Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers made a plea for peace as protesters gathered outside the Kenosha County Courthouse
If it is an open and shut case of self defense why hasnt Rittenhouse been acquitted yet ?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
This Week
@ThisWeekABC
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers made a plea for peace as protesters gathered outside the Kenosha County Courthouse while awaiting a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial.
abcnews.go.com
Governor calls for peace as protesters gather ahead of Kyle Rittenhouse verdict
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers made a plea for peace as protesters gathered outside the courtroom while awaiting a verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
92 visitors
Jury has been out about 8 hours with one hour off for lunch.
Getting impatient for the riots to start?
If it is open and shut self defense, why are they still deliberating after 8 hours?
Perhaps some of the jurors don't know any more about self defense than some of the posters here do.
Speak for yourself.
You asked a question, got an answer and now you want the Anusol.
I know what self defense is, and have attempted to explain it to some members here who apparently still have no clue as to what it is.
I don't care if they ever get it, as long as the jury does!
Maybe a couple of jurors are worried about being doxxed and murdered by antifa.
Intimidation works. Ask the mob .
Everyone knows never give up possession of your gun.
Free food?
they are compensated by the day , not the hr ....
that being said , they can be in there talking about anything they want to doesnt have to be about the trial., even read an article that stated such as much this morning .
they could be swapping cobbler recipies for all we know .
my opinion is is he is aquitted or found not guilty , there wont be any peace .
Good luck with that Sir.
500 NG troops have been deployed and they are legally armed, unlike the killer.
What specific law did he break?
well that last dude shot , lefty?, wasnt armed legally either, expired permit AND a firearms case yet to be heard from before the shooting( might be why he didnt renew his permit , that would have shown during the renewal process) , something about carrying a firearm while intoxicated ?so , there is that as well., that one is the gift that just keeps giving , like herpes . both the oiral and genital kind ....
You'll get no answer, only emotion.
[deleted]
Say, if it is an open and shut case of murder, why is the jury still deliberating?
might have one old codger that doesnt want to go home to the wife , this may have been his first real vacation since he got married ..... BUT ABNER>>>>>>>
Ok, I did get a chuckle out of that but it could very well be vice versa.
yes , it does cut both ways ...
Edith ... STIFLE.....
If Tony Evers had done his job, none of this would have happened. Instead he turned a city over to left wing mob and chaos ensued.
If Rittenhouse hadnt reached for the trigger but confronted Rosenbaum man to man this trial would not have happened.
Rittenhouse had predetermined that night that the only way for him to deal with people who opposed him was to shoot them.
He ran away.
Normally when you are on the ground and someone tries to kick you, you duck or grab his foot or roll over. Rittenhouse raised his gun and pulled the trigger and tried to kill the guy.
He had decided in his mind that his only method of self defense was to shoot people.
This is not an America we want.
True enough, we DON'T want anyone getting away with kicking someone, and feel that defending yourself in the best way possible is acceptable.
What is not acceptable is not being able to defend yourself.
Its interesting that you think that if there is a fight, and one person has a gun and the other doesnt, it is ok for the one with the gun to kill the other one.
I've never actually heard anyone be quite so open about something like that.
Of course, if that were actually always the case Rittenhouse wouldnt be on trial right now.
If I have a gun and some fucking idiots decides he wants to fight me, I damn sure would use it to protect myself. By attacking e, he has shown no fear of me having a gun, so why would I ever assume he isn't going to hurt me badly if given the chance?
Yeah, I tend to mean what I say and say what I mean. I don't tend to sugarcoat to make it more palatable to people who's opinions I don't give a damn about.
You think you are justified in shooting unarmed people who want to fight you.
