Verdict reached in Rittenhouse Case

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  377 comments

Verdict reached in Rittenhouse Case








Dan O'Donnell

@DanODonnellShow




·

30s









BREAKING: Sources say a verdict is very close in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys have been told to be on standby.











Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

It never figured that the jury would want to go to a second week of deliberations. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

The goddamned little shit got away with it 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago
The goddamned little shit got away with it 

There wasn't anything for him to "get away with" to begin with.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago

The goddamned little shit got away with it 

Welcome to right wing world. 

Where someone can go out of their way looking for trouble, and get away with murder by claiming self defense against other people who are trying to defend themselves from the person looking for trouble.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
1.1.3  Drakkonis  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
Welcome to right wing world.

If it is, then thank God for it because, if it were a left wing world and Rittenhouse was found guilty, the message would be that lawless criminals destroying a community under the guise of "protesting" is a protected act and anyone who tries to fight back or defend themselves against them will be put into prison. 

Personally, that Rittenhouse as been rightfully found not guilty doesn't make this a right wing world. It only indicates that the law still manages justice in spite of how screwed up everything is. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
If it is, then thank God for it because, if it were a left wing world and Rittenhouse was found guilty, the message would be that lawless criminals destroying a community under the guise of "protesting" is a protected act and anyone who tries to fight back or defend themselves against them will be put into prison.

Should I really need to point out that the people he shot were "LAWFULLY" protesting?  They were NOT rioting.  They were NOT in violation of any law.

Personally, that Rittenhouse as been rightfully found not guilty doesn't make this a right wing world.

It caused right wing ammosexuals to spontaneously orgasm upon hearing it.

It only indicates that the law still manages justice in spite of how screwed up everything is. 

By allowing a person to shoot law abiding people on the street?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
1.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
Should I really need to point out that the people he shot were "LAWFULLY" protesting?  They were NOT rioting.  They were NOT in violation of any law.

Actually you are wrong here.  You need to go back and revisit testimony and rewatch the videos as the people he shot where attacking him and he defended himself. The people Rittenhouse shot were not law abiding people on the street, they were physically attacking him and he was justified to defend himself. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
Where someone can go out of their way looking for trouble, and get away with murder by claiming self defense against other people who are trying to defend themselves from the person looking for trouble.

*eyeroll* 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
Should I really need to point out that the people he shot were "LAWFULLY" protesting?  

They were not.  

It had already been declared an unlawful assembly/riot.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
1.1.8  Drakkonis  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    2 weeks ago
Where someone can go out of their way looking for trouble, and get away with murder by claiming self defense against other people who are trying to defend themselves from the person looking for trouble.

The amount of evidence that has to be ignored or the creative interpretation of it necessary for this statement to be true is truly staggering. There was never a moment when Rittenhouse attacked anyone. Every moment, from the moment Rosenbaum began to attack Rittenhouse to the time 
Rittenhouse attempted to surrender to police, was spent trying to run from those who were attacking him. There wasn't a moment where he chased anyone. There wasn't a moment he fired at the people who were not attacking him. Out of the thirty rounds he had, only eight were fired. 

Every time I watch the video footage I wonder just how monumentally stupid his attackers could possibly be. It was save a tree by jumping into a wood chipper stupid. After Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse is running down the street. Toward the police. Not shooting at anyone. No one. And it is your contention that they were just trying to defend themselves and others by attacking him. 

I'd advise you to stay away from woodchippers, Ozzwald. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
1.1.9  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago

So whatcha gonna burn down tonight?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
1.1.10  Drakkonis  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
Should I really need to point out that the people he shot were "LAWFULLY" protesting?  They were NOT rioting.  They were NOT in violation of any law.

Actually, you should simply not point it out at all, since it isn't relevant. What is relevant, and what is not lawful, is attacking someone who isn't doing anything to you. 

It caused right wing ammosexuals to spontaneously orgasm upon hearing it.

Objection, your Honor! Comment is inane, with prejudice. 

By allowing a person to shoot law abiding people on the street?

I wasn't aware that they had legalized assault. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

o point out that the people he shot were "LAWFULLY" protesting?  They were NOT rioting.  They were NOT in violation of any law.

Lol... Arson is a law. 

Just try and deal with reality. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
1.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

Especially with active looting and burning going on as well.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  Drakkonis @1.1.8    2 weeks ago
It was save a tree by jumping into a wood chipper stupid.

Please be advised, I intend to plagiarize this freely, bordering on "with abandon".  

No credit will be given and no royalties will be paid.  

I do offer this electronic whiskey as a measure of my thanks.

David-Beckham-Whisky-1.jpg

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
1.1.14  Drakkonis  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.13    2 weeks ago
I do offer this electronic whiskey as a measure of my thanks.

A most satisfactory compensation : )

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.15  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago

Let’s celebrate!  🎉🎊jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
1.1.16  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
Let's celebrate!

How ghoulish.  Satanic.  Dancing on the graves of the people Rittenhouse killed.  Comment 1.1.15 is perverse sickness.  Not surprising considering the source.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

It had already been declared an unlawful assembly/riot.

They were people on the street.  There is no evidence they were rioting.  And I shouldn't need to point out that if they were "unlawfully" assembling on that street, so was Rittenhouse.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

There is no evidence they were rioting

Let’s just revel in the dishonesty of that statement.  


 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.18    2 weeks ago
Let’s just revel in the dishonesty of that statement.

I'd rather revel in your ability to make a claim with absolutely no facts to back it up.  So let's see your evidence.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

So let's see your evidence.

What would be the point? 

(1) Anyone the slightest bit familiar with the trial is familiar with both video and eyewitness testimony of the rioting.  So either you have no idea what actually happened in Kenosha and need a full scale explanation, or you are trying to gaslight people.  At this point, it's clear to everyone without a broken brain you are not making  a good faith argument. 

(2) Presented with evidence you will either ignore it, claim what's been shown to you doesn't exist, or  go on some bizarre assault of the English language where you argue videotape of rioting isn't really rioting. 

Let's be honest what the game is. There's a cadre of liberals who simply refuse to recognize reality and have no shame denying it for partisan purposes.  So we'll see people claiming  Tucker Carlson said Trump should be impeached. Presented with a direct quote of Tucker Carlson saying Trump should not be impeached, they will still argue Carlson said Trump should be impeached, his own words be damned.  Whether it's ignoring the English language, ignoring direct evidence, ignoring logic and common sense or by simply lying, some progressive will simply adhere to the narrative they think the party needs, reality be damned.

Right now I'm not in the mood to see how you will argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.  Sometimes it's amusing to see how low progressives will stoop. But at the end of the day, anyone who actually paid attention to the trial knows how dishonest your argument is, and simply by making it, you expose yourself. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.20    2 weeks ago
Anyone the slightest bit familiar with the trial is familiar with both video and eyewitness testimony of the rioting.

Nobody identified the victims as rioters, just as being in the area, same as Rittenhouse.

Presented with evidence you will either ignore it, claim what's been shown to you doesn't exist, or  go on some bizarre assault of the English language where you argue videotape of rioting isn't really rioting. 

Again, there is no video of the victims being rioters, just them being in the approximate area.

There's a cadre of liberals who simply refuse to recognize reality

Is this like alternate facts?

Reality is that the survivor of the shooting has not been charged with any crime related to the "riot".

Right now I'm not in the mood to see how you will argue that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

That's because you are not arguing that.  You seem to be implying that because they were in the area, they must have been guilty of "rioting".  Yet ignore the fact that Rittenhouse was also in the same area.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.22  gooseisback  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.21    2 weeks ago
Nobody identified the victims as rioters,

Correct........ Rosenbaum was an arsonist and attempting to assault, the rest just became criminals after they elected to assault Rittenhouse. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.23  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.22    2 weeks ago
Correct........

Thank you for admitting that.  Something Sean refuses to do.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.24  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.17    2 weeks ago
They were people on the street.  There is no evidence they were rioting.

A state of emergency had been declared and the assembly had been declared unlawful.  So whether they set fire to anything or not, they were participating in a riot.

  And I shouldn't need to point out that if they were "unlawfully" assembling on that street, so was Rittenhouse.

Of course.  I'm not sure he was charged with that, which seems a bit odd, TBF.

We're in the phase of discourse now where all of the brain-dead extremists pile in and attempt to defend the people on their "side", regardless of how idiotic or egregious the behavior was.  Rittenhouse absolutely had no business being there, and more absolutely had no business being there with his AR-15.  Little shit was looking for trouble, and he found it.

That does not exonerate the other idiots involved, who also had no business being there, and really, really, really had no business chasing somebody down and beating them with a skateboard.  

There are all kinds of situations in life where all the participants are stupidly wrong, and this is one of them.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.25  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
A state of emergency had been declared and the assembly had been declared unlawful.  So whether they set fire to anything or not, they were participating in a riot.

By that definition, so was Rittenhouse.

I'm not sure he was charged with that, which seems a bit odd, TBF.

Not really, all involved were some distance away from where the "riot" was actually occurring.

Rittenhouse absolutely had no business being there, and more absolutely had no business being there with his AR-15.  Little shit was looking for trouble, and he found it.

Agreed.

That does not exonerate the other idiots involved, who also had no business being there, and really, really, really had no business chasing somebody down and beating them with a skateboard.

Agreed again.  Although, as far as I can tell, one of the victims did not make any threatening moves towards Rittenhouse, and was not armed himself.

