ago

No, 2020.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.4    3 weeks ago
Kind of like when you don't get the results you want, the election was stolen, fraudulent, etc., etc., etc.?

And you start a 4 year investigation into something that isn't even a crime according to US Code.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.7    3 weeks ago
And you start a 4 year investigation into something that isn't even a crime according to US Code.

Are you still trying to convince everyone that accepting campaign aid from a foreign country is not a crime?  Is that what you are harping back on???

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.8    3 weeks ago

I'm telling you that the investigation was to look into "collusion".  Something that is not in the US Code.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.9    3 weeks ago
I'm telling you that the investigation was to look into "collusion".

So, all you have is word play.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.10    3 weeks ago

"So, all you have is word play."

Ya!  Not a fact to be found!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.12  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.10    3 weeks ago

So prove me wrong.  Tessylo has failed many times.  Care to try to match that record?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.12    3 weeks ago
So prove me wrong.

They won't, because they can't.

Not rationally any way.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.10    3 weeks ago

I have never failed.  Jeremy on the other hand has never provided any facts, 'proven' or otherwise.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.14    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.13    3 weeks ago

To do so would take critical thinking, comprehension and rationalization.  None of which exist with this group.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.17  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.14    3 weeks ago

I have never failed.  Jeremy on the other hand has never provided any facts

Only a sith deals in absolutes.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.17    3 weeks ago

He's the guy that claimed slavery in America was not based on race. His credibility is non-existent. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
7.1.19  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.10    3 weeks ago

It's kind of a bitch when people use your own methods back at ya isn't it...................

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
7.1.20  Jasper2529  replied to  Sparty On @7.1.1    3 weeks ago

And whatever still remains standing in Kenosha will be burned, looted, and destroyed.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.12    3 weeks ago
So prove me wrong.  Tessylo has failed many times.

Tessylo's success or failure is not determined by YOUR opinion.

Going by your logic....

A man goes into a bank and demands money, but gets caught outside before he can get away.  Upon interviewing the bank teller, she identified him and stated that he took $5,000.

By your argument, the police must now let him go because there is no law against "taking", but only against "theft" and "robbery".  Since all he did was take the money, they could not charge him with a crime because simply taking something is not illegal.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.16    3 weeks ago
"To do so would take critical thinking, comprehension and rationalization."
jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.15    3 weeks ago

257778355_450219449793559_7607591772451506796_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=ZGn5_A1a07oAX852REn&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=80bba712c0a06cd44f72ebc07fb7957c&oe=61997FAB

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
7.1.24  MonsterMash  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.14    3 weeks ago
I have never failed.

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif   jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.25  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.21    3 weeks ago
Tessylo's success or failure is not determined by YOUR opinion.

I didn't base it on opinion.  I based it off history.  

And I notice you took to challenge to match her record.  I ask you to prove me wrong.  Not blather on about nothing.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.25    3 weeks ago

You based it off of absolutely nothing.  

You're the one who blathers on about nothing.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.23    3 weeks ago

Nice meme.  Looks like your learning.  let me know when you graduate to something higher than children games.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.28  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.25    3 weeks ago
I ask you to prove me wrong.

You have been proven wrong many many times, but much like small children, refuse to admit it....nuh uh.....

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.29  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.28    3 weeks ago

No I haven't.  All you've done is blather on about nothing.  Sorry, I'm not as gullible as the left.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7.1.30  Sunshine  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.29    3 weeks ago

When one is dead they don't know they're dead.  It's the same way when one is stupid.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.31  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.29    3 weeks ago
No I haven't.

nuh-uh-randy-marsh.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
7.1.32  bugsy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.12    3 weeks ago
Tessylo has failed many times

Allow me to correct you...

Tessylo has failed EVERY time.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @7.1.32    3 weeks ago

Well, yeah, but.......

She doesn't answer to you

She doesn't have to prove DICK to anyone

She isn't here 24/7 like SOME people 

She simply can not prove it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.34  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.31    3 weeks ago

I have a fan club.  I'm not flattered!  I have quite a few stalkers and admirers here that hang on my every word and follow me all around.  Really creepy.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.35  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.34    3 weeks ago
I have quite a few stalkers and admirers here that hang on my every word and follow me all around.

Like this guy...

YQUSORZXHMZBNKH7JZTC46Q5D4.jpg&w=12001975b9c216b655c3c8fa250e0fe22faff8-14-trump-stalking-hillary.2x.h473.w710.jpg

stalker-protection.jpg

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
8  Jeremy Retired in NC    3 weeks ago

And the stupidity and ignorance from the SJW's and those how "believe" Rittenhouse is guilty continues.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @8    3 weeks ago

Many on the left are completely unhinged.  

I believe their chronic TDS has rotted away what little gray matter they might have had left.

But hey, that's just my opinion, i could be wrong.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
8.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    3 weeks ago

This isn't even TDS.  It's just plain, outright ignorance. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Rittenhouse is yawning through the mind-numbing jury instructions (which are almost 40 pages).  His lawyers should offer him some coffee.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

The judge fucked up in his jury instructions and had to call a sidebar. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @10    3 weeks ago

This judge loves to hear himself talk, to say the least. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    3 weeks ago

The prosecution wants the jury to have the option of lesser charges, since they overcharged. A unanimous acquittal prevents lesser charges.


 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
10.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.1    3 weeks ago
The prosecution wants the jury to have the option of lesser charges, since they overcharged.

Since they made the Defense's case for the other charges.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
10.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.1.2    3 weeks ago

One of the unforgettable highlights was when the prosecution put Richard McGinniss, the Daily Caller reporter on the stand. Binger said to him "I mean you have no idea what Mr Rosenbaum was thinking at any point in his life. You have never been inside his head, you never met him before.”

McGinnis said, “I never exchanged words with him, if that’s what your question is.”

Binger then pressed McGinnis on how he had no idea what Rosenbaum was thinking because it “is complete guesswork, isn’t it?”

That is when McGinnis delivered a gut punch, noting, “Well he said fuck you, and then he reached for the weapon.”

Binger looked physically ill at that point...One of my favorites!

 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
11  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Thomas Binger is going to have a 2 hour closing argument?  We are way overtime just with the Judge's instructions!

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @11    3 weeks ago

He has to use the "think of the damage and destruction the rioters will cause it he is acquitted" argument. Being a lawyer he can stretch that into at least 1 hour.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

This judge has diarrhea of the mouth. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Now Mr Binger...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
13.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Vic Eldred @13    3 weeks ago
Now Mr Binger...

Yeah, anyone want to lay odds on his being a prosecutor in the future?

I think the best they can hope for is a hung jury/mistrial... That is a possibility as there may be some braindead woke people on the jury... But a reasonable critically thinking person can only acquit given the actual evidence...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
13.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nowhere Man @13.1    3 weeks ago
I think the best they can hope for is a hung jury/mistrial..

I think they are hoping for lesser charges. They'll settle for at least one.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
13.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Nowhere Man @13.1    3 weeks ago
h, anyone want to lay odds on his being a prosecutor in the future?

He called the group that terrorized Kenosha for days a crowd full of heroes. He must be auditioning for a job in the Biden DOJ or MSNBC (one and the same)

.  I can't believe he could ever be elected again in Kenosha again after his epically dishonest performance, starting from his decision to indict Rittenhouse without an investigation. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
13.1.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.1.1    3 weeks ago
They'll settle for at least one.

Brother, they are so desperate, they will settle for anything at this point and call it a victory...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Rittenhouse looks scared shitless as the prosecutor shows video of him raising his gun to point it at people in the car lot. 

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
14.1  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @14    3 weeks ago
raising his gun to point it at people

Binger did a bang up job with that yesterday!

FEQmQ6VXwAIbooA?format=png&name=small

FEQZ2NYUYAEJLtP?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
15  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

The FBI drone video shows that Rosenbaum never grabbed Rittenhouse gun. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

So far the prosecutor closing argument is about a 9 out of 10. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
16.1  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @16    3 weeks ago

Lol ... so he finally did something well in this trial eh?