We get it. I'm just surprised someone would actually say it.
that would need mutual consent to combat which ritterhouse was under no obligation to give someone twice his age
you continue to try and frame this as a mutually agreed to street or bar fight when it is not , it was an assault by an older person of one he assumed was weaker and less experienced , hardly mutually consented combat or a street fight , the dumb fucker just didnt count on HIS victim ( ritterhouse ) pulling the trigger , which happens alot to criminals like rosenbum. and frankly , i see no great loss there .
you DO NOT try to reason with a rabid dog , which rosenbum has been pretty much proven to be by tesimony of witnesses and video , you deal with them as one has to and sometimes , that means shooting them dead ..
here is what REALLY needs to be considered now if the Kid is aquitted , that the threat of violence by the anarchists in society , could very well cost them their lives , and it might be some on this site , or someone they know or it may even be one of their kids or relatives , the threat or intimidation through violent actions , can and likely will result in death in the right set of circumstances from that day forward . So the question that then will have to be answered is ... Is it worth it? is it worth your life to try and intimidate and threaten violence because you disagree with someone ?
So a 110 lb woman is supposed to fist fight a 260 lb unarmed man assaulting her.
Is that the America you want?
If I choose not to fight them, but they insist, I will do whatever I feel I need to do to protect myself. I am under no obligation to care about any dumbass fool enough to try it. If they don't want to get shot, leave me the fuck alone.
If you personally would rather slug it out with some yahoo until he decides to beat you fucking senseless, then that is all on you, and you wouldn't get any pity from me for your own stupidity if you had a gun and decided it wasn't "fair" to your attacker to stop him from killing you.
I would advise you to quit while you are behind.
Is Texan a 110 lb woman? I wasnt aware.
I will make this real personal John using the situation you put forth youself , you say you want to fight me and i decline , but you attack anyway , i would put a bullet in your head faster than the wind can cross the street, I do not aim to wound , i aim to stop the threat and if you die in my stopping the threat you pose , so friggen be it , thats on you . .and i would make sure i had witnesses see i declined your invitation , and that YOU pressed the attack/assault .
end result ? your dead , im not , im not even hurt if at all . chew on that .
And I advise you to never get in any fight you aren't willing to win.
I am sure you wouldn't defend yourself and just curl up in a ball, hoping that no vital organs are damaged while you get attacked. Maybe your plan is to absorb untold punishment until your attacker tires himself out, allowing you to slink away quietly?
Rosenbaum was not an old man. I guess that makes Rittenhouse a baby then doesnt it? What was he doing in that environment that night?
-
Here on NT we are learning that 'conservatives' believe they can just shoot anyone who is menacing them. Interesting to hear.
You said an unarmed person attacking another shouldn’t be shot. Did you not?
What is interesting is you don't seem to grasp what self defense is, or how it was used properly in this case, despite repeatedly being told what self defense is and the damn prosecutor's OWN witnesses proving it was self defense on Rittenhouse's part.
And we learn that "liberals" want to ignore hundreds of years of self defense law for partisan purposes.
Worked for Reginald Denny. When a mob attacks just sit and wait for the police. Mobs ( or heroes as they are now called) never hurt anyone.
you funny
Better that than to be sad because I wasn't willing to defend myself.
John what is half of 36 rosenbums age ? 18 right ? ritterhouse was 17 , that counts rosenbum being twice the kids age . the math didnt lie , nor does that simple fact of math .
keep flailing my friend , christopher cross might get a new hit song out of it . Flailing , flailing away to where i want to be going .....
you leave out some important things there john , menacing is only part of the whole , add in intent capability and opertunity and you might have a shot at being correct . otherwise , your welded to your own opinion which no one is buying or believes .
What is your point? First of all I know how old they are. The fact that Rosenbaum is "twice his age" just means that Rittenhouse is very young.
Second, there are all kinds of 17 year olds than can kick a 36 year olds ass.
Third, if he's not old enough to fight what is he doing there, ? with a gun no less.
flailing.. flailing away...........
it has about as much of a point , actually likely more , than your argument it was a "fight " which it wasnt , it was a straight up physical assault and battery , where the use of self defense( including the use of deadly force ) is being decided in this instance your attempt to frame it anyother way is pitiful as well as juvinile , since you do not have the basic understanding nor can you accept that things are not the way you desirethem and no one is obliged to follow .
bite the pillow and free a fart ....
you dont know that. Rosenbaum never touched Rittenhouse. He did throw a plastic bag at him, which fell about 15 feet short. They never got to the stage of "assault and battery" because Rittenhouse shot and killed Rosenbaum before he reached Rittenhouse.