There are all kinds of situations in life where all the participants are stupidly wrong, and this is one of them.

Agreed again.  However in this particular incident, someone with bad intent, got away with no consequences.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
t.  Something Sean refuses to do.

Rosenbaum  was part of a group  pushing a flaming dumpster that they set on fire  towards police vehicles. 

By all means, embarrass yourself by arguing that's not rioting. 

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.27  gooseisback  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
Something Sean refuses to do.

Thank you for admitting he was an arsonist. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.28  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.26    2 weeks ago
Rosenbaum  was part of a group  pushing a flaming dumpster that they set on fire  towards police vehicles.

So what?  Even if true, has nothing to do with Rittenhouse.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.29  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.27    2 weeks ago
Thank you for admitting he was an arsonist.

I have never admitted OR denied that.  Other than in your wet dream.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.1.30  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.28    2 weeks ago

Even if true, has nothing to do with Rittenhouse.

Just the perfect response. It's like I scripted it myself.

Start with the dishonest statement: "here is no evidence they were rioting"

There was, of course, plenty of evidence.

When the evidence is referenced, you switch to " So what?"

As I wrote above "Presented with evidence you will either ignore it, claim what's been shown to you doesn't exist, or  go on some bizarre assault of the English language where you argue videotape of rioting isn't really rioting. "

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.31  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.30    2 weeks ago
There was, of course, plenty of evidence.

Then provide it, and show that Rittenhouse was aware of it since you are making it part of his motivation.

When the evidence is referenced, you switch to " So what?"

And my "so what" remains accurate unless you can show that Rittenhouse was aware of it.  This discussion is about Rittenhouse's actions, if your claims have nothing to do with his actions, they do not pertain to this discussion.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.32  gooseisback  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.29    2 weeks ago
Correct........ Rosenbaum was an arsonist and attempting to assault
Correct........
Thank you for admitting that.

You can't accept a part of the sentence as correct then turn around and not accept the remaining.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.33  Jack_TX  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.25    2 weeks ago
By that definition, so was Rittenhouse.

Again, yes.  

Not really, all involved were some distance away from where the "riot" was actually occurring.

I'd have charged him with anything I thought might have been applicable. 

Agreed again.  Although, as far as I can tell, one of the victims did not make any threatening moves towards Rittenhouse, and was not armed himself.

Personally, this may be my biggest cause for concern.  If we're going to permit shooting people because they threw a plastic bag at you, we are authoring our own destruction. 

If somebody throwing a plastic bag at you and/or chasing you causes you to be so afraid you think your life is in danger, you're far too big a pussy to insert yourself in a situation you must have known was going to be volatile.  Stay home and let the professionals do what they do.  

Agreed again.  However in this particular incident, someone with bad intent, got away with no consequences.

Oh yeah.  Moreover, the precedent it sets is troubling.  For several years now, the extremes of our political spectrum have been increasingly angry, increasingly violent, and increasingly willing to excuse violent behavior that aligns with their politics.   

This verdict could very possibly throw a bucket of water on that grease fire, and it's not difficult to see how it could all get out of control very quickly.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
1.1.34  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.33    2 weeks ago
This verdict could very possibly throw a bucket of water on that grease fire, and it's not difficult to see how it could all get out of control very quickly.

I would say possibly, if it throws a bucket of water on the rioters who have to realize that under the law, there could be permanent consequences for their violence...

It also confirms the precedent set 250+ years ago by our founders and guaranteed the right of a citizen, citizens or citizenry to protect themselves without fear of reprisal... (subject to legal justification)

As people get more and more tired of the wanton violence, I suspect that more and more will see this as the point where common sense takes over and letting the bully run rampant over you only begets more bullying... There comes a point where the bullied says ENOUGH!

We are getting there, what this trial served is notice that this nation is still governed by the rule of law in most places....

A very welcome notice, I hope many more take it for what it plainly is, time to step up and defend our homes, neighborhoods, town, cities, states and country... Not looking to kill mind you but showing the terrorists that we will not let them anymore and to back off..

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
1.1.35  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.33    2 weeks ago
If we're going to permit shooting people because they threw a plastic bag at you, we are authoring our own destruction. 

Yes we would be in that scenario, but if they throw rocks, bottles of frozen water, molotov cocktails with intent to damage, hurt or kill someone or even worse, then the forceful response is justified... 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.36  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.32    2 weeks ago

You can't accept a part of the sentence as correct then turn around and not accept the remaining.

In English a period marks the end of a sentence.  Your sentence "Correct........" I am agreeing with.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.37  Ozzwald  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.33    2 weeks ago
I'd have charged him with anything I thought might have been applicable.

Absolutely.

Personally, this may be my biggest cause for concern.  If we're going to permit shooting people because they threw a plastic bag at you, we are authoring our own destruction.

Agreed.

If somebody throwing a plastic bag at you and/or chasing you causes you to be so afraid you think your life is in danger, you're far too big a pussy to insert yourself in a situation you must have known was going to be volatile.  Stay home and let the professionals do what they do.

Also agree.  However there are a lot of ammosexuals out there that will use it as an excuse to use their dick gun.

This verdict could very possibly throw a bucket of water on that grease fire, and it's not difficult to see how it could all get out of control very quickly.

This verdict basically authorizes vigilantism.  Grab a gun, go anywhere something is happening you don't agree with, and goad someone into confronting you.  Now you can kill that person.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.38  Ozzwald  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.34    2 weeks ago
I would say possibly, if it throws a bucket of water on the rioters who have to realize that under the law, there could be permanent consequences for their violence...

What if there is no riot, just peaceful protests.  The vast majority of BLM protests were peaceful, but violently opposed to by racists.  Those racists now have the ability to provoke the peaceful protestors giving them the ability to kill them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.39  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.38    2 weeks ago
Those racists now have the ability to provoke the peaceful protestors giving them the ability to kill them.

That's a blatant misunderstanding of the law and the jury ruling in the case.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.40  Jack_TX  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.34    2 weeks ago
I would say possibly, if it throws a bucket of water on the rioters who have to realize that under the law, there could be permanent consequences for their violence...

Calculation of consequences requires rational thought...from people who think wandering around shouting at the sky is an effective form of engagement.  I'm just not optimistic.

It also confirms the precedent set 250+ years ago by our founders and guaranteed the right of a citizen, citizens or citizenry to protect themselves without fear of reprisal... (subject to legal justification)

Yes and no.  Again, we're not talking about somebody who was defending his home.  We're talking about somebody who went looking for trouble.

As people get more and more tired of the wanton violence, I suspect that more and more will see this as the point where common sense takes over and letting the bully run rampant over you only begets more bullying... There comes a point where the bullied says ENOUGH!

You have more optimism about common sense than I do.

We are getting there, what this trial served is notice that this nation is still governed by the rule of law in most places.... A very welcome notice, I hope many more take it for what it plainly is, time to step up and defend our homes, neighborhoods, town, cities, states and country... Not looking to kill mind you but showing the terrorists that we will not let them anymore and to back off..

If he had been defending his home, he never would have been charged.  He went looking for trouble and found it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.41  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.39    2 weeks ago

That's a blatant misunderstanding of the law and the jury ruling in the case.

I didn't quote the law or the jury ruling, so have no idea why you are trying to bring that up other than as a deflection, or another attempt to troll.  I was speaking towards the results.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.42  Jack_TX  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.39    2 weeks ago
That's a blatant misunderstanding of the law and the jury ruling in the case.

Which you know full well will not stop it from happening.

We are absolutely going to see vigilante morons from both sides turning up at protests armed to the teeth and shit is going to go sideways.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
1.1.43  gooseisback  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.37    2 weeks ago
This verdict basically authorizes vigilantism. 

How so?

Grab a gun, go anywhere something is happening you don't agree with, and goad someone into confronting you.  Now you can kill that person.

Do you have an example of this ever happening?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.44  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisback @1.1.43    2 weeks ago

Do you have an example of this ever happening?

Ever hear of a guy named Rittenhouse????

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
1.1.45  Nowhere Man  replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.40    2 weeks ago
He went looking for trouble and found it.

I don't think so Jack, I think it was something else... I also think it was a bit premature... We aren't quite at the point where we need to make the decision I think he made... But it is coming....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.46  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.44    2 weeks ago
Ever hear of a guy named Rittenhouse????

Yeah, he's the guy that has liberals all in such a snit. He's the guy who defended himself.

Now, about what you were asked..............

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.47  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.46    2 weeks ago
He's the guy who defended himself.

He's the guy that crossed state lines with an AR-15, to insert himself into a potentially violent situation, so he could use that AR-15 to defend himself when threatened.

Now, about what you were asked..............

You asked for an example of that ever happening.  I gave you an example.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.48  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.47    2 weeks ago
He's the guy that crossed state lines with an AR-15,

That just shows how much you have wrong with the case right off the bat. Rittenhouse did not cross state lines with his gun.

At least be accurate and truthful here, please.

so he could use that AR-15 to defend himself when threatened.

Seems sane to me. Who wouldn't want to defend themselves when attacked or threatened? Perfectly logical and sane thing to want to be able to do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.49  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.47    2 weeks ago
You asked for an example of that ever happening.  I gave you an example.

The hell I did!

Quote me then.