Good for him.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
16.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @16    3 weeks ago

He's literally lying.  He just claimed  there's no evidence of a threat from Rosenbaum to Rittenhouse.  There's plenty of evidence, including eyewitness testimony.

If the  jury paid attention to the evidence, he has no credibility.  They don't like to be lied to. 

Another lie:

No evidence Rosenbaum reaching for gun. 

I've watched 5 minutes and he's just lying, not even trying to explain the evidence, simply pretends it doesn't exist.

Unless the jury is full of morons who weren't paying attention to the trial, he's not helping himself. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @16.2    3 weeks ago

Rittenhouse looks scared to death. 

I didnt follow the testimony minute by minute like you did.  The prosecutor is doing a good job although I think he's making a mistake by trying to go into too much second by second detail of Rosenbaum being shot. 

If Rittenhouse was pointing his gun at people that is justification for chasing him. Stupid, but justified. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
16.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.1    3 weeks ago

So much for calling the police- and no good guys with guns- BS. The lefts' hypocrisy is shining through.

1) The rioters had no intention of calling the police on Rittenhouse because they were stalking him and wanted the confrontation.

2) The rioters would never call the very people they were rioting so damn hard against.

3) What mighty mental midgets escalate a conflict with an armed individual with an AR-15 that the left is scared to death of?

4) Since they were stalking him- the intent was always to confront and chase. So they didn't need any excuses. Again, butt hurt leftist emotions brought this case to court; despite all evidence. The prosecution didn't do their damn job; didn't look at all the evidence; and damn well didn't vet their witness or alleged "victims".

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @16.2.2    3 weeks ago

How were they stalking him?  He went to their location. 

Rittenhouse left the business he was originally guarding and walked (then ran) a few blocks down the road to where he had heard there was some sort of action going on. He was bored because the original location he was guarding was declared secure by the police. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.3    3 weeks ago

The prosecution did a remarkable job of proving self-defense.

Haven't you been paying attention?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @16.2.4    3 weeks ago

dont troll me

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.5    3 weeks ago

LMAO--typical leftist response when they can't think of anything intelligent to rebut with.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
16.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @16.2.6    3 weeks ago

Everyone on this site knows you are a troll. Its a shame NT allows you to get away with it. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @16.2.7    3 weeks ago

You are nothing if not entertaining.

Congrats!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

I saw an interesting question on twitter just now. If Rittenhouse didnt have a gun but pulled out a knife and stabbed Rosenbaum to death because Rosenbaum was chasing him , would Rittenhouse be justified? 

Of course not. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @17    3 weeks ago
vaZ6DBbo_bigger.jpg
Russell Patrick
@russ_q
Replace AR-15 with a knife and #KyleRittenhouse would have been arrested on first sight by the local police. Replace the AR-15 with a knife and he would pled guilty on homicide. No #selfdefence #gunviolence
 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
17.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1    3 weeks ago

Replace the AR-15 with a knife and nobody files charges.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @17.1.1    3 weeks ago

I dont think you can stab an unarmed man to death in a fight but maybe you know something the rest of us dont.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
17.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1.2    3 weeks ago
I dont think you can stab an unarmed man to death in a fight but maybe you know something the rest of us dont.

If he knows you have a knife and chases you down, then he's clearly not afraid of your knife.  If he's within stabbing range he must have caught you.  So now here you are in the grasp of a person so intent on harming you that the knife didn't dissuade them.

Nobody files charges when you stab that guy.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
17.1.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jack_TX @17.1.3    3 weeks ago

Unless the guy attacking you is a politically favored race.... (and you aren't)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Jack_TX @17.1.3    3 weeks ago
If he knows you have a knife and chases you down, then he's clearly not afraid of your knife.  If he's within stabbing range he must have caught you.  So now here you are in the grasp of a person so intent on harming you that the knife didn't dissuade them. Nobody files charges when you stab that guy.

JR has stated that shooting someone who is kicking you isn't allowed. So I don't see how you can convince him with logic like that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @17.1.3    3 weeks ago

In order to use deadly force you have to believe you are in imminent danger of grievous bodily injury or death.  Rosenbaum was described as 5 ft 4 and 140 lbs. How would someone with a knife be able to claim he was in fear of grievous injury or death from someone who was smaller than him and unarmed? 

You cant kill someone because you are afraid of losing a fight. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
17.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @17.1.4    3 weeks ago

Interesting you are injecting race into a case where everyone involved was white. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1.7    3 weeks ago
Interesting you are injecting race into a case where everyone involved was white.

Not surprisingly, I have yet to see you make any similar comment to the fools who keep calling Rittenhouse a white supremacist.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
17.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1.6    3 weeks ago
In order to use deadly force you have to believe you are in imminent danger of grievous bodily injury or death.

A crazy person chasing me down creates that belief.

  Rosenbaum was described as 5 ft 4 and 140 lbs. How would someone with a knife be able to claim he was in fear of grievous injury or death from someone who was smaller than him and unarmed? 

I'm 6'4" and 210lbs.  Any 5'4"/140 guy crazy enough to chase me looking for a fight is crazy enough to for me to believe he will cause grievous injury or death. 

I have every reason to suspect such a person must have a weapon I have not seen.  I also don't know if he's on drugs or not and if so what drugs they might be.  I don't know WTF is going on inside that head, and if I've made a significant effort to leave/de-escalate and he's still coming after me and my knife.... he's completely lost his mind and I'm not risking it. 

You cant kill someone because you are afraid of losing a fight. 

Of course you can.  "Grievous bodily injury".  Why on earth would I think a person displaying such insanity would show restraint should they win the fight?  At the very least this asshole intends to render me unconscious and/or send me to the hospital.  I'm supposed to stake my life on the idea he won't beat me to death?  

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
17.1.10  Jasper2529  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1.7    3 weeks ago
Interesting you are injecting race into a case where everyone involved was white. 

Interesting that the MSM, other left-wing media, and Joe Biden did in 2020.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1.6    3 weeks ago
You cant kill someone because you are afraid of losing a fight. 

Further evidence that self defense is not understood.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
17.1.12  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  JohnRussell @17.1.6    3 weeks ago

A "fight" would likely be and usually is  mutually agreed on . What Rosenbum did was assault , not mutually agreed on , besides , there is no provision in the self defense statute that says the attacker has to be armed , people have died with a person simply using their hands and feet . 

The only prerequisite for use of deadly force is that the person being attacked has to believe the attack would cause serious injury or death, of course they also could not instigate the whole thing as well, but simply being armed is not considered provocation or reason to attack someone either .

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
17.1.13  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Jack_TX @17.1.1    3 weeks ago
Replace the AR-15 with a knife and nobody files charges.

You can't really believe that. There were two dead bodies that night. Stabbing or gunfire, arrests were going to happen.

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
17.1.14  RU4Real  replied to  JohnRussell @17.1.6    3 weeks ago

Cops do it EVERY day

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
17.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  RU4Real @17.1.14    3 weeks ago

But this fat little killer isn't a COP.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
17.1.16  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  RU4Real @17.1.14    3 weeks ago

Your name fits you to a tee with that comment. Buh bye!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
17.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @17.1.15    3 weeks ago

And if no one attacked him, he wouldn't have shot anyone.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18  Nowhere Man    3 weeks ago

Well comparing this to the Zimmerman trial only serves to reveal the ideal, the government is afraid of the racist BLM Mob....

The Zimmerman trial was a mob generated trial, this is a mob generated trial, Floridian's saw this and acquitted under the law, Wisconsan's  should also see it and acquit under the law...

I'm going to project some common sense here..

AS these acquittals, (I believe this will be one) keep happening, the mob will eventually get the idea they they cannot get their satisfaction thru the courts and sympathetic politicians.... 

They will then abandon the government altogether... The Politicians have little to no control of the mob as it stands, with their standing orders for the authorities to stand down and avoid confrontations with said mob.... (because the politicians would love for all these protests to be "peaceful") 

Who's left to defend the citizenry? the citizenry itself....