Fine , add the word ATTEMPTED then , which is still grounds for self defense which includes the use of deadly force to stop the attempt .
remember john i have a very strict , clear and concise set of circumstances that have to be present when DEADLY force is to be used , and the nutbutter brained rosenbum filled all those conditions with his own choice of actions, words and presense , he fucked himself .
thanks for the morning chuckle .
it brought to mind the old speedy gonzales cartoon , when jose and his friend couldnt catch speedy , and the friend mentions slow poke rodrigez , the slowest mouse in all mexico , jose goes after slow poke , the friend yells wait jose ... ( BOOM ) , i forgots to tell you , slowpoke ( being the slowest mouse ) , he pack a gun .....
You need to work on your gaslighting technique John.
You are failing and badly
That's what all of the supporters of this fat pig killer have been doing - saying out loud - it's okay to shoot someone dead when you have a gun, and the other person doesn't. That's the only way some of these dicks know how to solve a problem - shoot them.
Says the guy who lives in one of the worst drive by shooting cities in the US. Hell, Charlotte is pretty high on that scale too. And 98.5% of them are black on black.
Side note, why does BLM think they have a dog in this hunt? Except it happened at their protest. If it wouldn't have been Rittenhouse it would have been someone else. If you listen to the recordings from that night, Rittenhouse's gun fire wasn't the only one(s)
This has nothing to do with this case. What is wrong with you?
Has everything to do with what you stated.
Seems like a trend, no? It isn't, much to your chagrin, confined to this case. And I know what is wrong with you.
Drive by shootings are not relevant to this case. But no one can stop you from pretending I guess.
True however the point you were making is "shooting unarmed people who want to fight you". So I gave other examples and it isn't just the person you were addressing, as shown, that MAY think that way. Sorry to interrupt, and do carry on.
I'm completely baffled by your point of view. As I understand it, Rosenbaum had twice threatened to kill Rittenhouse and you think it sensible for Rittenhouse to just confront Rosenbaum "man to man." Why on earth would any sane person willingly do something so stupid? How, exactly, do you think the real world works? What? Do you think that, had you confronted someone who threatened to kill you that you could stop him simply with the strength of your conviction?
This simply seems to be your opinion. I certainly didn't see any evidence presented by the prosecution to support this.
All the evidence presented at the trial totally goes against your portrayal of Rittenhouse. From the moment Rosenbaum began to attack Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse did all he reasonably could have done to avoid shooting anyone. He began by running away and continued to run away to the extent allowed by all the other attackers. Tons of people were opposing him. He had thirty rounds in his magazine. If it were as you say and he went there to shoot people he sure missed a lot of easy opportunities and 22 unfired rounds.
Admit it, John. What has you pissed off about Rittenhouse is that he felt he had a right to stand against those who thought they had a right to burn and destroy. You see the rioters as simply a legitimate and inevitable reaction to your perceived systemic racism and how dare anyone stand against it. You see the rioters as having the right to fight back against "racism" and anyone who opposes them are part of the fascist regime. In your view, these people are victims of a systemically racist system, even when they are perpetrating the aggression.
1984 was supposed to be a warning, John, not a blueprint.
Perhaps because Rittenhouse was the only person the mob attacked?
Rittenhouse not only went to the disturbance that night with shooting as his first option of self defense, he appears to have gone to it with shooting as his only option of self defense.
Rittenhouse made the assumption that everyone who he came up against that night wanted to kill him. Maybe his age and inexperience led him to that thought.
The prosecution disputes that Rosenbaum threatened Rittenhouse's life. Those who favor Rittenhouse make the assumption that if Rosenbaum had caught him he would have tried to kill Rittenhouse. There is no evidence of that.
