*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2674
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #60 on: November 15, 2021, 07:37:00 PM »
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.

What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
Possession charges DISMISSED,  clearly demonstrating your hot takes and pontificating about this issue was from a position of intellectual bankruptcy.



All I said is that the judge didn't initially throw out the charge. Then I went on to say, "I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges."

Personally, I think the only questionable is the skateboarder killing. Rosenbaum I could see as self-defense holding. The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense. The skateboarder? Don't know. But all told, it looks like it's leaning toward self-defense for all three (or all 5 counts still in play).

I guess the only other question I have is the NRA's whole "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." thing. Did the guy with the gun who got shot in the arm think he was a good guy with a gun trying to stop an active shooter, a bad guy with a gun? Our gun laws are so screwed up.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #61 on: November 15, 2021, 08:24:40 PM »
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.

What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
Possession charges DISMISSED,  clearly demonstrating your hot takes and pontificating about this issue was from a position of intellectual bankruptcy.



All I said is that the judge didn't initially throw out the charge. Then I went on to say, "I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges."

Personally, I think the only questionable is the skateboarder killing. Rosenbaum I could see as self-defense holding. The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense. The skateboarder? Don't know. But all told, it looks like it's leaning toward self-defense for all three (or all 5 counts still in play).

I guess the only other question I have is the NRA's whole "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." thing. Did the guy with the gun who got shot in the arm think he was a good guy with a gun trying to stop an active shooter, a bad guy with a gun? Our gun laws are so screwed up.
No, you pretty much stated it was a given the charge would stick, offering your bogus and faulty interpretation of the law, thinking the judge's failure to not dismiss it earlier would somehow be the case at the end of the day.

I mean, you are quoted right here stating: "underage with a rifle=misdemeanor period." You don't know what the hell you're writing about and have no problem with writing bald faced lies when proven wrong.

Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality,  the question offered is just another weak attempt to support  a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.

100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.
« Last Edit: November 15, 2021, 08:47:45 PM by Action80 »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2674
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #62 on: November 15, 2021, 08:49:31 PM »
I have no idea what you mean by this. Underage with rifle = misdemeanor, period.

What’s your problem? If he gets convicted of the count of underage with a rifle, so what? It’s a parking ticket. The judge refuses to throw it out. I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges.
Possession charges DISMISSED,  clearly demonstrating your hot takes and pontificating about this issue was from a position of intellectual bankruptcy.



All I said is that the judge didn't initially throw out the charge. Then I went on to say, "I’m not sure why you’re hung up on this charge when it means nothing in comparison to his other charges."

Personally, I think the only questionable is the skateboarder killing. Rosenbaum I could see as self-defense holding. The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense. The skateboarder? Don't know. But all told, it looks like it's leaning toward self-defense for all three (or all 5 counts still in play).

I guess the only other question I have is the NRA's whole "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." thing. Did the guy with the gun who got shot in the arm think he was a good guy with a gun trying to stop an active shooter, a bad guy with a gun? Our gun laws are so screwed up.
No, you pretty much stated it was a given the charge would stick, offering your bogus and faulty interpretation of the law, thinking the judge's failure to not dismiss it earlier would somehow be the case at the end of the day.

The charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor was dropped Monday morning as jurors were waiting to hear closing arguments in Rittenhouse's trial.

Judge Bruce Schroeder said that it was unclear whether the rifle Rittenhouse used qualified under the Wisconsin statute, and the prosecutors in the case chose not to press their case on the single misdemeanor count.

Schroeder had earlier dismissed the defense's effort to get the charge thrown out, but on Monday said that he believed the statute was poorly written and was open to challenging the count, which carries a maximum possible sentence of nine months in jail and a $10,000 fine.

"I have big problems with this statute, I've made no bones about that from the beginning," the judge said.


Apparently, the Judge changed his mind about how the law was written. And yeah, I thought it would stick and was wrong. I also said it didn't matter because the charge is a whatever considering the other 5 charges - i.e., it didn't matter.

Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality,  the question offered is just another weak attempt to support  a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.

Why so hostile? I already said that I think the guy who pointed a gun at him and got shot in the arm, for Rittenhouse, seems like self-defense. I just wonder if the guy with the gun thought he was going after a bad guy.

100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. But it reads like you're offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2021, 09:12:37 PM »

Apparently, the Judge changed his mind about how the law was written. And yeah, I thought it would stick and was wrong. I also said it didn't matter because the charge is a whatever considering the other 5 charges - i.e., it didn't matter.
All charges matter, obviously in a trial, and the prosecutor thought they mattered, and you thought it mattered.

The judge knew it was wrong and threw it out.
Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality,  the question offered is just another weak attempt to support  a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.

Why so hostile? I already said that I think the guy who pointed a gun at him and got shot in the arm, for Rittenhouse, seems like self-defense. I just wonder if the guy with the gun thought he was going after a bad guy.
Sticking up for a shitbag must be a favorite pastime of yours.
100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. But it reads like you're offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case.
I know you don't know what it means. You cannot even tell the difference between an obvious statement of fact (where no question mark is implied or explicitly written,  such as what I wrote) and the utter tripe offered by you in post after post in response to this topic.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2674
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #64 on: November 15, 2021, 10:35:37 PM »

Apparently, the Judge changed his mind about how the law was written. And yeah, I thought it would stick and was wrong. I also said it didn't matter because the charge is a whatever considering the other 5 charges - i.e., it didn't matter.
All charges matter, obviously in a trial, and the prosecutor thought they mattered, and you thought it mattered.

The judge knew it was wrong and threw it out.

And the judge thought that it mattered until he didn't. He could have just dismissed it when the defense initially asked. But he didn't. Then he did. I guess he had to think about it and it took him a few weeks. Something you should try. Thinking about things.

Prevaricators typically have difficulty dealing the realities of life, offering bogus philosophical questions like you pose here, thinking they're somehow meaningful and relevant to the case whatsoever. In reality,  the question offered is just another weak attempt to support  a known shitbag who got what was coming to him.

Why so hostile? I already said that I think the guy who pointed a gun at him and got shot in the arm, for Rittenhouse, seems like self-defense. I just wonder if the guy with the gun thought he was going after a bad guy.
Sticking up for a shitbag must be a favorite pastime of yours.

Where am I sticking up for the guy? If you possessed even a smidge of reading comprehension skills you would have recognized this as not sticking up for the guy when I wrote, "The guy who got shot in the arm had a gun and pointed it at him. So that seems pretty clear cut self-defense." I'm just wondering what the guy with the gun was thinking.


100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from Rittenhouse.

I don't know what this is supposed to mean. But it reads like you're offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case.
I know you don't know what it means. You cannot even tell the difference between an obvious statement of fact (where no question mark is implied or explicitly written,  such as what I wrote) and the utter tripe offered by you in post after post in response to this topic.

An obvious statement of fact that is offering a bogus philosophical question thinking that it's somehow meaningful and relevant to the case. You might as well offer another incredible insight of yours like, 100 percent of the people who didn't attack Rittenhouse that day walked away that day, suffering no harm from the 2 guys who got killed and one guy who got shot.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 452
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #65 on: November 15, 2021, 10:37:37 PM »
The interesting thing about that third guy.  Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there.  But suppose the other guy drew quicker.  Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.

It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is.  If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #66 on: November 15, 2021, 11:39:24 PM »
The interesting thing about that third guy.  Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there.  But suppose the other guy drew quicker.  Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.

It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is.  If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.

Just another disgusting example of your lousy, habitual style of revisionist history on the fly.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7594
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #67 on: November 16, 2021, 12:01:19 AM »
All closing arguments have been made. The jury will begin their deliberations tomorrow. Despite the shit show and (in my opinion) innocence of Rittenhouse, they could still find him guilty. We will see soon.