And since this is a government of the people by the people and for the people, the only ones that can fix this are the people...

And I feel very sad for the mob, who have apparently forgot who the real government is...

Any YES it does get right down to the simple basics...  Your either a hater of this nation and join the mob or a lover of this nation and join the people...

It's rapidly coming down to that simple choice....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @18    3 weeks ago

[Deleted.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
18.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Nowhere Man @18    3 weeks ago
Any YES it does get right down to the simple basics...  Your either a hater of this nation and join the mob or a lover of this nation and join the people... It's rapidly coming down to that simple choice....

Well said.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
18.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @18    3 weeks ago
Any YES it does get right down to the simple basics...  Your either a hater of this nation and join the mob or a lover of this nation and join the people... It's rapidly coming down to that simple choice....

I totally disagree. It has nothing to do with that. There are so many shades of gray to this case, that it boggles my mind that this is what you got out of it.

There were two groups of people out there. Some were doing peaceful protests. Others were hooligans who came with their own agenda and were hardly peaceful. In the US we have the right to protest. You do not have the right to riot.

Then you have people who thought that they should insert themselves into a situation that they had no business inserting themselves into. That kid was from out of state, and not a member of law enforcement. He came there to engage the rioters and he did so with a gun. He shot 3 people, 2 died. Whether or not it was self-defence, the need would have never happened, if he didn't fancy himself as a vigilante. 

This whole business is not about mob rule. It is about gross stupidity and unlawful behaviour. The rioters were thugs who should have been rounded up by the police and charged. The kid shouldn't have been there and then he wouldn't have shot 3 people, killing 2. What he did was not murder, but he is also responsible for 2 deaths, so a lesser charge would be appropriate. The rioters are dead or injured, so I think they have paid for their actions.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
18.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3    3 weeks ago
Then you have people who thought that they should insert themselves into a situation that they had no business inserting themselves into.

No, I have to disagree with you in part.  Did Rittenhouse need to be there?  No, he didn't need to be there but he had just as much right to be there as those who were protesting. 

He came there to engage the rioters and he did so with a gun. He shot 3 people, 2 died. Whether or not it was self-defence, the need would have never happened, if he didn't fancy himself as a vigilante. 

Personally I would be careful in saying he fancied himself a vigilante as you don't really know what was in his mind. The jury will decide if it meets the criteria for self-defense but the other side if it is also it might not have happened if he was not attacked by the 3 people. 

I would have loved for the police to have been more involved so that this could have been prevented, but politics were used to hold them back and allow the protestors free movement and actions. Once the police were kept out of it....

What he did was not murder, but he is also responsible for 2 deaths, so a lesser charge would be appropriate. The rioters are dead or injured, so I think they have paid for their actions.

Yep, I believe the prosecution over-reached and over-charged. Was that due to politics?  We will probably never know. All we do know is the prosecution really did a poor job.  But I also think that Rittenhouse will also have to live with his actions and the knowledge that he killed two people for the rest of his life. I can't imagine what his mind is like with that knowledge. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18.3.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3    3 weeks ago
There were two groups of people out there. Some were doing peaceful protests.

Excuse me, I have just finishing listening and watching two different broadcasts of the proceedings, one was the prosecutor excusing a guy that was killed when he attacked AFTER going on a rampage of destruction AND screaming that he was going to kill... The other was the defense attorney showing the video of each shooting, YES they have complete video of each shooting... Five people attacked him the second one knocked him down, he was running away. The skateboard guy swung at his head which he blocked with his gun ,once down, the skateboard guy was winding up for another swing That is when he was shot... Another guy comes running up and tries to kick him in the head, he wasn't shot another guy come lunging in and tries to take the gun he was shot... then the last one who ran in with the previous guy stops and holds his hands up until the victim looks away he then pulls out his gun and points it at the head of the guy down on the ground... The guy on the ground lifts his weapon and fires... all this while in the video there is a third guy who rand in with the last two that just stands there with his hands up and another standing approx 30 feet away on the sidewalk brandishing a board like it was a sword, ready to move in as well... They guy collects himself gets up and runs to the police...

That was self defense

There was nothing peaceful in the video I saw, there was a mob that actually repeatedly tried to chase down and kill the victim....

The defense attorney stated the law correctly, if he was justified under self defense on the first charge then he was justified on all the rest, the "lesser included" charges go away as justified as well.. What I saw was a classic case of self defense against multiple attackers based upon the law and the law alone... Self defense is justified when you are in fear of your life or someone else's life... 

He was clearly in fear of his life, in that situation I would have been as well.. And, if able, acted accordingly...

The trial is a mob generated politically motivated trial.... The threats being made from outside the courtroom of the mob rioting if he is not convicted prove beyond any doubt that this is mob generated, and if the jury does cave to the mob and convicts from the clear evidence they have shown then there is no law...

Then YES it is now a mob rule situation... This is the US, anyone can go anywhere they like, the argument that he inserted himself into the situation falls flat on it's face cause ALL the rioters inserted themselves as well... 

What you call shades of grey are all rationalizations, the plain and clear evidence from the videos call for a justified self defense verdict, if we are still a nation of laws....

What happened is terrible, but it started when the mob ran him down and attacked him which the video clearly shows... Any other rationalization can only lead to the conclusion that feelings and emotions are more important than the law...

Which I respectfully disagree with...

Been there and done that...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @18.3.2    3 weeks ago
There was nothing peaceful in the video I saw, there was a mob that actually repeatedly tried to chase down and kill the victim....

Pure speculation. There is no evidence that anyone tried to kill Rittenhouse. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.3    3 weeks ago
Pure speculation. There is no evidence that anyone tried to kill Rittenhouse. 

Swinging a skateboard at someone's head is just a love tap? The defense doesn't have to prove that people tried to kill him, only that their actions caused Rittenhouse to fear for his own safety.

LMAO

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @18.3.2    3 weeks ago

There is a guy they called Jump Kick Man.  The defense lawyer said that Jump Kick Man kicked Rittenhouse in the head and then Rittenhouse shot at him. That is not what happened. As Jump Kick Man is running toward Rittenhouse who is sitting on the ground Rittenhouse turns toward Jump Kick Man and raises his weapon. As Jump Kick Man is leaping over Rittenhouse to kick him, simultaneously Rittenhouse is pulling the trigger. 

The defense argument is that Rittenhouse can shoot someone to death that may be about to kick them. That should not be acceptable. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.5    3 weeks ago
The defense argument is that Rittenhouse can shoot someone to death that may be about to kick them. That should not be acceptable. 

Of course it is acceptable.

THAT is self defense.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @18.3.4    3 weeks ago

Rittenhouse killed these people because he had a gun attached to himself like a third arm.  If you get in a fight with someone on a street you cant just shoot them dead. 

If that becomes the standard we are going to need a lot more body bags. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.3.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.7    3 weeks ago
Rittenhouse killed these people because he had a gun attached to himself like a third arm.

No, he shot because he was under attack and had been threatened.

If you get in a fight with someone on a street you cant just shoot them dead. 

You keep making these odd, false claims. Why?

If that becomes the standard we are going to need a lot more body bags.

Perhaps. Each case is unique. But it already is the standard. Self defense in play.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @18.3.8    3 weeks ago
You keep making these odd, false claims. Why?

The next time someone wants to fight you in a restaurant parking lot, you pull out your gun and shoot them four times . Let us know how that works out for you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.9    3 weeks ago
The next time someone wants to fight you in a restaurant parking lot, you pull out your gun and shoot them four times

Self defense, an obviously foreign concept to some.

Hell, dude, I live in freaking Texas, WTF do you think I would even be charged with?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @18.3.10    3 weeks ago

If you can pull and use a gun in a fistfight in Texas and get away with it I'm glad I am 1000 miles from there. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
18.3.12  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.11    3 weeks ago
l and use a gun in a fistfight in Texas and get away with it I'm glad I am 1000 miles from there.