In one of the other shootings there is a man who runs at the sitting Rittenhouse making an attempt to kick him to disarm him. The only thing Rittenhouse does is point his the gun at the man and attempt to kill him, shooting at him twice exactly as the man leapt over him. Why didnt Rittenhouse try to grab his foot or trip him? Its simple he had the gun strapped to his chest and it was an appendage to him that night. He was going to shoot everyone who came after him whether they were armed or not..
Um, yeah. I would duck or grab his foot or roll over. If I wasn't armed. If I was armed, I would definitely be pointing my gun at whoever was attacking me. If the person continued to attack me in spite of me pointing a gun at him, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the person wanted to hurt me so bad that they didn't care about their own life, which would make me more likely to pull the trigger. But of course, if you were in that situation, you'd not pull your gun but just confront such a person "man to man."
Of course, in Rittenhouse's case, it wasn't just one person trying to kick him in the head. It was multiple people attacking him at that point. So, how about you choreograph what Rittenhouse should have done during the entire episode people were attacking him. I imagine it would make for quite the action scene in a movie. Something along the lines of James Bond beating up the bad guys maybe. Perhaps you could imagine Rittenhouse having mad Kung Fu skills or something.
Here's the thing, John. Most people I know agree that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, especially with a gun. But he was. The fact that he was doesn't mean he's fair game for people to attack or that he loses the right to defend himself if he is attacked. If Rittenhouse had the mindset you accuse him of he would have started capping people the moment Rosenbaum began to attack him, beginning with Rosenbaum and not running away. He would have emptied his magazine then and there. And he would have had a lot more than thirty rounds. No one who goes somewhere with the intent you claim he had goes so lightly armed. They would have gone with as many mags as they could reasonably carry rather than first aid supplies.
Your portrayal of Rittenhouse is simply a product of your own emotional view concerning the event. There are literally no facts whatsoever that support it. Not one single fact.
His gun was literally his only means of self defense, even though he came prepared. No club, no mace, just the gun he had strapped to his chest. I guess we'll never know whether he wanted to shoot someone that night or simply was 100% forced to.
Well one did threaten to kill him, one struck him in the head with a skateboard and another pointed a gun at his head. Let’s not forget the running kick to the head fellow. I don’t know about you but I have seen a lot of videos of unarmed people stomping others until they are unconscious and or dead.
no skateboard, no bike lock, no bricks or frozen water bottles, no clock 19 ......
John doesn't believe in using a gun against someone who is merely kicking the shit out of you. You are supposed to join in hand to hand combat, don't ya know?
Maybe too many teenage mutant ninja turtle cartoons.
We have a word for people who refuse to use a gun to protect themselves.
We call them victims.
I'm not saying that I would have put myself in Rittenhouse's situation but if I had, I certainly would have gone armed. Aside from the fact that I think Rittenhouse was too young to be there, it was poorly organized. I would have done things differently if I were organizing it. Regardless, I most definitely would have been armed.
Present evidence, don't just state it was so. Without evidence you are simply stating your opinion, not fact. Even so, were I in that situation, while I may not have thought everyone there on the opposite side wanted to kill me I certainly would have considered everyone a potential threat. Only a complete moron would do otherwise.
But, let's look at the facts. Rittenhouse was there, armed. He was there to defend the car lot. In spite of that, the video evidence shows the rioters actually doing their best to destroy the cars on the lot and nearby. Does Rittenhouse shoot them? No. He doesn't. The place Rittenhouse runs to in an attempt to escape Rosenbaum's attack were the very cars the rioters were trying to destroy. So, if he was there to defend the car lot, why didn't he just start slinging lead? Maybe because he wasn't as childish as you think? Maybe he was too scared to do what he was supposedly there to do? Maybe he was actually mature enough to know that shooting the rioters trying to destroy the cars would end badly? I can only speculate. Only Rittenhouse knows what was in his heart concerning why he didn't shoot them to defend the car lot.
Whatever the case, even if you happen to be correct that Rittenhouse felt everyone there wanted to kill him, he didn't kill them. At least, not until he was personally attacked by Rosenbaum, who had twice threatened to kill him if he ever caught him alone. You know, like when Rosenbaum attacked him. Rittenhouse was alone. None of his friends were around to help him, as far as I can tell.