And what you answered was fucked up anyways.  Rittenhouse never goaded anyone into attacking him. Why are you making shit up and trying to argue it as fact?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
1.1.50  Jack_TX  replied to  Nowhere Man @1.1.45    2 weeks ago

I appreciate your perspective, even if I'm not completely sold on it just yet.   Maybe I'll get there.

I really hope you are right and I am wrong.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

It was the correct verdict 

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
1.3  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

They called you and  said, “That’s it, no way, it’s cheese-time and he goes.”?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

NBC News is reporting the families of the deceased have been told to gather in the courtroom. 

-

Wisconsin Right Now, a conservative Wisconsin blog, says a verdict has been reached and they are waiting for law enforcement to be put in place. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

Rittenhouse is back in and they are waiting for the jury right now. Watching on CNN

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

LE in place is probably a good idea. Lord knows what will happen when the verdict is read

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.2    2 weeks ago

The kid looks scared to death.  He got in way over his 17 year old head. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
The kid looks scared to death. 

A natural reaction when your life is hanging in the balance

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
2.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.1    2 weeks ago
He got in way over his 17 year old head. 

How dare he defend himself.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Not Guilty!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
3.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 weeks ago

He walks!!

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 weeks ago

Justice was served. The leftist lynch mobs did not prevail..

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.1  XXJefferson51  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2    2 weeks ago

That is a very good thing.  If they take to the streets and are anything but peaceful law enforcement should lower the boom on them and let them know last years bs will not be tolerated now.  At all costs.  

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
3.2.2  squiggy  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

They could well start all over again.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.2.3  XXJefferson51  replied to  squiggy @3.2.2    2 weeks ago

Only in the biggest bluest cities.  In smaller ones with real mayors and no Soros DA’s it won’t happen.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.2.4  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.2.3    2 weeks ago
Soros DA's

Another anti-Semitic trope typical of fascist propaganda.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.4    2 weeks ago
Another anti-Semitic trope typical of fascist propaganda.

WTF is THAT?

Are we supposed to just make shit up and then post here now?

SMH at the sheer ignorance associated with that false statement.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.2.6  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

One can only be amazed at the total ignorance demonstrated by your completely idiotic comment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.6    2 weeks ago

And yet, what I wrote is completely true, while your post was a lie.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.2.8  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.7    2 weeks ago

My comments are verifiable and true.  Comment 3.2.7 is a demonstrable lie and a further display of total ignorance. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.8    2 weeks ago
My comments are verifiable and true.  Comment 3.2.7 is a demonstrable lie and a further display of total ignorance. 

And I'll bet unicorns poop rainbows in the delusional world in which that were remotely true.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.2.10  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.9    2 weeks ago

No one is interested in your bathroom habits.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @3.2.10    2 weeks ago
No one is interested in your bathroom habits.

Well, that post certainly proves one of two things:

A. You didn't read my post, or

B. You didn't comprehend what you read.

That's okay, the post is still there for your enjoyment and you can always amend your post in the interests of accuracy and truthfulness!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
3.2.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.5    2 weeks ago

Just another instance of, when you have nothing else, lash out with some BS statement to someone that does not share your own particular political ideology.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.2.13  Gsquared  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.2.12    2 weeks ago

If you and your cohort aren't aware that "Soros DA's" is an anti-Semitic trope then you need some serious enlightenment. 

Some people who harbor anti-Semitic sentiments feign ignorance.  Which side are you on?  Maybe it's time to look into your soul?

I'm not accusing you of anything and I'm not interested in a response.  Good bye.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @3    2 weeks ago

On all counts no less! Justice was served. Only sad part is KR will most likely have to live in hiding under a assumed name for a undetermined amount of time in case some members of the far loony left think he he now has a target on his back and try to serve their own brand of justice! Either way, this is over and done with hopefully and folks can go on.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3    2 weeks ago

Ed...if the butt fugly little weasel had stayed out of Kenosha that night he wouldn't have to go into hiding. He has to start taking some responsibility for what happened

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3    2 weeks ago

We don't serve justice that way.  That's how republicans do it.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.3.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

He lived only about 20 miles away

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
3.3.4  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

Right, which is the reason the National Guard is out in force to ensure BLM and Antifa don't follow through on their promises "to burn everything down" if he was acquitted.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
3.3.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

As far as KR's having stayed out of Kenosha that night, I agree with you. He should not have been there. But at the same time, whether some like it or not, he had every legal and constitutional right to be there.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
3.3.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

Sadly, you are mistaken.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.3.7  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

The impartial jury disagrees with you

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ronin2 @3.3.4    2 weeks ago

And if the Governor had been doing his job in August 2020 and not turned the city over to violent left wing radicals, none of this would have happened. 

It would be great if political leaders take this as a lesson of why you don't give your city over to mobs and  anarchy.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3.3.9  Tacos!  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

Same for the other people running around that night.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tacos! @3.3.9    2 weeks ago

You are absolutely right. I think some of us have forgotten that. I know I did.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
3.3.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.3.5    2 weeks ago
As far as KR's having stayed out of Kenosha that night, I agree with you. He should not have been there. But at the same time, whether some like it or not, he had every legal and constitutional right to be there.

This.  Very much this.

Like it or not, we are living in a time where people seem to be struggling with the difference between something being allowed and something being a remotely intelligent decision.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
3.3.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago
We don't serve justice that way.  That's how republicans do it.

The lesson learned is don't try to be a hero and take down an active shooter, at least not if they're a white right wing conservative. Hide and call the police. Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was self defense. Now if it was a Muslim or a black American with an AR-15 running from a fatal shooting then feel free to chase him and shoot at him because they'd never get a white conservative judge or jury to buy the self defense claim.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
3.3.13  Drakkonis  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.12    2 weeks ago
The lesson learned is don't try to be a hero and take down an active shooter

Rittenhouse doesn't meet the definition law enforcement uses for 'active shooter.' 

The agreed-upon definition of active shooter by US government agencies (including the White House, US Department of Justice, FBI, US Department of Education, US Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Emergency Management Agency) is “an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.”  In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.

For Rittenhouse to fit the description of active shooter he would have simply started shooting people indiscriminately, randomly and without provocation. He would have almost certainly been more heavily armed as well. 

at least if they're a white right wing conservative.

Meaningless, since had Rittenhouse been an active shooter, no one is likely going to take the time to question him on his political views. 

Hide and call the police. Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was self defense.

Had Rittenhouse been an actual active shooter it isn't likely he would claim self defense and his actions would easily argue against him. Further, there's a degree of likelihood that he simply would have been shot by police or would shoot himself so he wouldn't be around to attempt claiming self defense. 

Now if it was a Muslim or a black American with an AR-15 running from a fatal shooting then feel free to chase him and shoot at him because they'd never get a white conservative judge or jury to buy the self defense claim.

Of course, because no black person ever has gotten justice from the legal system. Good luck selling that one. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3.14  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.3.12    2 weeks ago
d is don't try to be a hero and take down an active shooter, at least not if they're a white right wing conservativ

Lol..  I don't think you get the concept of self defense. If someone shot Rittenhouse, they could have made the same self defense argument. 

Don't try to be the good guy with a gun because if he shoots you first he's going to claim it was 

Maybe don't let an active shooter shoot you first? Isn't the whole point of self defense to defend yourself? I mean once you get shot somebody else's legal claims are probably the least of your worries. 

You notice no one who attacked Rittenhouse was charged with a crime, right?

self defense. 

Let's make this really clear. An active shooter in the way you mean it will never have the right of self-defense. Is that so hard to understand? You can't target  innocent people and claim self defense. It's really not that complicated. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.15  XXJefferson51  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.1    2 weeks ago

He did and the world is better off for his actions.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.3.16  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

Unlike urban democrats, Republicans obey the law.  

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
3.3.17  Gsquared  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.16    2 weeks ago

The level of stupidity of Comment 3.3.16 is pathetic.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  XXJefferson51 @3.3.15    2 weeks ago

So you think random killing is righteous.

Good to know.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
3.3.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.3.2    2 weeks ago

I am neither Republican nor Democrat, so your comment is irrelevant.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
4.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @4    2 weeks ago
start screeching about the judge and the redneck jurors

After the verdict was read, I paid close attention to CNN and MSNBC "reporting". In less than 20 minutes, they were tearing apart the judge. Interviews outside of the court house were even worse. Some dumbass woman said that it was a "shitty all-white jury". Jacob Blake's uncle said that the verdict proves that the USA we used to know no longer exists. What a bunch of illiterate jerks!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

Justice has never been better served!

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6  evilgenius    2 weeks ago

It's open season on protesters! You can run over them in at least two states and shoot 'em in Wisconsin.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  evilgenius @6    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

but don't give them any ideas

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    2 weeks ago

Rittenhouse's lawyer started crying, lol.    I dont think I've ever seen that before. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Rittenhouse's lawyer started crying, lol.    I dont think I've ever seen that before. 

Happy to have saved a young man's life.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
6.1.4  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

Now, who’s making up shit?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1    2 weeks ago

Or feed them!jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Participates
6.1.6  Freewill  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.3    2 weeks ago

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @6    2 weeks ago
It's open season on protesters! You can run over them in at least two states and shoot 'em in Wisconsin.

Obviously the laws are unclear to you.

I suggest you do nothing of what you claimed was okay.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.2.1  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @6.2    2 weeks ago
Obviously the laws are unclear to you.

Obviously more people will die until the "American Gun Hero" bullshit is extinguished.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

American gun hero?

WTF is that nonsense?

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
6.2.4  gooseisback  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
"American Gun Hero" bullshit is extinguished.

Maybe you should read up on "Self Defense" and stop relying on CNN and MSNBC.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.2.5  evilgenius  replied to  gooseisback @6.2.4    2 weeks ago

Maybe you should stop assuming things about people who don't agree with you.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
6.2.6  squiggy  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

I really believe that most people stridently opposed to guns wouldn’t pass a background check and they hate Colt for his equality concept.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
6.2.7  Ronin2  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.1    2 weeks ago

More people will be assaulted, more buildings will burn, and more stores looted until the leftist domestic terrorists are extinguished.

This ruling ensures the right to self defense is preserved. 

I doubt that it will deter the far left domestic terrorists in the slightest.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.2.8  evilgenius  replied to  squiggy @6.2.6    2 weeks ago
I really believe...

I really believe that has nothing to do with my post, but okay... I guess.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
6.2.9  Snuffy  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2.7    2 weeks ago

While I believe this verdict was the correct one, I am worried that this will lead to some of the more extreme protesters and counter-protesters to show up armed and to actually use their weapons. And I don't know how to get a handle on this because the extreme on both sides seem more than willing to continue to push.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.9    2 weeks ago

Wait! I thought liberals were afraid of guns?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.2.11  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.9    2 weeks ago
I am worried that this will lead to some of the more extreme protesters and counter-protesters to show up armed and to actually use their weapons.

Pretty much what I just said, though I probably wasn't as eloquent about it.

And I don't know how to get a handle on this because the extreme on both sides seem more than willing to continue to push.  

And as I said it will continue until patriotism isn't equated with standing around with guns in some circles. Holding honest conversations about race & racism in less charged environments might also help the issue. <- I'm not taking a side on that issue either - in broad terms both sides have been guilty of racism in both micro and macro ways.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
6.2.12  Snuffy  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.10    2 weeks ago

oh come on man......   not all liberals are afraid of guns just like not all conservatives worship guns.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.12    2 weeks ago

You seem to be the only conservative that thinks that. The rest of them think we are all wussies

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.2.14  Tacos!  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.9    2 weeks ago

I think that’s a valid concern, but maybe if police and local governments were enforcing the laws as they were being broken, these situations wouldn’t spin out of control.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
6.2.15  Nowhere Man  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.11    2 weeks ago
And as I said it will continue until patriotism isn't equated with standing around with guns in some circles. Holding honest conversations about race & racism in less charged environments might also help the issue. <- I'm not taking a side on that issue either - in broad terms both sides have been guilty of racism in both micro and macro ways.

EG there are a lot of us that want to have that conversation, but, to have a conversation you first have to have respect between the parties, it's pretty plain that one side of this discussion respects nothing about or of the other side... Has nothing to do with patriotism both sides call themselves patriots... It has nothing to do with guns or weapons both sides have them... What it has to do with is the method one side choses to communicate with the other and the basis they choose to communicate the way they do...

I'm with Ghandi on this issue.....

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
6.2.16  gooseisback  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.5    2 weeks ago
Maybe you should stop assuming things about people who don't agree with you.

I am not assuming anything you have proven that you don't understand Self Defense with comments like

"Obviously more people will die until the "American Gun Hero" bullshit is extinguished". 

People have the RIGHT to self defense whether you like it or not and this case was clear cut from the time the prosecution witnesses started making the defense's case.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
6.2.17  Snuffy  replied to  Nowhere Man @6.2.15    2 weeks ago
it's pretty plain that one side of this discussion respects nothing about or of the other side

Actually neither side respects the other, that's the problem.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.18  Trout Giggles  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.17    2 weeks ago

You hit the nail on the head.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
6.2.19  Nowhere Man  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.17    2 weeks ago
Actually neither side respects the other, that's the problem.  

I think I said that, and 100 % agree... There was an article posted the other day by one side, generally, they are the social and political opposites of me but their point was valid and I agreed with it and said so.... They still trashed me... Even if you agree with them, they don't respect you cause of what you believe...

It takes respect to successfully communicate in most cases, one side is choosing to communicate without regards to the respect of anyone who disagrees with them... So the only way to communicate with them is the same way they communicate with you.. Some of them choose violence to communicate.. And if that is the only way they choose to communicate, they have no justification for anger when the other side gets to the point of using their chosen way to communicate back to them...

Stop using violence and angry rhetoric to communicate and they will find that there is a lot of communication to be had.... The choice is theirs, they are dictating the method of communication and all they are communicating is hate... Is it any logical reason that they are beginning to get violence back? that's all they have been communicating with for decades now...

What surprises me is the other side has shown the restraint they have up to this point.. But it's not going to last, there is a tipping point when enough destruction is caused their choosing to communicate in the way they do, it is their own fault when the other side finally decides to communicate back in the same manner in full...

On the current course we are on, it is coming, that is the only truth on display here...

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.2.20  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.13    2 weeks ago

I knew a Navy Chaplain's Assistant in Vietnam who joined the military as a conscientious objector. He was a registered liberal Democrat and he was also one of the bravest men I ever met. One of the very few, if not the only, US Navy Chaplain's Assistants awarded the Silver Star for heroism under fire in Vietnam. He also helped saved my life helping extract me from the wreckage of a downed USMC UH-1H Huey helicopter in a dry rice paddy. He never carried a weapon. He was a expert with a M1911 pistol but refused to carry it as a devout Seventh Day Adventist. I also had Marines that were liberal Democrats save my life on more than one occasion. Such was the relationship between Marines and their FMF Corpsmen.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.2.21  XXJefferson51  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.20    2 weeks ago

He was following in the footsteps of Desmond Doss whose story was told in a recent Mel Gibson movie.  He got the Medal of Honor for similar valor.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.2.22  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.2.20    2 weeks ago

And you don't think all liberals are wussies. That's why I respect you, Ed.

I would have liked to meet your chaplain

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
6.2.23  gooseisback  replied to  evilgenius @6.2.5    2 weeks ago
stop assuming things about people who don't agree with you.

Not assuming anything, if you think and by your words "American Gun Hero" has anything to do with the outcome of this case,  you don't understand Self Defense. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.2.24  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.22    2 weeks ago

I learned a long time ago never to equate personal courage to political ideology. The individual I was referring to was a enlisted Chaplain's Assistant rather than a actual Chaplain. After he left the Navy, he attended a Seminary and was ordained as a minister. He later returned to the Navy as a commissioned officer Chaplain.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilgenius @6    2 weeks ago
It's open season on protesters!

never has been or ever will be in my book as long as protesters are peaceful.

 now if they cross the line and become criminal rioters , and assault people , well thats a horse of a different color now isnt it ?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.3.1  evilgenius  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3    2 weeks ago
now if they cross the line and become criminal rioters , and assault people , well thats a horse of a different color now isnt it ?

Or if they block traffic or hold up skateboard or...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilgenius @6.3.1    2 weeks ago

Well EG neither of those things fill the things I require for use of deadly force in self defense , and i have stated what i require is far more stringent than the law allows , things you posit are either innoculous and an inconvienience absent other actions in conjunction .

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.3.3  evilgenius  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.3.2    2 weeks ago
things you posit are either innoculous and an inconvienience absent other actions in conjunction .

Blocking traffic during a protest is enough in two conservative states to absolve the driver of charges. 

Republican legislators in Oklahoma and Iowa have passed bills granting immunity to drivers whose vehicles strike and injure protesters in public streets.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

Is blocking traffic legal?

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
6.3.5  Ronin2  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

Did you forget the part that the driver must fear for their lives. Little things like far left domestic terrorists surrounding and banging on their vehicles, damaging them, and making threats.

Why does the left have a hard time protesting peacefully?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.6  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilgenius @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

 neither of which states i reside in, so what laws they pass have no effect on me  , AND it is still up to me to decide if and when the use of deadly force , is nessisary for the protection of MY life , could be why i have chosen to be more strict than the laws of the state allow me to be in that choice .

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.3.7  evilgenius  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.5    2 weeks ago
Did you forget the part that the driver must fear for their lives.

Nope. That's a personal judgement call.

Why does the left have a hard time protesting peacefully?

I don't think you are looking all that closely at that, but you do you. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6.3.8  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

They shouldn't be in the street blocking traffic...that's against the law

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.3.9  evilgenius  replied to  Greg Jones @6.3.8    2 weeks ago
They shouldn't be in the street blocking traffic...that's against the law

So is speeding. It's a one way on my street and delivery drivers go the wrong way all the time. How about spitting on the sidewalk or throwing a cigarette out a car window?

I don't think any of that raises to the level of injury or death. I'm all for giving them misdemeanor tickets for blocking traffic, not letting drivers get away with harming people that are ONLY blocking traffic.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.3.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.5    2 weeks ago
Did you forget the part that the driver must fear for their lives.

And how is that to be proven?

Prosecutor:  Did you fear for your life when you ran over those 15 people in the street?

Suspect:  <Hmmm, if I say no I go to jail, if I say yes I go free...>  "Yes, I was absolutely afraid for my life from those paraplegics protesting about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Judge:  NOT GUILTY!

Prosecutor:  They weren't blocking the street, they were crossing the street.

Judge:  Doesn't matter, he was in fear of his life, those scooters could be a deadly weapon.  NOT GUILTY!!!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.10    2 weeks ago

See Post 15.2.2

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.3.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3.11    2 weeks ago

See Post 15.2.2

Has nothing to do with anything I said.  Or are you just trolling that comment?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.3.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.12    2 weeks ago

Do you not understand your own comment?

Or do you not understand  what the reasonable person standard is?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
6.3.14  Drakkonis  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.9    2 weeks ago
I don't think any of that raises to the level of injury or death. I'm all for giving them misdemeanor tickets for blocking traffic, not letting drivers get away with harming people that are ONLY blocking traffic.

Why are you intentionally portraying this as something it is not? If protesters are blocking the street there is no provision that sanctions just running them over for that reason alone. Nor is anyone here claiming such, as far as I can tell. 

Here's a possible scenario the law is designed for. Imagine protesters blocking the street notice an occupied car that had a Trump 2024 sticker on it. They begin to surround the car and beat on it. Some of them have clubs and are using them. One individual with a metal bar smashes the driver's door window while shouting "I'm going to put you in the hospital!" at the top of his lungs. An individual on the other side has the passenger door open and is about to climb in. 

That is the sort of scenario the law is intended for. It is not a license to run people over simply for standing around in the street for the purpose of illegally blocking it. Stop with the hyperbole because the purpose of hyperbole is to illustrate a point, not substitute as an actual argument. Or don't stop and keep trying to argue something everyone knows isn't true. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
6.3.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.3.13    2 weeks ago
Do you not understand your own comment? Or do you not understand  what the reasonable person standard is?

I understand.  I will use smaller words next time.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
6.3.16  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

So if I dance around in traffic and get hit by a car, it’s the driver’s fault? Isn’t there a reason we teach our kids to be careful crossing the street?

And if a group of angry strangers surrounds and blocks me in my car, am I just supposed to sit there and let them break open the car, pull me out, and beat me to death? Or can I try to drive away?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
6.3.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.5    2 weeks ago

They don't. They think all are peaceful protesters, even when they are in fact violently looting, burning, and pillaging!/sarc

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
6.3.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.15    2 weeks ago

 I understand. 

No you obviously don't. I tried to dumb it down for you and you still are just lashing out. Ask nicely and I will help you. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.19  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

You're right EG  its open season on protesters.  You can kill them, just because

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.20  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

So  blocking traffic is also punishable by death now, but only if you're a liberal leftie and or protesting

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
6.3.21  evilgenius  replied to  Drakkonis @6.3.14    2 weeks ago
If protesters are blocking the street there is no provision that sanctions just running them over for that reason alone. Nor is anyone here claiming such, as far as I can tell. 

Sure it is... car damage during street blocking protests is a huuuggge problem it needed to be addressed in multiple states. /s

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
6.3.22  Drakkonis  replied to  evilgenius @6.3.21    2 weeks ago

I see. You've decided to go with the second option. Good luck. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
6.4  Greg Jones  replied to  evilgenius @6    2 weeks ago

You mean left wing thugs and rioters

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

So, will people riot today or tonight?

 
 
 
JaneDoe
Sophomore Silent
7.1  JaneDoe  replied to  Texan1211 @7    2 weeks ago

I hope LE can keep things under control. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JaneDoe @7.1    2 weeks ago

Kind of depends if city, county, and state officials are wiling to enforce the law or not.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
7.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JaneDoe @7.1    2 weeks ago

Don't forget the NG is on standby as well.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
7.2  squiggy  replied to  Texan1211 @7    2 weeks ago

All weekend.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
7.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  squiggy @7.2    2 weeks ago

Only 35 looting days till Christmas.............................

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.2.1    2 weeks ago
Only 35 looting days till Christmas.............................

Black Friday steals are coming early this year...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
7.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @7    2 weeks ago

My money is on BLM and Antifa rioting and looting (whatever's left from last year) tonight when it's dark. It's their MO.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.3    2 weeks ago

The "out of state agitators" have been at it already, attacking reporters and the usual mayhem

..

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
7.3.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.3.1    2 weeks ago

Wow ... those two look like upstanding citizens! /sarc

There are also numerous reports of out of state people who didn't just drive to Kenosha ... they took commercial flights from many states to "be there" after the verdict.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
7.3.3  Sunshine  replied to  Jasper2529 @7.3.2    2 weeks ago

BLM only recruits the best..

Wisconsin court records show two open cases for someone matching Anthony Chacon's name and age – one from Sept. 2020 for domestic abuse and disorderly conduct, and a second from Jan. 2021 for substantial battery-intend bodily harm, party to a crime and misdemeanor bail jumping. 
 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
7.3.4  Jasper2529  replied to  Sunshine @7.3.3    2 weeks ago

Ain't that the truth!  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
7.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @7    2 weeks ago

Well, it is a Friday night!

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
7.4.1  charger 383  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.4    2 weeks ago

and a full moon

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.4.2  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @7.4.1    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  charger 383 @7.4.1    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
7.4.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @7.4.3    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8  Vic Eldred    2 weeks ago

They call them "protesters!"

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

Can hardly wait for a BLM spokesperson to complain about the verdict.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
9.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 weeks ago

Still haven't figured out why the hell BLM should be pissed....................................

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1    2 weeks ago

Always offended about something or other, right?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
9.1.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1    2 weeks ago

Or why they've been in front of the court house waving BLM flags. There weren't any black people involved!

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
9.1.3  zuksam  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1    2 weeks ago
Still haven't figured out why the hell BLM should be pissed

Because BLM, Antifa, and the far Left can't unleash their Brown Shirts and have their Communist Revolution as long as the USA has an Armed Citizenry willing and able to defend their Property, Persons, and Country. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
9.1.4  squiggy  replied to  Jasper2529 @9.1.2    2 weeks ago

“There weren't any black people involved!”

Yet the press still made an issue of race - anything to agitate.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
9.1.5  Jasper2529  replied to  squiggy @9.1.4    2 weeks ago

Not only the press. Candidate Joe Biden called him a white supremacist, and Jen Psaki recently called him a vigilante. Others who defamed Rittenhouse prior to and during the trial include Joy Reid and Ayanna Pressley.

Kyle's supporters were allegedly banned from creating a GoFundMe page for him.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
9.1.6  Tacos!  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1    2 weeks ago

Me neither. White guy shoots other white guys. Why do they care?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @9.1.6    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
9.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 weeks ago

Jacob Blake's uncle did (interviewed by MSNBC).

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
9.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 weeks ago

They haven't flown in Wally Newsome yet?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
9.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 weeks ago

I believe they already are!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

This was a political prosecution from day 1.  Charges were filed as a sop to left wing activists. 

Despite all of the pressure to convict, justice prevailed. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago

Your point of view is ridiculous. However, we live in a ridiculous country so such views are in bloom. 

Rittenhouse shot at 3 unarmed people, killing 2 of them.  The prosecutor had no choice but to try the case. 

Now our INSANE political right will make a hero out of a thoroughly reckless boy who shot first and asked questions later. 

America is a degraded nation at this point and there is no doubt whatsoever it is going to get worse. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    2 weeks ago
Rittenhouse shot at 3 unarmed people

Two

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

He shot at 4 people. The only one that was armed was the one that was shot in the arm. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

WTF are you talking about?

" The 12 jurors found him not guilty for the deaths of Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounding Gaige Grosskreutz, "

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
10.1.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

You mean that same one that pointed a handgun at  KR's head beforehand?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.3    2 weeks ago

Rittenhouse shot at a fourth person, who became known as Jump Kick Man.  Maybe you werent following the case as closely as you thought you were. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.5    2 weeks ago

Insignificant. Once again, Rittenhouse shot at him but what happened prior to that? The guy kicked him in the head when he fell down.

"Sources indicate that he contacted prosecutors and offered to testify, but in exchange requested immunity from an ongoing drunk driving and domestic abuse case with which he was charged in June,"

Drunk driving and domestic violence. Fine upstanding man.

Okay I'll give you your "shot AT" and will forever stand corrected on the subject.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
10.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.5    2 weeks ago

Maybe the far left domestic terrorists shouldn't have assaulted him to start with? None of this happens without them starting it.

Good thing Rittenhouse was armed and able to defend himself. Otherwise we would be talking about his death. Listening to left bitch about how he wouldn't be dead if he wasn't there; it is not his attackers' fault if he couldn't defend himself; and that he was a far right white supremacist that got what he deserved. Of course his assailants would be innocent victims then.

The left really do love their criminals!

 

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
10.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.6    2 weeks ago
Drunk driving and domestic violence. Fine upstanding man.

The left really, really, love their criminals. Not one of the assailants of Rittenhouse is clean. Guess the criminals thought is was open season; and quickly found out different.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.7    2 weeks ago

There isnt a person on earth that can prove that Rittenhouse would be dead if he didnt shoot anyone that night. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
10.1.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.7    2 weeks ago
Otherwise we would be talking about his death.

i read something that fits that statement yesterday , if it had been him that died , those that attacked him , would have been able to use the exact same plea he did . and for the same exact reasons .

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
10.1.11  Sunshine  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.7    2 weeks ago
Good thing Rittenhouse was armed and able to defend himself. Otherwise we would be talking about his death. Listening to left bitch about how he wouldn't be dead if he wasn't there; it is not his attackers' fault if he couldn't defend himself; and that he was a far right white supremacist that got what he deserved. Of course his assailants would be innocent victims then.

That is sadly very true.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
10.1.12  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @10.1.10    2 weeks ago

Yes of course but that's the rationalization the losers would adopt. It's been soundly refuted however. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.1.13  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1    2 weeks ago
we live in a ridiculous country

So leave if it's so ridiculous.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @10.1.13    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.1.15  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.14    2 weeks ago

Gee...imagine that. No coherent rebuttal, so we go to insults.

I'm so surprised...

Said no one..ever.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @10.1.15    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
10.1.17  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.16    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
10.1.18  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  bugsy @10.1.15    2 weeks ago

Standard MO.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
10.2  Snuffy  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago

Now that the criminal trial has ended, will any of the families come forth with a civil suit?  I've not heard any rumblings that any such action is being thought of, but you never know.  Of course I don't know what this kid has in the way of assets so a civil suit may not provide much for the families but you never know the mind set of a person bent on revenge.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
10.2.1  Ronin2  replied to  Snuffy @10.2    2 weeks ago

With a full acquittal they will have far less of a case. They will also have to prove their find upstanding criminals that assaulted Rittenhouse didn't intend him any harm. Good luck with that.

However, Rittenhouse may be in for a huge payday from the incestuous pedophile in the White House; several Democrats; and the MSM that painted him as a White Supremacist, far right terrorist, and murderer.  Wonder if Joe shit his Depends when the verdict was announced?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
10.2.2  MonsterMash  replied to  Snuffy @10.2    2 weeks ago
will any of the families come forth with a civil suit? 

Of course there will be civil suits, but I don't know why the families of a pedophile and woman beater would want to put themselves in the spotlight.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
10.2.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Snuffy @10.2    2 weeks ago
Now that the criminal trial has ended, will any of the families come forth with a civil suit?

And what would they claim.  "Our family member attacked Rittenhouse and got shot"?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
10.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  MonsterMash @10.2.2    2 weeks ago

I think the wife beater is already suing the City of Kenosha for millions. I'm sure he'll try his luck with Rittenhouse. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
10.2.5  Snuffy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @10.2.3    2 weeks ago

The family of Anthony Huber (guy who attacked Rittenhouse with the skateboard) already put out a statement where they stated their son was shot while trying to disarm Rittenhouse and stop his shooting spree.  So in their eyes their son was a hero...   Afraid it's only gonna get worse.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
10.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  Snuffy @10.2.5    2 weeks ago

And I just came across this...

How lawyers for 2 of the men Rittenhouse shot are responding to the acquittal

From CNN's Sara Sidner

Kimberley Motley and Milo Schwab, attorneys for Gaige Grosskreutz and the estate of Joseph Rosenbaum, asked for "peace from everyone hurting" following the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Rosenbaum was killed and Grosskreutz was injured in the August 2020 shooting.

"Today we grieve for the families of those slain by Kyle Rittenhouse," Motley and Schwab said in a statement.

Here's the full statement: 

"Anthony Huber and Joseph Rosenbaum did not deserve to die that night. For now, we ask for peace from everyone hurting and that the public respect the privacy of the victims and their families. That night in Kenosha, Gaige Grosskreutz, Anthony Huber, and many others acted heroically. They did not seek violence, but to end violence. What we need right now is justice, not more violence. While today's verdict may mean justice delayed, it will not mean justice denied. We are committed to uncovering the truth of that night and holding those responsible to account."
So it would seem that they are looking at civil suits to move forward.  
 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
10.2.7  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Snuffy @10.2    2 weeks ago

Saw a quote from one set of parents that implied they were going to pursue further action, presumably civil lawsuit.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
10.2.8  squiggy  replied to  Snuffy @10.2.6    2 weeks ago
They did not seek violence, but to end violence.

And THAT's why Grosskreutz put a pistol to Rittenhouse's head.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
10.2.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Snuffy @10.2.5    2 weeks ago

Even Jeffrey Dahmer's family said "he was a good person". 

My question is, why was he trying to disarm Rittenhouse?  People carry firearms all the time.  There were several others who were armed in the area.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Masters Participates
10.3  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago
justice prevailed

That's the part that many people won't ever understand.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
10.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sean Treacy @10    2 weeks ago

Prosecution, persecution, or both?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11  Snuffy    2 weeks ago

With the national news and so many "leaders" condemning Rittenhouse from day 1, will there be any apologies coming forth or will Rittenhouse have to take them to court for slander?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @11    2 weeks ago

The left won't apologize.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
11.1.1  Sunshine  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    2 weeks ago
The left won't apologize

Nah, they will double down on their ignorance.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    2 weeks ago

"The left won't apologize."

Of that we can all be certain.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.1.2    2 weeks ago

'The Left' has nothing to apologize for.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.3    2 weeks ago

That is the spirit! 

Rittenhouse is going to be rich enough he won't need to hide.

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
11.2  Sunshine  replied to  Snuffy @11    2 weeks ago
court for slander?

Civil suits will be forthcoming especially with a not guilty for criminal charges.  He will have plenty of money to pay his lawyers.  Rittenhouse was a minor during the media slander blitz.  That is the reason the MAGA hat kid won. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @11    2 weeks ago

You're fucking kidding, right?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3    2 weeks ago

No, not kidding.  Or did you miss where national news was calling him a murderer long before the trial and before any verdicts were made. Even Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.1    2 weeks ago

Because he is a murderer and a budding white supremacist and fine young republican.  Everyone sees it except those who hold up these scum as some kind of hero.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.2    2 weeks ago

We're all sad that a republican scumbag killer got away with it, yet again.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3.4  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.1    2 weeks ago

Lets say that I go out today and yell "the murderer Rittenhouse got away with it". Do you think I could be sued for slander? lol. 

He was indicted for murder.  MAGA hat boy wasnt indicted for anything. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.5  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.2    2 weeks ago

He's not a murderer, the verdicts are in and he was found not guilty.  As for the white supremacist, prove it.  (yeah,  I know you wont as you never do.) Republican?  He just turned 18 and I don't know if he's registered with any political party, fairly sure he didn't vote in the last election.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.2    2 weeks ago

Not a murderer. That statement is false.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.5    2 weeks ago
He's not a murderer

That is a matter of opinion. 

There are people who have been convicted of murder and then 40 years later DNA proved them innocent. Were they murderers for those 40 years? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.8  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.7    2 weeks ago
That is a matter of opinion.  There are people who have been convicted of murder and then 40 years later DNA proved them innocent. Were they murderers for those 40 years? 

Nope, that's a legal term.  By your own example, they were CONVICTED of murder therefor they are a murderer.  Now 40 years later DNA testing comes up and shows they were innocent, so their conviction is overturned and they are NO LONGER a murderer.  If they had never been convicted of murder in the first place then they would have been innocent all along and could never have the tag of murderer assigned to them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.5    2 weeks ago

A not guilty verdict does not mean he didn't murder those people.  

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.10  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.5    2 weeks ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.9    2 weeks ago

With no guilty verduct, you for sure can't prove he murdered anyone

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3.12  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.8    2 weeks ago

Let him sue anyone he wants. Unless someone lied about the facts he's going to lose. I dont think "I wasnt convicted" will win him the case, but who knows. There are a lot of idiots in this country. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.13  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @11.3.11    2 weeks ago

There's just no talking with some people. All they care to do is argue out of their partisan mindset and completely ignore laws and precedence. 

The really bad part IMO is that so long as people continue to blame the other political party in every discussion they have the longer it will take to actually heal this country. But perhaps some people just don't care.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.3.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.12    2 weeks ago

Rittenhouse could be sued for wrongful death, which is a civil matter

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.3.15  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.3.14    2 weeks ago

No self respecting lawyer would take the case, so one will probably be filed soon.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.16  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.12    2 weeks ago

Suing for slander...   yeah I think he stands a good chance of winning those.  The news media was all over this from the beginning, even President Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof of such. If you want precedence for such suits all you have to do is look up the Covington Kid slander trials for a preview.

I'm also gonna say one other thing.  Now that the criminal trial is over I hope Rittenhouse can learn grace and learn how to forgive himself. His actions caused the death of two people. It was self-defense but it was still him pulling the trigger in both of them and he's gonna have to live with his actions for the rest of his life. He was very young when he did this so he has many years to deal with this. How the rest of his life goes is entirely up to him and IMO it can be a better life for him if he learns and properly moves forward on this. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3.17  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.13    2 weeks ago

Your basic premise, that a "not guilty" verdict proves someone is not a murderer (or vice versa) is faulty. 

Calling someone a murderer is not a legal conclusion. 

Is OJ Simpson a murderer? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.18  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.17    2 weeks ago

It does no good to discuss this with you as your mind is made up. 

The jury found him not guilty on all charges. They did not go to lesser charges, it was unanimous not guilty on all counts. So that tells me that the jury believed the evidence was a clear case of self-defense. 

Now the act of murder is the unlawful and premeditated killing of one human being by another. As the jury results show they believed the self-defense claims the killing of the two was not unlawful.  There was no evidence submitted that I'm aware of that Rittenhouse knew any of the 4 individuals he shot at so it cannot be premediated. Also if it was premediated, why would he stop after shooting at 4 people?  He still had 13 rounds in his gun so there's a lot more he could have done.  You just cannot convince me that this was premediated. 

Therefor in my mind this was not murder and he is not a murderer.  You want to prove I'm wrong?  Show me your logic then.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3.19  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.16    2 weeks ago
If you want precedence for such suits all you have to do is look up the Covington Kid slander trials for a preview.

Totally disagree. A video showed that the Covington kid did not taunt the American Indian he was accused of taunting. 

There is no video that does not show Rittenhouse shooting three people. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.20  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.19    2 weeks ago
There is no video that does not show Rittenhouse shooting three people. 

Any slander trials won't be over the shootings, it will be for the over-the-top emotional reporting and actual slander given by the news media.  As i said even Biden called him a white supremacist without any proof. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.3.21  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.2    2 weeks ago

A real court of law with a judge jury said otherwise, and not the leftist kangaroo court of public opinion prevalent on NT right now . Not guilty, so deal with it and go on!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.3.22  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.18    2 weeks ago
1. a. The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. b. An instance of such killing.

Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder. 

So you are once again down to the legal conclusion.  Is OJ Simpson a murderer?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.3.23  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @11.3.14    2 weeks ago
Rittenhouse could be sued for wrongful death, which is a civil matter

That will entirely depend on what the law is in wisconsin , some jurisdictions dont allow that if it was found in the criminal trial that the individual acted within the laws of self defense , usually a self defense plea  turns the killings into justifiable homicide which if the action was justified , even civilly there are no grounds for wrongful death .

 I can say here where i live , a civil suit  for wrongful death can not be brought if someone who is killed was in the act of committing a crime themselves and the person being sued was acting within what the law allows . 

but what do i know? i was supposedly wrong throughout the entire trial .....

 
 
 
zuksam
Junior Silent
11.3.24  zuksam  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.9    2 weeks ago
A not guilty verdict does not mean he didn't murder those people. 

Actually the acquittal means it was legally Self Defense not Murder. The claim of Self Defense has been proven in a Court of Law and given the stamp of approval by a Jury of his Peers. No Murders were Committed by Rittenhouse his actions were Justified and he has been Vindicated.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
11.3.25  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.22    2 weeks ago
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

But none of this matters as he was found NOT FUCKING GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES.  Give it a rest, you just want to argue.  And I'm not chasing down that rabbit hole you want me to with OJ,  find someone else who might care what you want. 

Basically stated, the criminal trial is done. You can have your opinions on if the results are correct or not but it is only your opinion and meaningless anywhere outside of your mind (same as any other opinion on this case from any of the other legal scholars on NT). The next two possible legal steps are for the families to file civil suits against Rittenhouse and/or Rittenhouse to file slander cases against various people / organizations. Will any of these steps happen?  Time will tell.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
11.3.26  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.21    2 weeks ago

leftist kangaroo court?

Let's remember that phrase when  a "lefty" is brought up on trial and the right wing kangaroo court convicts in the court of public opinion.

It has happened

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
11.3.27  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.2    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.3.28  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Trout Giggles @11.3.26    2 weeks ago

For the record, I am only referring to this particular trial only. Many of the comments given, despite the jury's decision, do speak for themselves.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.3.29  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.22    2 weeks ago
Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder. 

Who cares what he was charged with. The prosecutor that brought the charges was full of shit. This was a politically motivated charge that had no basis in reality. Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges. He has a right to defend himself according to the law; and did so.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
11.3.30  Kathleen  replied to  Snuffy @11.3.25    2 weeks ago

If these guys were not the monsters they were, I would still agree with self defense, but I would say that it was a shame lives were lost. I can't bring myself to feel sorry for both of these pieces of Sh*t that did what they did. Obviously they did not care about their victims, so why should I care about them?

That's how I look at it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
11.3.31  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.17    2 weeks ago
Calling someone a murderer is not a legal conclusion. 

It kind of is. Murder is defined as an “unlawful killing.” That definition of the concept goes back millennia. It’s even in the Bible.

Now, if you want to make the argument that a killing was morally wrong, that’s a valid opinion to have, but “murder” has a definition.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.3.32  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.9    2 weeks ago

Not according to Wisconsin law and a jury that said otherwise by acquitting. You are still mistaken no matter what!

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.3.33  Ronin2  replied to  Kathleen @11.3.30    2 weeks ago

You are far kinder than I am. Being bullied growing up taught me one thing; there is no appeasing bullies. Just taking it is not an option. They don't get tired, they don't get bored, and they never go away. These criminals thought they had an easy target- one lone kid. They attacked as a group and chased him as a group. If they didn't attack him they would not be dead. I will never feel sorry for them; because if they had their way Rittenhouse would be dead. Luckily he knew how to defend himself and wouldn't be their victim.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
11.3.34  Kathleen  replied to  Ronin2 @11.3.33    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.35  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.28    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif Ya, right

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.3.37  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.32    2 weeks ago

He's a killer, [Deleted]

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
11.3.38  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.19    2 weeks ago
There is no video that does not show Rittenhouse shooting three people.

Shooting is not murder.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
11.3.39  squiggy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3    2 weeks ago

hold-my-beer8876.jpg

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.3.40  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.2    2 weeks ago

Thankfully a legitimate court of law, judge, and a jury said otherwise! Deal with it.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
11.3.41  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.40    2 weeks ago

BUT>>>BUT>>> BUT >>> they won in the court of public opinion ( they think) so the court it counted in doesnt count .....

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.3.42  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @11.3.22    2 weeks ago

"Rittenhouse was charged with killing with reckless indifference, which is a definition of murder."

Charged yes, convicted NO! He was found not guilty on all counts. That is the point you and others here just cannot seem to grasp. Some people just will not/cannot accept that a genuine court of law said otherwise. Said court of law and jury said not guilty. End of story...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Principal
11.3.43  Gordy327  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @11.3.42    2 weeks ago
Some people just will not/cannot accept that a genuine court of law said otherwise. Said court of law and jury said not guilty. End of story...

Indeed. What it boils down to is the prosecution did not make a strong enough case. Of course some will not be happy with the verdict no matter what it is. But, that's how the system works.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.3.44  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Gordy327 @11.3.43    2 weeks ago

Very true.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
11.3.45  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @11.3.3    2 weeks ago

Rittenhouse was 17 years old at the time of the shooting, so he was too young to vote or have political affiliation. That being said, how do you come up with him being a Republican, other than it fits your narrative?

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
11.4  Ronin2  replied to  Snuffy @11    2 weeks ago

Too late for apologies. Time for them to pay up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12  Texan1211    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @12    2 weeks ago

Meanwhile, the reactionary ghouls are dancing on the graves of the people Rittenhouse killed.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @12.1    2 weeks ago

Yeah, not a word about the lives that this republican scumbag killer took - they all say it was karma and well deserved and that this fat little pig took out the trash!

I'm sure they're so proud of themselves now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @12.1    2 weeks ago

Nope, just happy justice was served. How about you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.1    2 weeks ago

Here's some words.

They are dead and will never again threaten or attack anyone ever again.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.1    2 weeks ago

What a shame that this killer thug republican killed those who he said threatened and attacked him - so he shot them dead so no one could say otherwise.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gsquared @12.1    2 weeks ago

[Deletedn]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.4    2 weeks ago

What a shame some folks were stupid enough to attack a guy with a gun.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.7  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.2    2 weeks ago

I'm not privy to all of the evidence, but based on what I am aware of, I'm not convinced that justice was fully served.  However, the jury has spoken and that is the final word in this case although people are free to agree or disagree with the jury's decision as they wish.

By the way, the heirs of the people Rittenhouse killed can still file civil wrongful death cases against Rittenhouse, if they so chose.  We all remember that O.J. Simpson was found not guilty in his criminal murder trial, but a civil jury found him liable for wrongful death after the criminal case was concluded.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.5    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.7    2 weeks ago

He doesn't have any money. What lawyer wants a piece of nothing?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
12.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.5    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.7    2 weeks ago

That's the way to go - civil suits against those this killer murdered - their families should sue mommy's fat ass off.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @12.1.10    2 weeks ago

We certainly know who you refer to in that way!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.13  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.9    2 weeks ago

I don't know about his family situation, but if his parents had Homeowner's or Renter's Insurance in effect on the date of the incident, the liability coverage under those policies could provide a source of recovery.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.13    2 weeks ago

Recovery doubtful in a clear case of self defense!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.15  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.14    2 weeks ago

Settlement likely before the case ever gets to trial.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
12.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.15    2 weeks ago

Lmmfao!!!!!

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
12.1.17  squiggy  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.4    2 weeks ago

The one who lived confirmed, by word and deed, that self-defense was appropriate.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.18  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.16    2 weeks ago

If you don't think the insurance company will want to get rid of this very ugly case before it gets to trial, you don't know much about how insurance companies operate.

The fact that the jury took four days to reach a decision is a good indication that there may have been some jurors who were leaning towards guilty, and that it took a lot of convincing during deliberations before they reached a unanimous verdict.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  squiggy @12.1.17    2 weeks ago

No, he didn't.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
12.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.9    2 weeks ago

once  he starts suing people for defamation, he may have some.

there are some democratic congressmen and possibly the president (would have to look to see exactly what he said) who 

 are ripe targets.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
12.1.21  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @12.1    2 weeks ago

The left do love their criminals; and are mourning them again today.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
12.1.22  Ronin2  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.18    2 weeks ago

Actually I do know quite a bit about how insurance companies operate. They would counter sue the hell out of anyone dumb enough to bring a civil suit for court costs and damages. They hate to lose money more than anything else; which is why they all have these things called lawyers they keep on retainer at all times. 