You better leave Illinois ASAP. 

The Rittenhouse case is a pretty straightforward application of self defense. People are acting like it's some novel concept. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18.3.13  Nowhere Man  replied to  Texan1211 @18.3.10    3 weeks ago
Hell, dude, I live in freaking Texas, WTF do you think I would even be charged with?

Brother, I live here in whackadoodle Washington, even here the sheriff tells you as long as the attacker is coming at you causing you to fear him and what he might do.. your good to go...

The moment he sees your weapon and flees, then you have to let him go... The right to own weapons for self defense is ensconced in the state constitution.... (much to the far left progressives chagrin....

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @18.3.10    3 weeks ago
Rational Atheist
@RationalAUnited
·
14m
If #KyleRittenhouse is found not guilty beware! It will set a standard that holding your weapon is enough cause to kill a person who threatens to kick your ass. Think about that. All you will need to prove is you felt in immediate danger. Sound familiar, ya cops use this bs alot.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @18.3.12    3 weeks ago

Gee, that's strange, because both sides went well into the concept of self defense throughout the trial, including today. 

In the prosecution rebuttal , he said that Rittenhouse had other options than shooting Rosenbaum. He could have fought him, he could have ran. He had a duty to use deadly force as a last resort. Rittenhouse used it as a first resort , most likely as planned. Why fight when you can shoot and kill people and get away with it? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
18.3.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.15    3 weeks ago

Rittenhouse used it as a first resort , most likely as planned.

You are losing touch with reality.  He ran away. Do you think he planned for Rosenbaum's friend to fire a gun behind him as Rosenbaum chased him and reached for his gun? You've turned Rittenhouse into some sort of wizard who can manipulate others like a puppetmaster.

If he wanted to kill rioting progressives, there were plenty of targets. Notice how he only shot those attacking him? 

Don't chase and threaten people with guns or bad things can happen. It's common sense. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.3.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @18.3.16    3 weeks ago
Do you think he planned for Rosenbaum's friend to fire a gun behind him as Rosenbaum chased him and reached for his gun?

Rittenhouse testified that the other gunshot had no effect on his actions. 

There is no evidence that Rosenbaum reached for the gun until after Rittenhouse shot him.  

I wonder what would have happened if Rosenbaum didnt chase Rittenhouse but simply punched him in the face where he stood and acted like he was going to punch him again. Judging from this defense I guess Rittenhouse would have just shot Rosenbaum dead on the spot.  

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
18.3.18  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.11    3 weeks ago

Where you are you are more likely to get shot sitting in your house, or in a car, or walking down a sidewalk.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
18.3.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.17    3 weeks ago
ittenhouse testified that the other gunshot had no effect on his actions. 

That's not what he testified to. 

There is no evidence that Rosenbaum reached for the gun until after Rittenhouse shot him

That's not true John. You and the DA keep ignoring evidence you don't like and then claim it doesn't exist. It's basically an admission that guilt can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.3.20  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.11    3 weeks ago
If you can pull and use a gun in a fistfight in Texas and get away with it I'm glad I am 1000 miles from there. 

That makes at least two of us then.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.3.21  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.14    3 weeks ago

Simplistic tweets don't change facts.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
18.3.22  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.9    3 weeks ago
The next time someone wants to fight you in a restaurant parking lot, you pull out your gun and shoot them four times . Let us know how that works out for you. 

Do people start fights with you in restaurant parking lots?  

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
18.3.23  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.17    3 weeks ago
I wonder what would have happened if Rosenbaum didnt chase Rittenhouse but simply punched him in the face where he stood and acted like he was going to punch him again. Judging from this defense I guess Rittenhouse would have just shot Rosenbaum dead on the spot.  

Or what would have happened if he chased him down and clubbed him over the head with a skateboard, even......

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18.3.24  Nowhere Man  replied to  Sean Treacy @18.3.19    3 weeks ago
There is no evidence that Rosenbaum reached for the gun until after Rittenhouse shot him

HUGE CHUCKLE!

Except for that pesky video showing him pointing the gun at his head, the shot being fired and then him holding his shredded arm with the gun still in his hand....

Other than that there is still the witness testimony, (which matches the video perfectly) and guess who was the witness? I think his name was ROSENBAUM!!!

Ignoring the evidence that destroys the claim is classic hate type liberalism.... your right Sean, it's an admission they know the evidence and know the truth...

Hilarious!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
18.3.25  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Snuffy @18.3.1    3 weeks ago
No, I have to disagree with you in part.  Did Rittenhouse need to be there?  No, he didn't need to be there but he had just as much right to be there as those who were protesting. 

No. His dad did. He lived with his mom in another state.

Personally I would be careful in saying he fancied himself a vigilante as you don't really know what was in his mind.

Then why was he there and with a long gun? Why did he say during testimony that Kyle  he went to Kenosha to protect people's property?  When the riots broke out in Baltimore not even a 1/4 mile from my kids' apartment, they didn't go out into the night to add to the mixture.

I would have loved for the police to have been more involved so that this could have been prevented, but politics.....

The police were there. They had chased the crowds from the park to the streets. 

Yep, I believe the prosecution over-reached and over-charged. Was that due to politics?  We will probably never know.

There we agree. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
18.3.26  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @18.3.2    3 weeks ago

I watched the same footage, and none of this would have happened had he not been there. End of subject. The fact that the kid was there with a gun and was not the police, and put himself into a situation that could have ended up poorly at best still does not excuse his bad judgement and the death of two people. It's not murder, but he is not innocent either. As I said to Snuffy, my daughters stayed in their apartments as Baltimore burned. Had they gone out, any event would have been on them.

But that was not my point... it's this that you are still saying:

The trial is a mob generated politically motivated trial.... The threats being made from outside the courtroom of the mob rioting if he is not convicted prove beyond any doubt that this is mob generated, and if the jury does cave to the mob and convicts from the clear evidence they have shown then there is no law...

As long as the jury does what it is supposed to do, whether you or I agree with the outcome, it is NOT mob rule.

What you call shades of grey are all rationalizations, the plain and clear evidence from the videos call for a justified self defense verdict, if we are still a nation of laws....

Obviously, it is shades of grey since we are having this discussion. We both followed the case and listened to testimony and feel differently. If it was black and white, we would walk away with the same opinion.

What happened is terrible, but it started when the mob ran him down and attacked him which the video clearly shows... Any other rationalization can only lead to the conclusion that feelings and emotions are more important than the law...

This has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. I don't side with the rioters. They were disgusting. So please don't try to get into where I am coming from. The kids himself says he wishes he didn't go there that night. Who asked him to go out into the night to protect people's property? He was ill-prepared for what happened, and now we have 2 dead people and a third injured.

And if you are going to be respectful of me, then please realize that I have thought about this, and I am not running on emotion. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18.3.27  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.26    3 weeks ago
Obviously, it is shades of grey since we are having this discussion. We both followed the case and listened to testimony and feel differently. If it was black and white, we would walk away with the same opinion.

And to me there are no shades of grey in this one, it doesn't matter why he was there and he doesn't have to justify his presence there... This is still the United States of America... he had the right to be safe in his person in any place he is at...

When he put out the fire that one of his attackers started, they decided that he didn't have a right to live... He tried mightily to get away, ran two whole blocks to avoid the confrontation, until they caught up to him and forced him to protect himself...