Of course they do. Duh.
I can only assume that the only evidence you would accept is that if Rosenbaum had actually killed Rittenhouse. I say that because you apparently don't consider the testimony in the trial of those who heard Rosenbaum say he would kill Rittenhouse if he could as actual evidence. Further, that Rosenbaum was off his bipolar meds and had also attempted suicide should be discounted as well. So, Rosenbaum would literally have to have killed Rittenhouse before you would begin to think it was a possibility.
I'm completely baffled by this question. Are you someone like Neo from the movie Matrix? That everyone has the capability to just, what? Make some Hollywood move and just make things happen the way you apparently see them in your mind? Rittenhouse was being attacked by multiple people at once and he's just supposed to pull out some move that solves everything?
Tell you what. Let's imagine that Rittenhouse does something completely stupid and surrenders to the crowd that is attacking him. Suppose he takes the magazine out of the weapon. Jacks out the round, throws the gun away and puts his hands up. What do you think would have happened and why? The crowd would create some sort of safe zone where they and Rittenhouse could deal with all the negative feelings and, in the end, peace and well being would be achieved?
Except he didn't shoot everyone who came after him. He shot some of them. And I would have done the same. I don't know what fantasy world you live in (well, that isn't entirely true. I have a fair idea what fantasy world you live in) but you don't need a gun to kill someone. A skateboard or a well placed kick to the head can do it. It doesn't even have to kill you. It can incapacitate you enough so that everyone else who's smart enough to hang back from an armed man can now close in on you to kill you or do permanent damage.
In my opinion, your attitude toward Rittenhouse is that you're incensed that he had the audacity to take a stand when the people who are paid to protect the community abdicated that responsibility. They make the police stand down either because they supported the rioters or lacked the courage to stand up to them because they were afraid of how the leftist media would portray them.
Just so you know where I stand, if I had a business in an area that was being threatened by rioters and they came to burn my business down, I might shoot them. I say might not because I'm conflicted about whether I would be justified but because I'm not sure I would want to deal with what might result. If I did shoot them, it wouldn't be because I thought my business was worth a person's life. It would not be. I would shoot them because they apparently felt they had the right to burn down my business. I don't want the civilization I live in to think it perfectly okay for people to take the law into their own hands like that. There is no legal or moral justification for burning down random businesses in order to make a political point. Defending my right to defend myself against such people would be my reason for shooting, not saving my business.
It is that sort of attitude that I believe motivated Rittenhouse. It's certainly a more defensible opinion than the one you present.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense that a mob of looting criminals won't rough you up too bad and will fight honorably. You can always trust a violent mob to display good sportsmanship and not gang up on a victim.
not entirely true .
he did try to retreat / run away before any shots were fired , in an attempt to de escalate and mitigate the situation , it just didnt work with those he was faced with .
Hmmmm, makes me wonder when JR is gonna move to Fort Benning to start training our solders on how to avoid having to use a gun. Think of all the money that will save the taxpayers...
The fat pig killer wasn't attacked by anyone.
"he did try to retreat / run away before any shots were fired , in an attempt to de escalate and mitigate the situation , it just didnt work with those he was faced with ."
No, he didn't. He was the instigator. You just continue to make shit up as you go along.
Can you explain why you think this is factual?
Said no one who has kept up with the trial.
How any fat pigs did Rittenhouse kill?
I could ask you just as silly questions. Why didnt everyone in the car lot chase Rittenhouse if they were a mob that wanted to kill him? Why did only Rosenbaum chase him? One of the other guys in the car lot had a gun. Why did he shoot his gun in the air instead of into Rittenhouses back?
The people that chased Rittenhouse down the street knew that he had shot an unarmed man and probably killed him. It is reasonable to assume they wanted to disarm him if possible and turn him over to the police. It is not reasonable to assume that they all wanted to kill him. Its probably unreasonable to assume that any of them wanted to actually kill him. What is your evidence that any of them wanted to kill him? Jump Kick man wasnt trying to kill Rittenhouse or do him grievous bodily harm, he was trying to keep him from shooting anyone else. Rittenhouse did not have to try and kill that man and yet he did.