*

Offline crutonius

  • *
  • Posts: 452
  • Just a regular guy. No funny business here.
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #68 on: November 16, 2021, 12:26:16 AM »
That's another weird thing about this trial.  It's apparently not a pass or fail on the charges.  It's kind of a sliding scale.  They could find him guilty of murder.  They could also find him guilty of j walking during self defense and everything in between.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2674
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #69 on: November 16, 2021, 12:39:06 AM »
The interesting thing about that third guy.  Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there.  But suppose the other guy drew quicker.  Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.

It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is.  If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.

I think you missed the point. If the 3rd guy had gotten off a shot before rittenhouse and killed him, his defense would be that he was staring down the barrel of an AR-15, felt his life was in danger, and shot in self-defense. That’s what I’m getting at with the good or bad guy with a gun. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference.

I’m not defending the third guy. He was aiming a gun at the kid. Just curious as to what his motivation was. Did he think he was the good guy?

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #70 on: November 17, 2021, 10:28:43 AM »
The interesting thing about that third guy.  Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there.  But suppose the other guy drew quicker.  Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.

It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is.  If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.

I think you missed the point. If the 3rd guy had gotten off a shot before rittenhouse and killed him, his defense would be that he was staring down the barrel of an AR-15, felt his life was in danger, and shot in self-defense. That’s what I’m getting at with the good or bad guy with a gun. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference.

I’m not defending the third guy. He was aiming a gun at the kid. Just curious as to what his motivation was. Did he think he was the good guy?
It is only hard for a known liar to print the truth about this issue.

It is much easier for people who know the truth to be clear thinking and know a shitbag got shot.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2674
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #71 on: November 17, 2021, 06:03:35 PM »
The interesting thing about that third guy.  Rittenhouse probably has a good self defense argument there.  But suppose the other guy drew quicker.  Then he'd be the one on trial and he also has an equally good claim for self defense.

It just illustrates how insane the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is.  If everyone was armed at this protest then it would have been a bloodbath.
It illustrates the other guy actually did draw quicker as he didn't get shot until he pointed the gun at Rittenhouse.

I think you missed the point. If the 3rd guy had gotten off a shot before rittenhouse and killed him, his defense would be that he was staring down the barrel of an AR-15, felt his life was in danger, and shot in self-defense. That’s what I’m getting at with the good or bad guy with a gun. It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference.

I’m not defending the third guy. He was aiming a gun at the kid. Just curious as to what his motivation was. Did he think he was the good guy?
It is only hard for a known liar to print the truth about this issue.

It is much easier for people who know the truth to be clear thinking and know a shitbag got shot.

Yep, you definitely missed the point.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #72 on: November 17, 2021, 06:24:06 PM »
Defense moves for mistrial with prejudice:

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6625
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #73 on: November 17, 2021, 07:03:32 PM »
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7594
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #74 on: November 17, 2021, 07:07:56 PM »
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?

 A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9053
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #75 on: November 17, 2021, 07:44:33 PM »
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?

 A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?

They win and no chance of appeal as well.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Online Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 6625
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #76 on: November 17, 2021, 08:18:35 PM »
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?

 A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?

They win and no chance of appeal as well.

Ah.
Yeah that does sound like a sweet deal.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 2856
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #77 on: November 18, 2021, 12:05:29 AM »
Why would the defense want a mistrial if they're winning and the law is 100% on their side?

 A mistrial with prejudice means they can't try Kyle again, it's an automatic win, and the worst the judge can say is 'no'. Why not ask?

They win and no chance of appeal as well.

Ah.
Yeah that does sound like a sweet deal.

And one I imagine they feel they need given the fiasco this trial has been.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline junker

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 9651
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #78 on: November 18, 2021, 07:57:52 PM »
YouTube censoring the truth again smh...

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9331
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Prosecution star witness confirms Rittenhouse self-defense
« Reply #79 on: November 18, 2021, 07:58:21 PM »
The video was unsharable and I was fixing my comment, here's another video. NBC followed the jury bus and has been banned from the courtroom