There is no grey there, it is plain from the evidence when they caught him they intended to do great harm to him, at least three assaults took place before he defended himself...  The first threw a rock at his head, near miss but knocked off his hat, he stumbled and fell and the skateboard slinger took a swipe, and hit a glancing blow partially blocked by his rifle, his rifle fell to the ground, the next almost simultaneously tried a karate kick to his head and missed, just a glancing blow... Then the skateboard slinger came around and was going to wop him again, that is when he picked up his rifle and shot him... Skateboard slinger stumbles off center stage left about 30 feet and falls on his face... He is sitting there with his rifle in his lap pointing in the general direction of skateboard slinger looking a little dazed... Then three rioters approached the one that set the fire he put out was first, he lunged to get his rifle and got two hands on the barrel, then he tried to yank it out of his grip and it discharged... Essentially the way he tried to take the rifle, he shot himself... he staggers off stage left and disappears... Now the second person of the three put up both hands and stepped closer, he still looked a bit dazed sitting in the street when this second person gets within a step of him he draws a glock and points it at his head... He lifts his rifle and fires... this person stands there holding his shredded arm with the glock still in it and turns away and leaves the scene stage left... the third person stands there with his hands raised not making a move.... He got up and ran to the police...

What the film shows me.... He was directly attacked three times and first fired at the fourth attack, the second discharge was an accident brought on by the guy that was off his meds and setting fires that he was putting out that is why he attacked him, He caused his own death... And the third guy said afterwards that he should have just pulled the trigger.... cause that is why he drew his gun he regretted that he didn't... (he admitted on the stand his intent was to commit murder, why do you think the prosecutor did a face palm, justified self defense established right there)

Clear self defense, black and white, he tried to run away, he was attacked three times before he ever discharged his weapon, and one of the deaths was caused by the assailant himself trying to take his weapon... as far as the third discharge? if someone had the drop on me with a loaded/locked gun and I have a weapon he's a dead man...I will not give him the chance, My training tells me that a drawn weapon is intended to be used and you must assume the person is going to use it..

No doubt in my mind Black and White clear self defense... He was lucky to get out of it alive....

You reiterated this...

 "The kids himself says he wishes he didn't go there that night"

Let me explain something, it is 37 years later and I still wish I didn't go to that ice cream parlor that afternoon, what he has done is something he is going to live the rest of his life with, just as I have... Don't twist it into saying he admits he was wrong for being there cause that is the only logical reason to say such a thing...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
18.3.28  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @18.3.27    3 weeks ago
Let me explain something, it is 37 years later and I still wish I didn't go to that ice cream parlor that afternoon, what he has done is something he is going to live the rest of his life with, just as I have... Don't twist it into saying he admits he was wrong for being there cause that is the only logical reason to say such a thing...

There is a huge difference between minding your own business and walking into an ice cream parlor and walking into a riot. If you can't see that, I can't explain it to you. 

And I don't have to twist anything. I am only repeating his words. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18.3.29  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.28    3 weeks ago
And I don't have to twist anything. I am only repeating his words. 

You may only be repeating his words, but your doing it to justify your opinion... this is your entire statement in context....

     "This has nothing to do with feelings or emotions. I don't side with the rioters. They were disgusting. So please don't try to get into where I am coming from. The kids himself says he wishes he didn't go there that night. Who asked him to go out into the night to protect people's property? He was ill-prepared for what happened, and now we have 2 dead people and a third injured."

Which clearly says you do not understand why he said what he said... your making it very clear that your opinion is that if he wasn't there, there wouldn't be two dead people, hence he is legally liable/responsible for those deaths, not murder cause he had no intent but because of his presence manslaughter....

Problem is under the law, manslaughter requires the killer to take the first criminal action... that he clearly didn't do.... Unless you think putting out an arson fire started by a rioter was the first criminal act...

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
18.3.30  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.28    3 weeks ago
There is a huge difference between minding your own business and walking into an ice cream parlor and walking into a riot. If you can't see that

Totally agree. True, he did have a right to be where he was. However, he did not have the legal right to possess the gun that he carried to that place. He was not of legal age to be in possession of that gun, or any gun, for that matter. 

By carrying such a weapon, and putting himself in such a place under those circumstances, he took responsibility for his own safety.

He also lied when he told the police that the owner of one of the businesses asked him to protect his business, when the owner of the business said he did not ask him to protect his business as he was just a young teen and the dangerous circumstances would put the kids life in danger, even with the gun. And the business Kyle said he was asked to protect was not in the area where the shooting in question happened.

INHO, Kyle's Mother bears full responsibility for what happened to Kyle and the victims, as she is the one who bought the gun and gave it Kyle knowing full well he was of legal age to buy, or possess, that weapon. And sh should also be held accountable for her own actions.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
18.3.31  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nowhere Man @18.3.29    3 weeks ago

I said what I said because he said so. I am not on that jury. It is up to that jury to decide. But I don't think he should have been there. I never mentioned the charges, you did. And reckless endangerment is also on the table, not just manslaughter.

Unless you think putting out an arson fire started by a rioter was the first criminal act...

But he didn't put out a fire, he threw kerosene into it. This is more akin to a fake firefighter showing up, not knowing what to do, and dropping the baby out the second-story window, because they had no training.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
18.3.32  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.31    3 weeks ago
This is more akin to a fake firefighter showing up, not knowing what to do, and dropping the baby out the second-story window, because they had no training.

I agree. Good analogy.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18.3.33  Nowhere Man  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.31    3 weeks ago

You have a right to believe what you wish girl, I have no problem with that.. But alas we are on opposite sides on this one... And I'm ok with that as well....

We will have to agree to disagree... The people that attacked him had no right to do that, and forced him to defend himself, by making the decision to attack they bear the brunt of responsibility for what happened to themselves... that's my view...

We are not going to change each others minds here, Have a good night sweets...

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
18.3.34  Nowhere Man  replied to  Raven Wing @18.3.30    3 weeks ago

Hey RW! nice to see you... I know we aren't going to agree on this either, but I still love ya...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.3.35  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @18.3.29    3 weeks ago

You're the one twisting here.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
18.3.36  Snuffy  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.25    3 weeks ago
No, I have to disagree with you in part.  Did Rittenhouse need to be there?  No, he didn't need to be there but he had just as much right to be there as those who were protesting. 
No. His dad did. He lived with his mom in another state.

Not sure what your comment means in regards to mine.  I know he lives with his mother in IL,  and his dad lives in Kenosha.  What I said was that while IMO he didn't really need to be there, he had just as much right to be there as the rioters did.  He did nothing illegal by being there.

Personally I would be careful in saying he fancied himself a vigilante as you don't really know what was in his mind.
Then why was he there and with a long gun? Why did he say during testimony thatKyle  he went to Kenosha to protect people's property? When the riots broke out in Baltimore not even a 1/4 mile from my kids' apartment, they didn't go out into the night to add to the mixture.

Ok, using the dictionary definition he can be called a vigilante. I don't necessarily like that word as it has other connotations but it's not wrong.  But when you throw in that he was armed is when the connotations start to take hold and really are not part of the issue IMO. 

I would have loved for the police to have been more involved so that this could have been prevented, but politics.....
The police were there. They had chased the crowds from the park to the streets. 

I don't believe the police were allowed to do enough. How many buildings were burned down, how much was lost from the nights of riots? Perhaps that could have been limited if the police were allowed to do more. 

Rittenhouse now is saying he wishes he hadn't gone there at all and if he had to do it again he would  not. That to me shows growth and remorse. He was 17, we all make poor decisions at that age. IMO what he did was not illegal and while I'm waiting like everybody else for the jury to decide I think he will be acquitted on all counts as this from the videos I have seen is an easy case of self-defense. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
18.3.37  Snuffy  replied to  Raven Wing @18.3.30    3 weeks ago
However, he did not have the legal right to possess the gun that he carried to that place. He was not of legal age to be in possession of that gun, or any gun, for that matter. 

Actually that's not true which is why count 6 has been removed. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
18.3.38  Raven Wing  replied to  Raven Wing @18.3.30    3 weeks ago
knowing full well he was of legal age to buy, or possess, that weapon.

That should read "knowing full well he was not of legal age to buy, or possess, that weapon".

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
18.3.39  Raven Wing  replied to  Nowhere Man @18.3.34    3 weeks ago
I know we aren't going to agree on this either, but I still love ya...