We obviously have a lot of people in this country who think that shooting unarmed adversaries is an acceptable first option.
Ya! Shoot first so you can claim self defense and you know dead guys tell no tales.
Almost had a point, but you forgot that he didn't shoot until attacked and/or threatened.
I could not state a definitive reason. I can only state what has already been stated. Rosenbaum was a bipolar off his meds and an individual who had previously attempted suicide. I can only speculate that the rest had, let's say, a more stable sense of self preservation.
How could anyone know other than that individual? I don't know if that person's testimony was in the trial. If it was, I didn't see it so I can't say. I can't even speculate. I can't imagine a reason I would find suitable had I been that individual.
Maybe, but I wonder upon what basis you find it reasonable. Most of the people in that area were already engaged in unlawful activity. Attempting to destroy property and disregarding the curfew. What about that makes you think it is reasonable that they wanted to disarm him and turn him over to the police, something Rittenhouse attempted to do himself?
Why would I need to provide such evidence, since I haven't claimed any of them intended to kill him other than Rosenbaum? What is relevant is that it wasn't possible for Rittenhouse to know what their intentions were. Apparently, you feel that he shouldn't have formed an opinion on that subject until after they had actually killed him, providing the necessary justification for self defense. That obviously has logical problems.
And you know this because you had a conversation with Jump Kick Man? He told you what his intentions were?
Another baffling point of view. Rittenhouse, surrounded by hostiles, didn't have to kill anyone. That's true, in one sense. There was no compelling force controlling his actions. There was no mind control device or evil spirit controlling his actions. Surrendering was an option. Suppose that he did "surrender." Apparently you feel roses would have bloomed, China and the U.S. would have become brothers and the mob would have tenderly delivered Rittenhouse into the arms of the law rather than beat him into a pulp or kill him. If so, justify your view.
Yes, we do. Let me explain why, for what good it will do.
I'm a very peaceful person. I distain pride, meaning anyone can say whatever they want to about me and it won't affect me. I won't defend myself because, first, there are very few people I care enough about to be concerned of their opinion of me. Not worth fighting over. Also, I know I am no better than anyone else. I strive for humility over pride.
In spite of that, there are principles that I hold to that have nothing to do with me as an individual. One is that I do my best not to intentionally harm another emotionally. Physically harming another is simply unacceptable unless forced to. What I consider being forced to harm another is someone who is intending to physically harm me.
For example, let's imagine someone who simply likes to fight. They like the challenge of defeating another opponent. They have absolutely no intention of killing me. They just want the thrill of fighting an opponent. Let's further assume that I know this. I know they have no intention of killing me or of even doing me serious physical harm. If I were armed, I would shoot him dead the moment it became clear he didn't intend to stop.
Why would I do this? Two reasons. I have no obligation to live my life according to my attacker's intent. There is no legal or moral reason why I should submit to his attack. There is no reason why I should refrain from killing him simply to avoid killing him. To do otherwise is to suggest I have a moral obligation to submit to whatever my attacker subjects me to.
The second is that, regardless of what my attacker intends, it's possible that it may result in my death or permanent incapacitation.
So, yes. I'm one of those who thinks it perfectly acceptable to shoot an unarmed adversary. If I didn't pick the fight, if I tried to avoid it but the adversary simply refused to accept it, I have no problem with those who choose to shoot. It wouldn't bring me joy. I wouldn't feel like a hero.
still waiting for your answer.
Keep waiting.
She doesn't have to prove DICK to you, she doesn't live here 24/7, she doesn't answer to you, and she has no answer anyway.
It's disturbing how my fan club here hangs on every word I say
[removed, member is not the topic]
i have seen some points of view i knew better than to try and understand , mainly because i know i cant get my head that far up my own ass to have the same view .
[removed, funny but can't stay]
* disclaimer , i actually got the idea for this reasoning from Geo Carlin , its not word for word but gets the idea across , so apply as nessissary .
** disclaimer II, no names were mentioned so any resemblence to anyone living or brain dead is purely coincidental .
[removed]
As disturbing as people posting to themselves?
Not normally a big fan of Tucker Carlson but in this case I think he makes some good points about the Rittenhouse case.
Tucker: Why did they let Kenosha burn? - YouTube
Yawn .... just another angry black person.
SOSDD
Yeah how uppity of her to not know her place.
I wouldn't use "bravery" as a title for that pic.
I would use "stupidity."
For both of those idiots.
That said most people here wouldn't know what bravery is if it slapped them in the face and called them momma.
People who served usually don't have that problem so stop acting like you are the arbiter of bravery. You clearly aren't.
No doubt about that.
Are you suggesting people slap their mothers in the face ?
"That said most people here wouldn't know what bravery is if it slapped them in the face and called them momma."
Looking at yourself in the mirror are ya?
Just because you allegedly served, don't mean dick.
Lol ... that would be what you took away from that comment.
Keep your day job John, if you have a job that is.
Do you ever have an original thought?
Lol .... no allegedly about it with me but we don't have ANY doubts in your case.
You didn't serve, no doubt about it.
Someone is slapping momma in the face. Do you not even comprehend your own sentences?
Who is we? I don't give a fuck what you think about me or my bravery or your alleged bravery.
Pat yourself on the back all you want, what a bloated ego you have.
Now you're ignorance goes on ignore. Much better for my blood pressure.
He thinks he's being clever John. It's an old lame phrase/insult whatever. Just another in a long line from this one.
So you say - and I'm the Queen of Sheba.
I'm not patting myself on the back, you brought up my service not me.
Never asked for thx but i'll always call a spade a spade and not a diamond.
Good idea though on the ignore thing .... about time.
Lol .... really? It's called hyperbole.
Are you going to jump off a cliff because someone tells you to, or take a long walk off a short dock, or can you hear a pin drop a mile away or do you think someone is going to eat a horse when they say they are hungry enough too? ......
C'mon man!
That good cuz i'm the King of England.
Nice to meet ya Sheba, how ya doin?
Stats guy - DO THE MATH!
Lol .... so much for the promise of ignore eh?
i KNOW some folks just have to have that last word!
I know my fan club just can't get enough of me.
Speculation at best, insane nonsense to most.
Then right on cue, look who shows up!
The person who posts to themselves??
Just a guess!
Says another member of my fan club. Someone who hangs on my every word.
You trying to convince yourself of the veracity of your posts?
my understanding is he took the blake case and ended up getting the cops off anyway , and he passed on this because he said it was unwinnable and left it to his ADA.
Jury has gone home. There will be a day 2 of jury deliberations.
Interesting jury demographics. 7 white women, 4 white men, and 1 black man.
Does this hold any significance for you?
i kinda like the way they were seated too, a bingo/ raffle bin , no way of stacking the deck one way or the other .
, BUT some will see racism in everything even if it doesnt exist .
what is your astrological sign?
What a very, very, VERY strange reply to this question:
I have faith in you, I just know you can come up with an answer if you really try!
Race is an obsession for some, I suppose.
I don't have time for that kind of crap.
Whats the frequency Kenneth?
Whatever it is, it appears to be stuck on stupid and inane.
Who let the dogs out?
careful tex , thats an old bar pick up line from before the invention of dirt .....
true, i try and treat people on their character and actions , not the color of their skin , if they are an asshole , i treat them as an asshole , thats one thing that does not recognize skin color .
Probably some dumbfuck.
Any other inane questions?
Apparently, that isn't acceptable anymore.
If you don't suffer from white guilt because of what some long-dead people did over a century ago, you can't be judged appropriately by the folks obsessed with race.
If 2+2 is 12, how much is 8+8 ?
Not enough, you'll need to make sure the rich are paying more than their fair share.
I'm starting to see how you reach some conclusions.
That's what pulling names out of a hat can give you
As reported on the news here in NC, given instances of people recording the jury, there are jurists worried about repercussions for a Not Guilty verdict. Couple that with garbage like BLM, a group known for violent riots, being present I can understand their concern.
The judge and his family have received numerous death threats. I have no doubt the jury will too if they do not reach the verdict BLM has demanded. I hope they have security at their homes.
I wouldn’t want any part of it either.
Atta Boy!!!!
You learned out to use memes. Unfortunately it doesn't cover why those shot by Rittenhouse attacked him but you're learning.
That fat little pig killer was never attacked by anyone.
HOLY SHIT!!!! You actually proved something!!!!!! You proved you paid ZERO attention to testimony or evidence.
IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONLY ANGRY ONE HERE IS THE FAT WHITE GUY REDNECK ALL UP IN THAT BLACK MAN'S FACE.
I got an email from Alternet this morning about a white guy telling a black man to move his &*()!@ ass outside the courthouse. Don't know how true that is seeing how it's Alternet. I'll go look thru my trash and find it
https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/rittenhouse-trial/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=8295
It just goes to show you that all that shit about BLM being the angry violent rioting ones - are not true. It's all those white 'right' wing outside agitators.
It'sabout BLM being the angry violent rioting ones - are not true. It's all those white 'right' wing outside agitators
lol. Keep playing the hits.
Seems to be the stock answer for leftists.
Did the DNC issue the talking points today?
Not sure how they are going to cope with NBC producers "crossing state lines" to hunt down jurors or BLM criminals "crossing state lines" to attack people outside the Courthouse.
Ya know...reading thru the comments, it seems we have quite a few angry, violent people amongst us.
I own a gun. Several, in fact. I like to target shoot and I like my home defense. However, I'm not so sure I would pull my gun out because someone punched me in the nose. If they didn't knock me completely out, I'm coming back up swinging. That's pretty much how I was taught to fight. Use your wits and your fists, don't use weapons. Weapons are for killing, not teaching someone a lesson
It is startling to see what quick trigger fingers some of these guys claim , (and brag on) to have.
I know, right? Me thinks they have to brag about the size of their "weapon"
And they call us 'triggered'. They're the trigger happy fools. Obviously don't have the brains or the guts or the ability to beat someone with their knowledge or fists.
in their defense, those AR's they have are a lot longer, harder, and can shoot more than once a day...
Yup TG, after they throw the first punch, then all bets are off. I could easily kick their ass. The thought of using a gun to kill them - rather than my wits and my fists and my everything - what a complete wussy you'd have to be to just shoot and kill someone.
If legally defending one's own self is disturbing to you, just don't do it.
We will continue to support self defense whether progressive liberals like it or not.
Same here. I would never think to bring out a gun just because of a fight.
Someone wants to get into it so be it. You win or you lose. Shake it off either way.
You don't join a fight and then think you might get hurt so you shoot.
and thats where people have different definitions and opinions .
of course a gun doesnt get used in a verbal argument , not even if 2 people agree to throw hands and get physical , the problem occurs when one of the 2 decline the invitation to take it physical and the other one presses the matter and gets physical .
for a so called "fight " it takes 2 to agree to fight , one does not agree to , and it becomes assault , some people can not seem to grasp that idea or concept.
This wasn't a fight.
I was taught not to attack someone running away from me. That's not a fight. That's assault.
How DARE you introduce facts, logic and reason into this!
in my state, if they cross your threshold or reach inside your car window without permission, you can drop them.
Nor would I be so sure I would, either. It would, of course, depend on the situation. If someone punched me in the nose, for instance, and walked away there would be no reason to pull a gun, let alone use it. If, on the other hand, I think I'm about to get a serious beating for something I didn't start or want any part of, then the situation is different. Is there something else other than my gun immediately available, like a club or something, that I can use to quickly incapacitate the person? Is there anyone coming to my aid? If the gun is the only option, I would use it, since there is no legal requirement for me to take a beating that might result in my death or permanent injury. Sorry, but if I didn't start it and I most definitely don't want to play, there's no obligation legal or moral, for me to do so. Nor would it be due to me being a violent, angry person. I'm very much not.