Willing to bet the insurance company lawyers are going to be a hell of lot better than anything these families will scrape together. Lawyers don't like losing- not as much money in it; and after the verdict no decent lawyer would want to touch a civil suit.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
12.1.23  MonsterMash  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.11    2 weeks ago
their families should sue mommy's fat ass off.  

It's beyond me why the family of a convicted pedophile would want to put their selves under a spotlight..

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.24  Gsquared  replied to  Ronin2 @12.1.22    2 weeks ago
Actually I do know quite a bit about how insurance companies operate.

Based on your comment, that doesn't seem to be the case.

They would counter sue

You think that if the heirs of the people Rittenhouse killed file lawsuits for wrongful death, the insurance company covering Rittenhouse would file some type of countersuit?  For what?  What cause or causes of action exactly?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
12.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.24    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
12.1.26  gooseisback  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.13    2 weeks ago
the liability coverage under those policies could provide a source of recovery.

They no doubt will provide a defense and may pay, however a skateboard is a deadly weapon so the self defense will apply, the I witness stated Rosenbaum was the aggressor and the third was pointing a gun. What civil case is there?  They have a bettter case against the city for not protecting the area. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
12.1.27  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.11    2 weeks ago

time-to-get-paid.jpg

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.28  Gsquared  replied to  gooseisback @12.1.26    2 weeks ago

As I stated earlier, I'm not privy to all of the evidence in the case.  I also do not know wrongful death law for Wisconsin, only for California.  I really have no comment on the merits of any potential claims.  With that stated, the insurance company would  only be obligated to defend and indemnify if there is negligent misconduct, unless the law in Wisconsin says something different.  The plaintiffs would have to show that the defendant acted negligently in order to prevail.  Under California law, if the legal pleadings allege facts showing that there is the potential for coverage, then the insurance company has an obligation to defend.  They can, and sometimes do, defend under a reservation of rights while seeking a separate ruling regarding coverage.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
12.1.29  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.1    2 weeks ago

They were trash.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
12.1.30  gooseisback  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.28    2 weeks ago
the insurance company would  only be obligated to defend and indemnify if there is negligent misconduct

"Negligent misconduct" is not a term in an insurance policy, Coverage would be triggered if the company determines that the occurrence WASN'T an Expected or Intended Injury. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.31  Gsquared  replied to  gooseisback @12.1.30    2 weeks ago

That is basically correct.  Liability policies generally refer to "unexpected or unintended", although I am involved in a matter now where the question of coverage may be determined by whether an event was "sudden", which is a term that happens to be used in the policy in question as opposed to "unexpected or unintended".  

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
12.1.32  gooseisback  replied to  Gsquared @12.1.31    2 weeks ago
whether an event was "sudden",

Why would "sudden" come in to play on a liability claim or you talking property?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Junior Principal
12.1.33  Gsquared  replied to  gooseisback @12.1.32    2 weeks ago

It is a liability claim that arises from a dispute between a tow truck driver and a vehicle owner (my client).  As he was removing a jack from the tow truck, the driver suddenly forcefully struck the vehicle owner across the face and head with the jack causing significant fracture injuries, loss of teeth, concussion, etc.  The tow truck driver then fled the scene, but was identified, arrested and pled nolo to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to commit great bodily harm.  The insurance company for the tow truck driver contends that his actions were "expected and intended", however, the policy provides coverage where an incident was "sudden, unexpected or unintended", all in the disjunctive.  My co-counsel in this matter, a very experienced coverage expert, is quite clear as to the legal implications of the term "sudden". There are also valid negligence allegations.  We are fully confident about coverage ultimately attaching in this case, but it is an interesting issue.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
13  Veronica    2 weeks ago

So does this mean I can shoot anti-vaxxers because I fear for my life???

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
13.1  evilgenius  replied to  Veronica @13    2 weeks ago

Are they brown?

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
13.1.1  Veronica  replied to  evilgenius @13.1    2 weeks ago

No, but then neither am I.  

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
13.1.2  evilgenius  replied to  Veronica @13.1.1    2 weeks ago

Then, probably not. You might get away with it if they are really, really ugly and poor. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
13.2  Texan1211  replied to  Veronica @13    2 weeks ago

Sure, seems to be a smart thing, go for it!!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
13.3  devangelical  replied to  Veronica @13    2 weeks ago
So does this mean I can shoot anti-vaxxers because I fear for my life???

only if they get within 6 feet or try to touch you... ...self defense.

 
 
 
Veronica
Senior Guide
13.3.1  Veronica  replied to  devangelical @13.3    2 weeks ago
only if they try to get within 6 feet or try to touch you...

I preferred distance & not being touched by strangers before Covid - that just re-enforced my dedication to avoiding things like that.

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
13.4  Ronin2  replied to  Veronica @13    2 weeks ago

Sure if they physically assault you w/o provocation and you need to defend yourself to save your life. 

Otherwise you are SOL.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
13.5  Tacos!  replied to  Veronica @13    2 weeks ago

You might be on to something!

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
13.6  bugsy  replied to  Veronica @13    2 weeks ago

Sure would be shooting a lot of blacks.

Don't want to be a white supremacist, do you?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
14  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

Don't worry about this verdict. The butt fugly weasel will eventually do something equally as criminal and actually get a conviction. That boy is a bad seed

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Trout Giggles @14    2 weeks ago
The butt fugly weasel will eventually do something equally as criminal and actually get a conviction.

There's that attitude of unity we have come to know from the left.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
14.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.1    2 weeks ago

What does unity have to do with me calling him a butt fugly weasel? Will you ever write a comment that makes any sense?

Ah...saw your comment down below. I'm past moving on. I just have a sneaking suspicion that this is not the last thing you will ever hear about Kyle Rittenhouse

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.1.1    2 weeks ago
What does unity have to do with me calling him a butt fugly weasel?

Sorry.  Don't have the desire or time to explain it to you.  Maybe you should re-evaluate your statement and how it works with the definition of unity.  I'll give you some help:

Unity definition: the state of being united or joined as a whole.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
14.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.1.2    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
14.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.1.3    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14.1.5  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @14.1.2    2 weeks ago

Having read a lot of your comments, I would lose a lot of respect for anyone who wanted to "unify" with you. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
14.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @14.1.5    2 weeks ago

I thought I made it clear long ago I could care less what you "think".

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Guide
14.1.7  bugsy  replied to  Trout Giggles @14.1.1    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
15  Hallux    2 weeks ago

Cool, America will now be policed by vigilantes with acne standing on a stranger's ground ... @!@

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.1  Texan1211  replied to  Hallux @15    2 weeks ago

Wow, nothing quite like an overreaction to justice being served!

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
15.2  devangelical  replied to  Hallux @15    2 weeks ago

cool, dropping armed militia types that are wandering around looks like it'll be a legal slam dunk now...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @15.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
15.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

It’s Been amazing to see people here offer all sorts of insane predictions about what this verdiCt supposedly means, but then I remember the law is premised on a reasonable person standard and I realize why they have so much Trouble.

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
15.2.3  squiggy  replied to  Sean Treacy @15.2.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Junior Quiet
15.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Hallux @15    2 weeks ago
Cool, America will now be policed by vigilantes with acne standing on a stranger's ground

I like the sarcasm.

But I am sad to say that I think this may prove to be a disastrously accurate prediction.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

It was always the 'Smart' decision when it comes to self defense. The jury took their time to go ever all the evidence to make sure they covered everything. That is also a 'Smart' thing to do. 

So, lets hope that everyone is satisfied and can move on.

Have a great day!!!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
16.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Kathleen @16    2 weeks ago
So, lets hope that everyone is satisfied and can move on.

Not going to happen.  Just read the comments here.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @16    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
16.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @16.2    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @16.2.1    2 weeks ago

True!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @16.2.1    2 weeks ago

some of what I'm reading here is disgusting...grave dancing on the people shot and killed

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.4  Kathleen  replied to  Texan1211 @16.2    2 weeks ago

When it comes to a child molester and a woman beater, I have no sympathy for them.  So I really don’t care what anyone thinks.....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.3    2 weeks ago

Except no one did what you claim, of course!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.3    2 weeks ago

Well according to some - those folks deserved it, they were trash, KARMA, and the trash was taken out.  All said by the fine republicans here.  

Even though no one knew of these alleged crimes including this killer thug Rittenhouse  . . . . 

Kick 'em when they're up

Kick 'em when they're down

Kick 'em when they're stiff

Kick 'em when they're down

I believe we've heard from a bubble headed bleached blonde

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
16.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.4    2 weeks ago

Good for you! Don't be bothered with such trifling nonsense!

 
 
 
Sunshine
PhD Guide
16.2.8  Sunshine  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.4    2 weeks ago
So I really don’t care what anyone thinks.....

The little boys that where raped repeatably will never have to face that monster again.  They will have to live with it and will be forever scarred but never will see that ass again!

That man let out of prison is the prime example of the failures of our justice system.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
16.2.9  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.3    2 weeks ago

They are acting like the kid knew ahead of time.

Still doesn't let him have a right to be an executioner.

People cheering on shit like this shows true colours, and it ain't pretty.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
16.2.10  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.2.3    2 weeks ago

I see one comment possibility. Other than that, unless justice being served is grave dancing, I don't see it. Sorry

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
16.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @16.2.9    2 weeks ago

Such ugly evil.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
16.2.12  Kathleen  replied to  Sunshine @16.2.8    2 weeks ago

Those are the real victims in all this. You are so right, justice for those poor little boys.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kathleen @16.2.4    2 weeks ago