Hidy do, NWM! Good to see you back with us here on NT. We have disagreed on some matters, but, we still enjoy each others verbal company. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
18.3.40  RU4Real  replied to  Snuffy @18.3.1    3 weeks ago

Is there any consideration of Rittenhouse's interactions with cops before and after the shootings?  He was shown, via video and pictures, of hanging with the cops BEFORE hell broke loose.  He was even given water and a thumbs up by the cops.  This was clearly seen, nice daylight.  Later in the evening he can be seen walking with the AR-15 past cops who did not give him the time of day.  Multiple people were yelling to the cops, "Hey, that kid, A-hole, just shot and killed someone".  Yes, this was documented as well.  What of his classmates and their statements of him?  His actions after the fact, which included flashing racist symbols at the bar?

In your opinion (and anyone else), should any of this be considered?  Yes, it may not be presented, but should it be considered?

Do you believe he should be charged with manslaughter?

In any event, I think he was a good actor on the stand, fake crying and such.  Defense team taught him well.

I think he is riding the hero / brave patriot wave so his mind is clear and he sleeps well at night.

To me he's down there with Zimmerman, other violence-provoking cowards who use the defense "I feared for my life" and hide behind their gun b/c they're afraid of taking an ass-kicking.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
18.3.41  Kathleen  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.31    3 weeks ago

I disagree, just like those two felons, he had the right to be wherever he wanted. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
18.3.42  Ronin2  replied to  Gazoo @18.3.18    3 weeks ago

If you are in Chicago it is all of the above.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
18.3.43  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @18.3.14    3 weeks ago

The governor had to deploy 500 NG troops there in case the verdict might result in a riot.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
18.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Nowhere Man @18    3 weeks ago

Kyle Rittenhouse had a hammer that night, his Ar-15. When you are a hammer everything looks like a nail. 

He strapped a gun to his chest and went about his business, repeatedly using a gun to shoot people when it was not called for. 

Is he "legally justified"? Maybe. The law allows for his level of fear to dictate his response, not the level of threat. 

Is he "innocent"? That is absurd. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
18.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @18.4    3 weeks ago
He strapped a gun to his chest and went about his business, repeatedly using a gun to shoot people when it was not called for.

Let me correct that statement.

He strapped a gun to his chest and went about his business, repeatedly using a gun to shoot people when he was attacked and threatened.
 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
18.4.2  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @18.4    3 weeks ago

I just read the criminal backgrounds on these guys, one with 11 counts of child molestation including anal, and the other charged with domestic abuse including strangulation. 

Sounds to me that he did the world a favor by "Getting rid of the Trash!".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
18.5  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @18    3 weeks ago
I'm going to project some common sense here..

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
18.5.1  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @18.5    3 weeks ago

Like that would ever happen.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
19  Kathleen    3 weeks ago

I am very curious to see what the jury will decide.

I do have my own opinion about all this. 

I will say this, I am tired of ‘some’ on the left looking the other way with these riots. It’s as though it’s always ‘expected’ when something does not go the way ‘some’ on the left want. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
19.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @19    3 weeks ago
I am tired of ‘some’ on the left looking the other way with these riots.

How many "on the left" here have ever condoned the violence or looting that occurred in 7% of those protests last year? All I heard from everyone here was condemnation of the violence, looting and vandalism, those who committed crimes should be arrested and held fully accountable for their actions.

What I'm tired of are 'some' on the right who act as if 100% of the protests ended in violence, looting and burning cities down, which of course is total bullshit since 93% of the protests were peaceful.

At the Kenosha protests/riots there were only two people killed in those four days, both by Kyle Rittenhouse. I'm not saying that the arsonists who lit three garbage trucks and a trolley car or the truck at the car dealership which spread to other vehicles aren't criminals, they are and they should be arrested for their crimes. But it was a conservative proudly taking pictures with white supremacist "Proud Boys" who murdered two people and shot another at that protest. Yet it seems like everyone on the 'right' here wants to proclaim him a hero even though he was apparently the most violent person who attended that protest. Talk about "looking the other way".

 
 
 
Gazoo
Sophomore Silent
19.1.1  Gazoo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @19.1    3 weeks ago

“How many "on the left" here have ever condoned the violence or looting”

i remember one dumbfuck went on and on about “it’s just property, it can be replaced.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
19.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @19.1    3 weeks ago

Actually, a child molester and a wife beater is not a model citizen either. 

Karma.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
19.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  Gazoo @19.1.1    3 weeks ago

I remember that.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @19.1    3 weeks ago
How many "on the left" here have ever condoned the violence or looting that occurred in 7% of those protests last year?

Oh ya, Time Magazine. Whatever the percentage was of the thousands of protests, the results are staggering with dozens of people dead and billions in damage. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.2    3 weeks ago

So this fat pig little killer had no clue of any alleged crimes by those he killed.  Yet people are claiming it's karma and deserved.  This fat little pig killer was deemed judge, jury and executioner and he's a hero to the 'right'.  Sickening.  Deplorable.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @19.1    3 weeks ago
"How many "on the left" here have ever condoned the violence or looting that occurred in 7% of those protests last year?"
"At the Kenosha protests/riots there were only two people killed in those four days, both by Kyle Rittenhouse. I'm not saying that the arsonists who lit three garbage trucks and a trolley car or the truck at the car dealership which spread to other vehicles aren't criminals, they are and they should be arrested for their crimes. But it was a conservative proudly taking pictures with white supremacist "Proud Boys" who murdered two people and shot another at that protest. Yet it seems like everyone on the 'right' here wants to proclaim him a hero even though he was apparently the most violent person who attended that protest. Talk about "looking the other way".

Absolutely zero and I've mentioned time and time again that the majority of the violence was carried out by outside agitators, arson as well, JUST LIKE THIS KILLER KYLE RITTENHOUSE.  You and I and many on the  'left' have said that anyone committing crimes such as violence, looting, and arson, should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and that includes Kyle Rittenhouse who is a lying thug young republican and a killer to boot.  

YA!  IT WAS!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Gazoo @19.1.1    3 weeks ago
How is that condoning violence?
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.2    3 weeks ago

So murder is karma for an alleged pedophile and alleged wife beater.  jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
19.1.9  Kathleen  replied to  Tessylo @19.1.8    3 weeks ago

Wrong, they were convicted felons.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @19.1.9    3 weeks ago

The fat little pig killer didn't know that.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.2  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @19    3 weeks ago

We're tired of 'some' on the 'right' holding up these killers as 'heroes' and that their killings were justified.  No one on the 'left' is looking away from the riots.  We're not looking away from this killer Rittenhouse.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
19.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kathleen @19    3 weeks ago
I will say this, I am tired of ‘some’ on the left looking the other way with these riots.

These same idiots would support the pending riots if a "Not Guilty" verdict is read.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
19.3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
19.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Sparty On @19.3.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
19.3.4  Sparty On  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.3.2    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
19.3.5  Kathleen  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Kathleen @19.3.5    3 weeks ago
I really don't understand.

That's quite obvious.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.7  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @19.3.1    3 weeks ago

Those are the base of the gop/gqp/alleged conservatives.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
19.3.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @19.3.7    3 weeks ago
Why would anyone even care about a monster that went after children? You would think that everyone would be glad that this monster is not around anymore to hurt children.  I really don't understand.

YOU are the one defending them.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.3.8    3 weeks ago

YOU are defending a killer.  

The killer Rittenhouse had no idea of any alleged crimes by those he murdered.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
19.3.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @19.3.9    3 weeks ago

The whole trial in on youtube and facebook.  Take a look.  Learn something for once.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.11  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.3.10    3 weeks ago

256506509_266974522142381_2541138054412661948_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_rgb565=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=77LeSIff4SsAX8trsZr&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=1aafbf397e195f9a2b697ca75cccc844&oe=61986FD2

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
19.3.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @19.3.10    3 weeks ago

And some think that all three of them got killed. Weird shit since one testified and handed the defense their case LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.13  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @19.3.11    3 weeks ago

I know not all three of them were killed by this little pig Killer Rittenhouse - the meme isn't worded as well as I would like - but I don't know what alleged crimes the one that this young republican shot in the arm may have committed - haven't heard any so probably none.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
19.3.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @19.3.12    3 weeks ago

It seems that they don't care what led up to what happened.  Just the end result.  It's a miracle that most of them have survived this long with out assistance.

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
19.3.15  RU4Real  replied to  Tessylo @19.3.13    3 weeks ago

He kind of looks like a young Cavuto to me.  Didn't really notice it until I read your "little pig" comments.  I called Cavuto a little piglet / piggy.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
19.3.16  Sunshine  replied to  Tessylo @19.3.11    3 weeks ago

That is jumping to a conclusion.  There is no verdict yet.  Seems whoever wrote this stupid meme thinks they sit in judgement of everyone. 

Self-defense is taking the law into your own hands. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.3.17  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @19.3.13    3 weeks ago

Hate to intrude on you arguing yourself, but all that matters is they attacked Rittenhouse and got shot because of it.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
19.3.18  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @19.3.6    3 weeks ago

Set, point, and match.jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
19.3.19  Kathleen  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @19.3.18    3 weeks ago

I understand exactly what you are all saying. You think he had no right to be there AND he was taking the law into his own hands AND he was there just causing trouble.

After looking at the videos plus reading about it, I felt it was self defense. I also think that everyone including the felons had the right to be there just like you or I.

Plus.... he hit the jackpot!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
19.3.20  Nowhere Man  replied to  Kathleen @19.3.19    3 weeks ago
Plus.... he hit the jackpot!

I'm sure at this point that he isn't feeling this way.... If he could do it all over again he wouldn't take the rifle with him...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.21  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @19.3.16    3 weeks ago

No dear, it wasn't self defense.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
19.3.22  Kathleen  replied to  Nowhere Man @19.3.20    3 weeks ago

That's true...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.3.23  Tessylo  replied to  Nowhere Man @19.3.20    3 weeks ago

He's proud that he shot and killed two people.  He was celebrating with some of his fellow domestic terrorist friends and drinking - mommy was there too.  If he could do it all over again, he would bring the rifle with him.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Principal
20  Raven Wing    3 weeks ago

It is my opinion that Kyle's Mother is the one who should be on trial. While she bought the gun legally, she gave it to her underage Son with no training in how to use it. 

Plus, it seems to be a bit obvious, at least to me, that her Son does not play with a full deck, and she doesn't seem to either. She let herself become a ploy for the right (aka Fox News), and she only made things worse for her Son, and even stooped so low as to saw Biden 'Demonized' her Son, trying to bring the President into the picture. I wonder whose suggestion that was. ??

His own Mother is the real cause of what happened, and she will be the cause of his going to prison, if that is the jury's decision. Even if that's what happens, his Mother, with Fox News' help will drag it out for as long as she can, blaming everyone else for her poor Son's fate, when she is the one who could have prevented what happened by not giving a young teenager such a gun in the first place.

JMOO

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
20.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Raven Wing @20    3 weeks ago
It is my opinion that Kyle's Mother is the one who should be on trial. While she bought the gun legally, she gave it to her underage Son with no training in how to use it.  His own Mother is the real cause of what happened, and she will be the cause of his going to prison, if that is the jury's decision. Even if that's what happens, his Mother, with Fox News' help will drag it out for as long as she can, blaming everyone else for her poor Son's fate, when she is the one who could have prevented what happened by not giving a young teenager such a gun in the first place.

Kyle Rittenhouse's friend, Dominick Black, testified under oath that HE bought the gun.  Facts can be pesky details, but they are also very important!

The prosecution in Kyle Rittenhouse’s homicide trial called as its first witness on Tuesday the friend who bought the military-style semiautomatic rifle that Mr. Rittenhouse used to shoot three people, two of them fatally, during the unrest in Kenosha last year.

The friend, Dominick Black, now 20, acknowledged that he was cooperating with prosecutors in hopes of avoiding prison. Mr. Black faces two felony charges for giving the gun to Mr. Rittenhouse, who was 17 at the time and too young to buy it legally himself.

Mr. Black told the court that he bought the gun and stored it at his stepfather’s house for Mr. Rittenhouse.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
20.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Jasper2529 @20.1    3 weeks ago

The left is grasping at straws in this case because that's all they have.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
20.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Sparty On @20.1.1    3 weeks ago
The left is grasping at straws in this case because that's all they have.

ADA Binger made a grand display of straw-grasping yesterday when he held up the rifle in a shooting position and made sweeping gestures while pointing directly at people in the courtroom as his finger was on the trigger. What an idiot!

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
20.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Jasper2529 @20.1.2    3 weeks ago

I know, i saw that as well.

Typical anti gunner like Alec Baldwin.

These people should just stay away from weapons of any sort.

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
20.1.4  RU4Real  replied to  Jasper2529 @20.1    3 weeks ago

Yes, that came out very soon after, the gun was bought by a friend.

Here's the question, will he get charged with accessory before, during and/or after the fact like they are trying to do to the straw-buyer of the gun used in cop killing in Illinois?

If not and the person in the cop killing does, is this bias because it's a dead cop?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
20.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Jasper2529 @20.1    3 weeks ago

If the FACTS really mattered to anyone regarding this trial, then they would have kept up with it at least enough to know who bought the gun and gave it to Rittenhouse.

When people don't even know the basic facts of the case, their opinions should be noted as not informed ones.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
20.1.6  Nowhere Man  replied to  RU4Real @20.1.4    3 weeks ago
Here's the question, will he get charged with accessory before, during and/or after the fact like they are trying to do to the straw-buyer of the gun used in cop killing in Illinois?

The reason he is testifying for the prosecution is to receive lowered charges and an easy sentence... I suspect if they don't get a conviction, they will bury him as a consolation...

 
 
 
RU4Real
Freshman Silent
20.1.7  RU4Real  replied to  Nowhere Man @20.1.6    3 weeks ago

Okay, thanks Man.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
20.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @20.1.1    3 weeks ago

258061143_10158870912189833_3803005331561619927_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=6c29-YcPlpwAX-0KNZ_&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=b727315e9df0b7406fb40718546409a6&oe=619C52C3

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
20.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @20.1.8    3 weeks ago

Okay, like so many times in the past i'll show you how to ignore without using ignore.

Starting now ......

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
21  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

This is what they allow on Twitter:

FETf3eWUcAQMiqw?format=jpg&name=small

Funny how one-sided Twitter is.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
21.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @21    3 weeks ago

They won't riot like before.   Not now.

It's too cold for most of those pussies to leave their mommies basements, dorm rooms or free heated shelters.

But, it's good practice for the National Guard for when the shitbirds do leave their hovels in the traditional season of riot.

Summer.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
21.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Sparty On @21.1    3 weeks ago

Having grown up in Wisconsin and spending way too many winters there, it's well known that a nice little bonfire will keep you nice and warm during those cold winter outdoor parties. 

Now if they can just find something to burn...              /s

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
21.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @21    3 weeks ago
Funny how one-sided Twitter is.

As are Facebook, You Tube, WhatsApp, Instagram, and others ... even much smaller social media sites.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
21.3  Sunshine  replied to  Vic Eldred @21    3 weeks ago

Death threats are a felony.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
21.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Vic Eldred @21    3 weeks ago

I don't want him hung.  He should however be removed from his position as a judge.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
22  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Here's the payoff:

The lead prosecutor pointing the rifle at the jury:

th?id=OIF.AQKBnp%2fVUcWjHW7%2bWT3t%2fQ&pid=ImgDet&rs=1

So, according to the logic of the left, the jury should feel threatened and attack Binger en masse, bludgeon him with a skateboard and then point a gun at his head and shoot him

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
22.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @22    3 weeks ago

I'm sure many other vets here on NT have seen this and cannot believe what this depicts.  I'm sure we all, if present, would have obliterated this guy for the way he's holding the weapon.  This guy obviously has NEVER held a firearm before.  

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
22.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @22.1    3 weeks ago

To be expected...all drama queen and no substance through the entire trial.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
22.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @22.1    3 weeks ago

Not a vet; but I have taken enough gun safety classes to know that any decent arms trainer would destroy him the way he is holding the weapon.

Hey, I am sure the recoil would wreck his face nicely; probably leave him with a nice bruise on his upper shoulder as well. Wouldn't want to be anything above him- no way in hell is he going to hit what he is aiming at.

Too bad he doesn't have a nice scope on it so he could really destroy his eye; I am sure his dime store glasses would shatter on impact.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
22.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @22.1    3 weeks ago
This guy obviously has NEVER held a firearm before. 

I'm not a veteran.  I'm not an avid recreational shooter.  I'm not a gun owner.

Even I know that's not how you do it.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
22.1.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jack_TX @22.1.3    3 weeks ago

he DOES have a nice chicken wing though ......

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
22.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @22.1.2    3 weeks ago

@ Jack_TX  

@   Mark in Wyoming 

As a vet, this man would have had a ballistic helmet slammed into his head for

  1. Not checking to make sure it isn't loaded.
  2. For the way he's holding it. 
  3. Having his finger on the trigger. 
  4. Point it at people.

And he want's to portray Rittenhouse as the threat?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
22.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @22.1.5    3 weeks ago

Oooh, what a tough guy you are!

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
22.1.7  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @22.1.5    3 weeks ago

preaching to the choir.

as a graduate of 2 different police academies , a 10 yr active duty veteran that served as military police for 10 yrs , then 2 yrs as a deputy in the civilian world , a life long hunter and shooting sports participant , i can safely say if i was present in that room , on that jury , the mistrial  would have maybe happened ..it is never a good idea to point a weapon at a vet in any circumstance , never know for sure what their reaction will be . or i would have bit my tounge and let that influence how i voted on the charges , if the idiot cant show common sense in handling a firearm , his charges are likely not based on  common sense , this was a bit of theater for the jury not accustom to firearms or uneducated  and the tv cameras and he failed in my opinion in the worst way possible , no matter what point he was trying to drive home .

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
22.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @22.1.7    3 weeks ago

I feel you.  This whole thing is a dog and pony show.  It's strictly SJW clown court.  And naturally the single cell brained SJW's who haven't paid any attention to the testimony or evidence think Rittenhouse is guilty are set riot if a not guilty verdict is read.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
22.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @22.1.7    3 weeks ago

Who cares?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
22.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @22.1.9    3 weeks ago

Apparently you do.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
22.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @22.1.10    3 weeks ago

No

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
22.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @22.1.11    3 weeks ago

Wrong

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
22.1.13  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @22.1.8    3 weeks ago
think Rittenhouse is guilty are set riot if a not guilty verdict is read.

i was surfing my newsfeed this morning having my coffee( juice of life and blackwater medicine ) and ironically i came across a video clip that happens to be from fox news (oh the horror ) simply asking folks in kenosha what they think the reaction to a not guilty verdict will be .

 the last lady in the clip pretty much nailed it , if there are riots , it wont be the rioters being blamed but the POC , the brown people that live there that will be blamed and have to live with that outcome locally . 

even the locals know what is going down and how it might end in that case .

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
22.1.14  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Sparty On @22.1.10    3 weeks ago

someone could always post a link to stalkers or trolling anaon .....

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
22.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @22.1.13    3 weeks ago

I saw that as well and don't really agree with it.   I think most Americans that are not hopelessly partisan or anti social (and make no mistake that is most Americans) can make the distinction between rioters (of any color) and peaceful protestors of any color.   We don't automatically blame POC, we blame whoever is rioting.   Many of whom are white, anarchist pieces of shit.   That doesn't mean there isn't POC rioters.   There certainly is in most cases.

Spin doctors don't give Americans enough credit for being to separate the wheat from the chaff in this discussion.

Most can, and most do IMO.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
22.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @22.1.6    3 weeks ago

He sure is.  

He served his country.

How about you?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
22.1.17  Sparty On  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @22.1.14    3 weeks ago

Lol

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
22.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @22.1.12    3 weeks ago

No.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
22.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @22.1.16    3 weeks ago

He's a tough guy behind a keyboard.

I don't give a fuck what he did.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
22.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @22.1.14    3 weeks ago

Always projecting.   Not interested

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
22.1.21  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @22.1.19    3 weeks ago
. I don't give a fuck what he did.

Yep, sounds about right considering ......

 
 
 
jw
Freshman Silent
22.2  jw  replied to  Vic Eldred @22    3 weeks ago

This prosecutor has no business handling a firearm,  pointing a rifle at the jury with the action closed and his finger on the trigger.  You would think that anyone handling a firearm in a crowded courtroom would be required to have some training on firearm safety.  Good thing I was not on the jury and he pointed it at me like that I would have chewed his ass.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
22.2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  jw @22.2    3 weeks ago

During the defenses closing address his attorney asked for the weapon, the judge interrupted to make sure the rifle was secured and checked.... then the defense attorney demonstrated how the rifle is to be held and why you would not hold it the way the prosecutor was holding it, and that no person should ever do what the prosecutor did...

{chuckle} the prosecutor is insane, If I was a juror, pointing that rifle at me like that would of at the least guaranteed a mistrial... It was a pure intimidation tactic, grandstanding in an attempt to generate fear in the jury... He should be disbarred for it...

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
Professor Guide
22.2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  jw @22.2    3 weeks ago

I used to manage a shooting range here.  I have thrown out and banned more than one customer for pulling similar shit.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
22.2.3  bugsy  replied to  Nowhere Man @22.2.1    3 weeks ago

If I were one of the jurors and heard those dumbasses outside the courthouse yelling and screaming threats, I would just vote not guilty, no matter if he was guilty or not.

I am so fucking tired of leftists making, and many times, following through on threats just because the feelings of the little pussies was hurt.

[deleted]

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
22.2.4  Kathleen  replied to  Nowhere Man @22.2.1    3 weeks ago

Sometimes what you think might work could backfire too.

 
 
 
jw
Freshman Silent
22.2.5  jw  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @22.2.2    3 weeks ago

Prosecutor Binger under Wisconsin Law 941.20, committed a Class A Misdemeanor in the presence of a law enforcement officer and should have been arrested.

941.20  Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.
(1)    Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:
(a)   Endangers another's safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon.
 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
22.3  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @22    3 weeks ago

Pretty obvious that he's lacking in weapon handling, but what I find interesting is that he is holding it left-handed and the weapon is made to eject casing to the left...Oh man, would I have loved to have that back in the day. There is nothing like being a lefty in the military when all weapons ejected to the right and of course, the red hot casing would generally hit your chin, throat and dropped down your jacket burning the hell out of you.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
22.3.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @22.3    3 weeks ago

lol likely the photo got reversed ..... son is a lefty , all the family semis are made for righties , made him laugh one christmas when  got him a left handed coffee mug....he in turn got me a moustache hot chocolate  mug .

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
22.3.2  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @22.3.1    3 weeks ago

I found some other photos that show him as right-handed, so you're probably correct the photo was reversed. 

I know that some manufacturers do produce left-handed weapons, not sure how widespread it is. 

I have a left-handed wrench and screwdriver.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
22.3.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @22.3.2    3 weeks ago

all i can say is that the attention to detail by those who edit these things is sorely lacking , even such a small detail as reversing a photo can be noticed and taken into account , when judging the validity of what is being presented .

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
22.3.4  Nowhere Man  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @22.3.1    2 weeks ago

Mark, the defense attorney, when he was handling the weapon, directly made the point that the way the prosecutor was doing it would result in his nose being burned from the hot cartridge casings being ejected directly into his face...

The picture wasn't reversed... he actually did it that way, and then he turned around and reversed his hold after talking to one of his assistants... the pic posted by the media shows him pointing an AR-15 that ejects to the left, if I remember correctly most AR-15's eject to the right.... Some creative editing there...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
23  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Just in:

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."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal