Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse trial


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, The Joker said:

If he is found not guilty as most expect He will file suit for defamation starting with Joe Biden and against multiple media sources for deliberately lying about the case   

 

 

Who cares?  Legal proceedings have no meaning anymore.  Doesn't matter what the letter after the name is.  We are a banana republic making shit up as we go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ha ha ha, Americanos and their gun nutz, your gun culture is fucked. 

The fact that a young punk can present himself at a riot, parade around with an illegal assault rifle, shoots three people - (surprise surprise) and can reasonably be expect to be acquitted on grounds

I have to say that I regard anyone with a gun on their hip or slung over their shoulder walking around in public as being a threat to my life. I now include police in this generalization; I used to gi

Posted Images

It's long, but worth the read: 

 

Published Nov. 13, 2021Updated Nov. 15, 2021, 12:52 p.m. ET

As two closely watched murder trials played out in two different states this past week, juries heard strikingly similar stories: men took up guns in the name of protecting the public, and when they wound up killing unarmed people, they claimed self-defense.

In one case, Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and wounded a third in the unrest following a police shooting in Kenosha, Wis. In the other, Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, was shot after a pursuit by three white men who said they suspected him of a series of break-ins in the neighborhood. In both cases, the defendants claim they were entitled to start shooting because the victims were trying to take their guns.

“In other words, their own decision to carry a gun became a justification to use it, lest it be wrested away from them,” said Eric Ruben, an expert on the Second Amendment at the S.M.U. Dedman School of Law in Dallas.

For legal experts like Mr. Ruben and others, these two cases expose deep fault lines in the legal and moral concept of self-defense, a doctrine that is particularly cherished in America but ill-equipped to handle an era of expanded gun rights, growing political extremism, violent threats and a strong vigilante strain, all in a country where the perception of threat is heavily influenced by race.

 

“The problem is that with a citizenry armed with guns, we have blurred every line,” wrote Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, arguing in the Texas Law Review that a potent mix of “stand your ground” provisions and citizen’s arrest statutes has given people license not just to defend themselves but to go after others. “What is defense? What is reasonable? When may one stand one’s ground and when must one retreat? And, when is a citizen entitled to step in as an aggressor in the name of the state?”

The rifts have surfaced in several debates, beginning with whether openly displayed guns make the bearers feel safer at the expense of everyone else, whether brandishing a gun constitutes a criminal threat or an act of self-protection, and whether people can benefit from self-defense claims if their own actions contributed to the volatility of a situation.

 

In Michigan, elected officials clashed over whether militia members accused of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer were actually trying to make a citizen’s arrest. In St. Louis, there were arguments over whether white residents who pointed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters were committing assault or defending their homes. (They pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and harassment, then were pardoned by the governor.)

 


In a civil trial that began last month against the organizers of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, nine plaintiffs who were among those injured or traumatized are arguing that there was a plan and intent to engage in violence, while the defendants say the violence, in which one counterprotester died, was committed in self-defense.

Generally, the law provides a right to self-defense when people reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of harm, whether or not that belief is correct. For example, it may be reasonable to mistake a realistic prop gun for a real gun.

But most statutes say someone cannot claim self-defense if that person was the “initial aggressor” — in other words, if the person provoked the encounter that led to the use of force or was doing something illegal at the time. Initial aggressors may regain their claim to self-defense if they try to withdraw or back away from an encounter. And initial aggressors must actually pose a threat of imminent harm.

 

 

“If you assault someone without any justification, that constitutes provocation,” said Cynthia Ward, a law professor at the College of William & Mary. “You do not provoke an encounter if you simply demand an explanation of offensive words, or are talking about a sensitive subject, or engage in an inconsiderate act or travel near someone.”

In the Arbery case, the concept of initial aggressor is complicated by the claim by the defendants — Gregory McMichael, his son Travis McMichael and their neighbor William Bryan — that they were pursuing Mr. Arbery in an attempt to make a citizen’s arrest, and that he was shot only after he tried to grab one of their guns.

Lost in the proceedings is the voice of Mr. Arbery, who conceivably would have had his own claim to self-defense.

 

“Why is it that the perception is that if Ahmaud Arbery would have complied rather than reached for the gun that he would have lived, and therefore it was incumbent on him to comply?” asked Darrell Miller, a law professor at Duke University and the co-author of a recent paper on the inadequacy of self-defense laws. “Why isn’t the framing that Ahmaud Arbery had three guys, who he didn’t know what their intentions were, rolling up on him with guns?”

Over time in the United States, the tendency has been to expand the right to claim self-defense rather than protect those who may be harmed by misjudgments and mistakes. Castle doctrine laws — also known as “make my day” laws — give people in their own homes the presumption of self-defense if they harm an intruder. The “duty to retreat,” a mainstay of classic self-defense theory, has been eroded by “stand your ground” laws that do not require retreat for people who are in a place where they have a right to be, such as a public protest.

In many states, the burden of proof has shifted from requiring defendants to demonstrate that they acted in self-defense to requiring prosecutors to show that they did not. A new law in Utah gives defendants, except those charged with attacking a police officer, the right to request a special hearing in which prosecutors must prove that the accused was not acting in self-defense.

But while the legal framework for self-defense has expanded, experts say it has left key concepts like “initial aggressor” poorly defined. In the trial of George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in a gated community where he was visiting relatives in 2012, prosecutors argued that Mr. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, should be considered the initial aggressor. Mr. Zimmerman had identified Mr. Martin as suspicious and followed him both in his car and on foot before Mr. Martin knocked him to the ground. The jury disagreed and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman.

In that case, only Mr. Zimmerman was armed. But who is the “initial aggressor” when two armed strangers face off?

 
 
 

On the evening at issue in the Kenosha trial, Mr. Rittenhouse, now 18, was armed with a semiautomatic rifle that he was not old enough to buy. After he shot and killed a man who he thought was trying to grab his gun, as well as a man who hit him with a skateboard in an apparent attempt to stop him, a nearby paramedic named Gaige Grosskreutz put his hands in the air.

At that point, Mr. Grosskreutz testified this week, he thought Mr. Rittenhouse reracked his rifle and “wasn’t accepting my surrender.”

Mr. Grosskreutz then pointed his own handgun, which he had with him even though his concealed-carry permit had expired, toward Mr. Rittenhouse. Mr. Rittenhouse shot him in the arm.

Mr. Grosskreutz said he was “trying to save my own life.” Mr. Rittenhouse said much the same.

If one sets aside the reasons that brought each man to the parking lot that night, said Renee Jorgensen, a philosopher who has written about self-defense and what constitutes a reasonable mistake, “The way that I would treat that case is that neither wrongs the other, and neither is wronged by the other — a kind of a Wild West situation where it’s not unlike armed combatants in war.”

Of course, both Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Grosskreutz — who are white, as were the men who died — had elected to take the law into their own hands to varying degrees, offering themselves that night as private guardians of public safety.

 

Experts say self-defense, vigilantism and policing are deeply connected — all are deeply racialized American traditions in which Black people, particularly men, are more likely to be viewed as threats and white people are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

In an analysis of homicides done after Trayvon Martin’s death, the Urban Institute found that cases with a white perpetrator and a Black victim were 281 percent more likely to be ruled justified than cases with a white perpetrator and white victim.

In the Arbery case this past week, a defense lawyer objected to having high-profile Black pastors in the courtroom, calling their presence “intimidating.”

Self-defense and police use-of-force cases rely on the same standard of reasonable fear, though officers are given greater leeway than civilians. In police killings, the reasonable fear standard has often been viewed as giving officers cover for implicit bias.

Some scholars are thinking about ways to help self-defense laws adapt to a country awash in guns and counteract pervasive prejudices.

Cynthia Lee, a law professor at George Washington University who is known for her model statute on police use of force, has begun work on a universal definition of what constitutes an initial aggressor. It would add another option to laws like Wisconsin’s, which says the aggressor must have intended to provoke violence with a plan to retaliate, a difficult thing for prosecutors to prove. And it would provide for special scrutiny when guns are involved, whether or not they were legally present.

“If you display a firearm or you point it at another person, that’s a threatening act that ordinarily would give, I think, a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm,” she said.

Julie Bosman contributed reporting.

 
 

Shaila Dewan is a national reporter and editor covering criminal justice issues including prosecution, policing and incarceration. @shailadewan

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

But, don't you see? There is no context.

Kyle bringing a gun to a riot zone DOES NOT MATTER

Kyle wandering off from the relative safety of his fellow travelers DOES NOT MATTER

Kyle pointing his weapon at the crowd, and seemingly engaging in verbal jousting DOES NOT MATTER

Someone trying to take away Kyle's gun DOES matter, and Kyle can shoot them for it.

 

Switch it over to the Georgia case and they are basically saying the same thing: 

"Yeah, we chased him. Yeah, we cornered him. Yeah, we shot him BUT he grabbed for my shotgun. We were just gonna hang out and wait for the cops... What was I supposed to do?"

 

In both cases, and particularly in a SYG state such as Georgia, all the shooters need to do is say they were afraid their precious would be taken from them.

Don't forget he brandished the shotgun to "de-escalate" the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

There's the Kyle cheerleading we've come to expect. "You go kid! Kill 'em and get rich!" - pretty much a Joker quote.

 

Not cheering this situation. I replied to his life being impacted by civil suits with the absolute possibility of defamation suits being filed.  If you think this was all set up as a get rich plan you are fucking delusional.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

The prosecutor is insulting the intelligence of the jury with his made up scenarios of the intentions of KR freeze frame by freeze frame… he certainly would fit in here at PA with the liberal progressives 

Yeah.  The defense is going to destroy his closing statement.   Trying to say he decided each additional shot while knowing the first shot had already disabled Rosenbaum.  In .7 of a second?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Not cheering this situation. I replied to his life being impacted by civil suits with the absolute possibility of defamation suits being filed.  If you think this was all set up as a get rich plan you are fucking delusional.  

Ahh, so you're thinking some ambulance chasers will be ready to take on the MSM for Kyle. Yeah, good luck with that. As to your final, not sure how you made that leap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Ahh, so you're thinking some ambulance chasers will be ready to take on the MSM for Kyle. Yeah, good luck with that. As to your final, not sure how you made that leap.

I’m sure there are some pretty high powered Attorneys that will be on board.  Biden ran a commercial calling him a White  Supremacist

As to the leap From your post.  
You go kid! Kill 'em and get rich

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

What if her motivation was to not die that day?

If we're paralleling her to Rittenhouse...then he could have stayed home and not waved a big gun around, if he didn't want to die.

But you're conflating two VERY different things.

1) A woman with a gun in her purse to protect herself from individual violence which she does not seek out, but may be aimed at her in situations where she can not avid it, where she is often at a physical disadvantage. In day-to-day situations she can not avoid without living like a shut-in.

2) A 17 year old, who had previously expressed a desire to shoot criminals, crossing a state line with a large gun in his hands and a desire to...do what exactly in a community which was not his to protect?

Hardly the same situations.

If Kyle Ritterhouse "didn't want to die that day" he very easily could have avoided that but not going to a protest with a gun. He sought out a violent confrontation with his actions, even if he didn't want to die he seemed fine with the idea of making others do so.

It's not even close to a lone woman stuck at work after hours who has to get her car out of a deserted parking lot to go home or other similar situation where a woman may be motivated not to die.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, The Joker said:

Because that same guy is bicep boy.  He fucking knew he was going to the police yet he draws his gun and chases after him.  That is where any claim that he was an active shooter goes away for bicep boy.  Not to mention he actually testified that Kyle did not shoot when his hands were up. Only when he pointed his gun at Kyle's head did he fire one shot.  So that leaves skater boy who hit him twice in the head with his skate board and when he tried to do it  again for the third time, with the kid on the ground he got a Bullet in the chest.  Again one shot. 

 

No, the testimony was he turned to check out the first scene, but came back towards Kyle when Kyle shot someone else. 

 The testimony shows bicep boy was going to let him go to the police, until he shot someone else. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Burning Man said:

People chasing who they perceive as an active shooter but did not witness it are not only dumber than two men fucking (NTTAWWT) for putting themselves in danger when the threat was running away from them but also are the actions of a vigilante mob.  

Going to happen when you flee the scene of a shooting with a rifle in your hands. Nothing dumb about it at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It's long, but worth the read: 

 

Published Nov. 13, 2021Updated Nov. 15, 2021, 12:52 p.m. ET

As two closely watched murder trials played out in two different states this past week, juries heard strikingly similar stories: men took up guns in the name of protecting the public, and when they wound up killing unarmed people, they claimed self-defense.

OK I got to that bit and stopped reading. If she can't even get that correct, everything that follows is going to be based on a false premise.

At least 2 out of the 3 Rittenhouse shot were NOT unarmed. That has been thoroughly well established. One with a firearm, one with an improvised club that he had already used to hit Rittenhouse before he got shot. This is not in dispute except by people ignoring video evidence.

Play stupid games, get stupid outcomes. I personally think Rittenhouse should get convicted of stupidity & appalling judgement because he shouldn't have been there but acquitted for all those shooting offences.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

No, the testimony was he turned to check out the first scene, but came back towards Kyle when Kyle shot someone else. 

 The testimony shows bicep boy was going to let him go to the police, until he shot someone else. 

 

Nope.  Bicep boy pulled his gun and chased after him.  It’s two blocks from the first shooting to the second incident.  He was chasing him along with drop kick boy, Skater Boy and the rest of the mob.   They tried to take out a 17 year old kid lying on the ground by hitting him in his head. The whole racking  claim is completely made up to cover the fact that bicep boy tried a fake out and then was going to shoot him.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

I’m sure there are some pretty high powered Attorneys that will be on board.  Biden ran a commercial calling him a White  Supremacist

As to the leap From your post.  
You go kid! Kill 'em and get rich

 

Did he?  I never heard about that until this moment.

Gotta link/cite?

Never mind.  I just saw the Tweet.  Maybe he identified KR a part of a militia. That is part of the defense, right?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

It's long, but worth the read: 

 

Published Nov. 13, 2021Updated Nov. 15, 2021, 12:52 p.m. ET

As two closely watched murder trials played out in two different states this past week, juries heard strikingly similar stories: men took up guns in the name of protecting the public, and when they wound up killing unarmed people, they claimed self-defense.

In one case, Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and wounded a third in the unrest following a police shooting in Kenosha, Wis. In the other, Ahmaud Arbery, a Black man, was shot after a pursuit by three white men who said they suspected him of a series of break-ins in the neighborhood. In both cases, the defendants claim they were entitled to start shooting because the victims were trying to take their guns.

“In other words, their own decision to carry a gun became a justification to use it, lest it be wrested away from them,” said Eric Ruben, an expert on the Second Amendment at the S.M.U. Dedman School of Law in Dallas.

For legal experts like Mr. Ruben and others, these two cases expose deep fault lines in the legal and moral concept of self-defense, a doctrine that is particularly cherished in America but ill-equipped to handle an era of expanded gun rights, growing political extremism, violent threats and a strong vigilante strain, all in a country where the perception of threat is heavily influenced by race.

 

“The problem is that with a citizenry armed with guns, we have blurred every line,” wrote Kimberly Kessler Ferzan, a professor of law and philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, arguing in the Texas Law Review that a potent mix of “stand your ground” provisions and citizen’s arrest statutes has given people license not just to defend themselves but to go after others. “What is defense? What is reasonable? When may one stand one’s ground and when must one retreat? And, when is a citizen entitled to step in as an aggressor in the name of the state?”

The rifts have surfaced in several debates, beginning with whether openly displayed guns make the bearers feel safer at the expense of everyone else, whether brandishing a gun constitutes a criminal threat or an act of self-protection, and whether people can benefit from self-defense claims if their own actions contributed to the volatility of a situation.

In Michigan, elected officials clashed over whether militia members accused of plotting to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer were actually trying to make a citizen’s arrest. In St. Louis, there were arguments over whether white residents who pointed guns at Black Lives Matter protesters were committing assault or defending their homes. (They pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault and harassment, then were pardoned by the governor.)


In a civil trial that began last month against the organizers of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017, nine plaintiffs who were among those injured or traumatized are arguing that there was a plan and intent to engage in violence, while the defendants say the violence, in which one counterprotester died, was committed in self-defense.

Generally, the law provides a right to self-defense when people reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of harm, whether or not that belief is correct. For example, it may be reasonable to mistake a realistic prop gun for a real gun.

But most statutes say someone cannot claim self-defense if that person was the “initial aggressor” — in other words, if the person provoked the encounter that led to the use of force or was doing something illegal at the time. Initial aggressors may regain their claim to self-defense if they try to withdraw or back away from an encounter. And initial aggressors must actually pose a threat of imminent harm.

 

 

“If you assault someone without any justification, that constitutes provocation,” said Cynthia Ward, a law professor at the College of William & Mary. “You do not provoke an encounter if you simply demand an explanation of offensive words, or are talking about a sensitive subject, or engage in an inconsiderate act or travel near someone.”

In the Arbery case, the concept of initial aggressor is complicated by the claim by the defendants — Gregory McMichael, his son Travis McMichael and their neighbor William Bryan — that they were pursuing Mr. Arbery in an attempt to make a citizen’s arrest, and that he was shot only after he tried to grab one of their guns.

Lost in the proceedings is the voice of Mr. Arbery, who conceivably would have had his own claim to self-defense.

 

“Why is it that the perception is that if Ahmaud Arbery would have complied rather than reached for the gun that he would have lived, and therefore it was incumbent on him to comply?” asked Darrell Miller, a law professor at Duke University and the co-author of a recent paper on the inadequacy of self-defense laws. “Why isn’t the framing that Ahmaud Arbery had three guys, who he didn’t know what their intentions were, rolling up on him with guns?”

Over time in the United States, the tendency has been to expand the right to claim self-defense rather than protect those who may be harmed by misjudgments and mistakes. Castle doctrine laws — also known as “make my day” laws — give people in their own homes the presumption of self-defense if they harm an intruder. The “duty to retreat,” a mainstay of classic self-defense theory, has been eroded by “stand your ground” laws that do not require retreat for people who are in a place where they have a right to be, such as a public protest.

In many states, the burden of proof has shifted from requiring defendants to demonstrate that they acted in self-defense to requiring prosecutors to show that they did not. A new law in Utah gives defendants, except those charged with attacking a police officer, the right to request a special hearing in which prosecutors must prove that the accused was not acting in self-defense.

But while the legal framework for self-defense has expanded, experts say it has left key concepts like “initial aggressor” poorly defined. In the trial of George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin, a Black teenager, in a gated community where he was visiting relatives in 2012, prosecutors argued that Mr. Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, should be considered the initial aggressor. Mr. Zimmerman had identified Mr. Martin as suspicious and followed him both in his car and on foot before Mr. Martin knocked him to the ground. The jury disagreed and acquitted Mr. Zimmerman.

In that case, only Mr. Zimmerman was armed. But who is the “initial aggressor” when two armed strangers face off?

 
 

On the evening at issue in the Kenosha trial, Mr. Rittenhouse, now 18, was armed with a semiautomatic rifle that he was not old enough to buy. After he shot and killed a man who he thought was trying to grab his gun, as well as a man who hit him with a skateboard in an apparent attempt to stop him, a nearby paramedic named Gaige Grosskreutz put his hands in the air.

At that point, Mr. Grosskreutz testified this week, he thought Mr. Rittenhouse reracked his rifle and “wasn’t accepting my surrender.”

Mr. Grosskreutz then pointed his own handgun, which he had with him even though his concealed-carry permit had expired, toward Mr. Rittenhouse. Mr. Rittenhouse shot him in the arm.

Mr. Grosskreutz said he was “trying to save my own life.” Mr. Rittenhouse said much the same.

If one sets aside the reasons that brought each man to the parking lot that night, said Renee Jorgensen, a philosopher who has written about self-defense and what constitutes a reasonable mistake, “The way that I would treat that case is that neither wrongs the other, and neither is wronged by the other — a kind of a Wild West situation where it’s not unlike armed combatants in war.”

Of course, both Mr. Rittenhouse and Mr. Grosskreutz — who are white, as were the men who died — had elected to take the law into their own hands to varying degrees, offering themselves that night as private guardians of public safety.

Experts say self-defense, vigilantism and policing are deeply connected — all are deeply racialized American traditions in which Black people, particularly men, are more likely to be viewed as threats and white people are more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

In an analysis of homicides done after Trayvon Martin’s death, the Urban Institute found that cases with a white perpetrator and a Black victim were 281 percent more likely to be ruled justified than cases with a white perpetrator and white victim.

In the Arbery case this past week, a defense lawyer objected to having high-profile Black pastors in the courtroom, calling their presence “intimidating.”

Self-defense and police use-of-force cases rely on the same standard of reasonable fear, though officers are given greater leeway than civilians. In police killings, the reasonable fear standard has often been viewed as giving officers cover for implicit bias.

Some scholars are thinking about ways to help self-defense laws adapt to a country awash in guns and counteract pervasive prejudices.

Cynthia Lee, a law professor at George Washington University who is known for her model statute on police use of force, has begun work on a universal definition of what constitutes an initial aggressor. It would add another option to laws like Wisconsin’s, which says the aggressor must have intended to provoke violence with a plan to retaliate, a difficult thing for prosecutors to prove. And it would provide for special scrutiny when guns are involved, whether or not they were legally present.

“If you display a firearm or you point it at another person, that’s a threatening act that ordinarily would give, I think, a reasonable apprehension of death or serious bodily harm,” she said.

Julie Bosman contributed reporting.

 

Shaila Dewan is a national reporter and editor covering criminal justice issues including prosecution, policing and incarceration. @shailadewan

There's a something in that that is key, having a gun in a fight completely changes the game, you have to defend it, which takes at least one hand. That means you pretty much have to use it too. "The Great Escalator". 

 Where skateboard boy fucked up was in choosing to use a weapon, a very typical mistake. There is an ingrained fear of close contact which has to be trained out of people, should have landed right on top of Kyle and with both hands on the barrel of the rifle. Gotta hug em. 

This is where I got in a lot of arguments about Judo which some feel is next to useless because it has no striking and a lot of other effective stuff is illegal. True, but it's the ideal starting point because it overcomes that ingrained fear of close contact, so it's a great first step, particularly for those who didn't play football in HS. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

He wont find one because as usual he is just repeating RW bullshit.  Go Team Goebbels!

See the Tweet above, which is about The Former Guy's refusal to disavow white supremacists and militia groups.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Nope.  Bicep boy pulled his gun and chased after him.  It’s two blocks from the first shooting to the second incident.  He was chasing him along with drop kick boy, Skater Boy and the rest of the mob.   They tried to take out a 17 year old kid lying on the ground by hitting him in his head. The whole racking  claim is completely made up to cover the fact that bicep boy tried a fake out and then was going to shoot him.  

No, he testified he turned to go to the first shooting scene. Chased after him after the second shooting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

See the Tweet above, which is about The Former Guy's refusal to disavow white supremacists and militia groups.

Yeah, I have already seen that crap debunked before - the Yolkers of the world happily lap up the slop and spit it out on que.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

No, he testified he turned to go to the first shooting scene. Chased after him after the second shooting. 

Sorry Mark you are wrong.  He was seen in the video charging when skater boy was shot  that was over a block from where Kyle told him he was going to the police. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, d'ranger said:

Yeah, I have already seen that crap debunked before - the Yolkers of the world happily lap up the slop and spit it out on que.

Yep.  They are careful to tease out specific word choices and demand context when defending the team.

In this case, he is sure President Biden was referring specifically to KR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, d'ranger said:

Yeah, I have already seen that crap debunked before - the Yolkers of the world happily lap up the slop and spit it out on que.

Nothing was debunked 

The comments stemmed from a video Biden tweeted in September 2020 when he was a presidential candidate, which included an image of Rittenhouse carrying AR-15 rifle with the caption: “There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night.”The post targeted former President Donald Trump for refusing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups during the Sept. 29 presidential debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

That's a deflection, mate. That is dis-ingenuity. We have your own words and ideas coming back to haunt you. Need a cite? You said that citizens wasting 26 perps would be a good start. Is that what you teach, as a self-proclaimed firearms instructor?

 

 

Please consider the logic of the original law, from the 1300's. When in a public area, LE is available, and citizen witnesses can and will help sort the matter in court, LATER. The idea is to settle the matter, impartially, in a setting where emotions and anger are not in play. The law looked unfavorably upon public violence, intentionally. If they had not done so, experience had shown that the Jeffie/Kyle element would get carried away.

Hmmm, you are not about "stopping the threat," either. In your words, today, you say flat-out that you are making weapon choices to kill here. Do you ever listen to yourself?

 

Neither 911, nor due process, ever plays into your self-defense arsenal. Yet these are the functional basics in civilized societies.

 

The only people who instigated the violence in this story are/were the people chasing and attacking KR with deadly weapons.  Story..... end of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Sorry Mark you are wrong.  He was seen in the video charging when skater boy was shot  that was over a block from where Kyle told him he was going to the police. 

Citation needed, not that the statement he was over a block away doesn't prove my point about when the conversation between bicep boy and Kyle took place, or anything. Funny how badly you want to paint him as a wild man with a gun looking for vigilante justice. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Joker said:

Nothing was debunked 

The comments stemmed from a video Biden tweeted in September 2020 when he was a presidential candidate, which included an image of Rittenhouse carrying AR-15 rifle with the caption: “There’s no other way to put it: the President of the United States refused to disavow white supremacists on the debate stage last night.”The post targeted former President Donald Trump for refusing to condemn white supremacists and militia groups during the Sept. 29 presidential debate.

Thanks for proving my point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Please consider the logic of the original law, from the 1300's. When in a public area, LE is available, and citizen witnesses can and will help sort the matter in court, LATER. The idea is to settle the matter, impartially, in a setting where emotions and anger are not in play. The law looked unfavorably upon public violence, intentionally. If they had not done so, experience had shown that the Jeffie/Kyle element would get carried away.

These United States of 'Murica - 1 each - was not founded in the 1300s.  Laws from another country do not matter or have bearing on what was intended when the Big Connie was written.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Yep.  They are careful to tease out specific word choices and demand context when defending the team.

In this case, he is sure President Biden was referring specifically to KR.

Yeah the image of Rittenhouse holding the AR in the same sentence as White Supremacist is a tease. 
The efforts you guys go through to make excuses for your team is fucking hilarious 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Self-defense - the new way to attack someone, then kill that someone and get away with it.

Who did kyle attack?  It's sorta hard to "attack" anyone as you're running away from them.  

image.png.7ce4b5d9dc376dc6be4a276df3c5a655.png

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Yeah the image of Rittenhouse holding the AR in the same sentence as White Supremacist is a tease. 
The efforts you guys go through to make excuses for your team is fucking hilarious 

Thank you for providing a stellar example of your selective reading comprehension.

The same sentence that also includes "militia groups"?  And, the defense indicates that is how he was functioning in Kenosha, right?

Screen Shot 2021-11-15 at 4.16.22 PM.png

As for the rhetoric and the image of KR, well, nope.

Screen Shot 2021-11-15 at 4.17.47 PM.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

Thank you for providing a stellar example of your selective reading comprehension.

The same sentence that also includes "militia groups"?  And, the defense indicates that is how he was functioning in Kenosha, right?

Screen Shot 2021-11-15 at 4.16.22 PM.png

Well you guys think all militias are White Supremacists.  So thanks for making my point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

OK I got to that bit and stopped reading. If she can't even get that correct, everything that follows is going to be based on a false premise.

At least 2 out of the 3 Rittenhouse shot were NOT unarmed. That has been thoroughly well established. One with a firearm, one with an improvised club that he had already used to hit Rittenhouse before he got shot. This is not in dispute except by people ignoring video evidence.

Play stupid games, get stupid outcomes. I personally think Rittenhouse should get convicted of stupidity & appalling judgement because he shouldn't have been there but acquitted for all those shooting offences.

FKT

Not sure if you noticed but she doesn't say he should go to jail, or not go to jail. She doesn't address that at all. She points out that what's really on trial is our definition of "Self Defense" - from Zimmerman, to Kyle, to the Georgia 3.

Do we really want "Self Defense" to mean what it now seems to mean(and the jury will help define), which is you have no responsibility for your actions, as long as someone else "fights back" and you're in "fear"?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mark K said:

There's a something in that that is key, having a gun in a fight completely changes the game, you have to defend it, which takes at least one hand. That means you pretty much have to use it too. "The Great Escalator". 

 Where skateboard boy fucked up was in choosing to use a weapon, a very typical mistake. There is an ingrained fear of close contact which has to be trained out of people, should have landed right on top of Kyle and with both hands on the barrel of the rifle. Gotta hug em. 

This is where I got in a lot of arguments about Judo which some feel is next to useless because it has no striking and a lot of other effective stuff is illegal. True, but it's the ideal starting point because it overcomes that ingrained fear of close contact, so it's a great first step, particularly for those who didn't play football in HS. 

Never thought about my judo training that way, makes sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Switch it over to the Georgia case and they are basically saying the same thing: 

"Yeah, we chased him. Yeah, we cornered him. Yeah, we shot him BUT he grabbed for my shotgun. We were just gonna hang out and wait for the cops... What was I supposed to do?"

 

In both cases, and particularly in a SYG state such as Georgia, all the shooters need to do is say they were afraid their precious would be taken from them.

What you're describing in the GA case is the 3 GA boyz were the analogue of the attackers who chased KR down and cornered him.  The difference is that there is video evadents of KR being chased and cornered and KR was able to defend himself.  Had KR not been armed or had they been able to get his gun away from him and kill him..... those three in Kenosha would likely be in the same boat as the GA 3. 

And FTR - I do not think the GA three get off.  My bet is they are convicted on all counts.  You cannot attack someone and then claim self defense.  KR was NOT the attacker, the three he shot were the attackers.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Never thought about my judo training that way, makes sense.

The one great example that springs to mind is the SS take-down of Hinkley after he shot Reagan, there's a guy with a gun and look at the instant pig-pile. Every one of those agents was packing, but only those clearly too far away were dragging them out. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

But most statutes say someone cannot claim self-defense if that person was the “initial aggressor” — in other words, if the person provoked the encounter that led to the use of force or was doing something illegal at the time. Initial aggressors may regain their claim to self-defense if they try to withdraw or back away from an encounter. And initial aggressors must actually pose a threat of imminent harm.

And this paragraph is where your argument fails completely.  KR was NOT the initial aggressor.  Carrying a slung rifle on your back is neither illegal nor is it an act of aggression in and of itself.  There is zero evadents he pointed it at the crowd or otherwise threatened anyone with it until he was a attacked.  Kyle was not the initiator of the violence, he was responding to the violence and threat to HIM. 

That's where the GA 3 are in jeopardy.....  they initiated the aggression.  They cannot then use SYG as a get out of jail card.  Nor can KR's attacker claim self-defense when they were the ones chasing him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

These United States of 'Murica - 1 each - was not founded in the 1300s.  Laws from another country do not matter or have bearing on what was intended when the Big Connie was written.

Both the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were based largely on The Magna Carta.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the November 9th edition of The New Yorker, The Talk of The Town had an article on Owsley Stanley and his recording of Johnny Cash in 1968 at The Carousel Ball Room in San Francisco, just before he did the Folsom Prison recording.

One of the Songs is "Don't Take Your Guns To Town".  It's a song about a mother who pleads with her son not to, but he has to prove he doesn't have a little dick.  He didn't go on trial, he just ended up dead.

After listening to part of the defendant's mother's interview, she wasn't enough of a mother to give him that advice.

When you take it to town, it's generally a bad choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I’ve provided cites through out this thread. Asked and answered. 

Yes, you did. This one:

Quote

 Grosskreutz said he briefly started to go back to where Rittenhouse was running from to see if he could find the person who was shot but then decided to follow Rittenhouse when people started yelling he had just shot someone.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

And this paragraph is where your argument fails completely.  KR was NOT the initial aggressor.  Carrying a slung rifle on your back is neither illegal nor is it an act of aggression in and of itself.  There is zero evadents he pointed it at the crowd or otherwise threatened anyone with it until he was a attacked.  Kyle was not the initiator of the violence, he was responding to the violence and threat to HIM. 

That's where the GA 3 are in jeopardy.....  they initiated the aggression.  They cannot then use SYG as a get out of jail card.  Nor can KR's attacker claim self-defense when they were the ones chasing him.

You miss the point, as always.

There is testimony Kyle aimed his gun at the crowd (hell, could've just turned with it held up a bit in a ready pose and would've looked like he pointed at the crowd) and there is testimony he argued with the crowd. Jury will decide if he did anything to initiate contact.

Then, there is the "get out of jail free" card for Kyle, which, even if he did initiate the hostilities, he had the right to shoot when they came for his precious.

 

The Georgia 3 are making the case they were chasing an attempted burglar, and it didn't get ugly till the guy grabbed for the shotgun.

 

Again, the jury will decide. 

 

I think Kyle will walk, and am 50/50 on the Georgia 3, but then again, I thought Zimmerman was going to do a lot of time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not My Real Name said:

But you're conflating two VERY different things.

1) A woman with a gun in her purse to protect herself from individual violence which she does not seek out, but may be aimed at her in situations where she can not avid it, where she is often at a physical disadvantage. In day-to-day situations she can not avoid without living like a shut-in.

No no no.  You're conflating something that doesn't exist because you joined the convo late.  My example of the woman carrying a gun in her purse to go to work was a direct shot at @jocal505 for saying specifically in past threads that she was a vigilante simply by carrying the gun.  He has specifically and clearly said that the very act of carrying that weapon changes her mental mindset into one of a vigilante.  My post on that had ZERO to do with KR's actions but rather a reflection that joey is not only inconsistent but also a hypocritical bitch.  He says the actions by the 3 attackers who tried to stop KR that night were NOT vigilantes - even though they clearly are - while saying the soccer mom IS a vigilante simply by choosing to protect herself by carrying a gun in her purse to/from work.  

See the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

You miss the point, as always.

There is testimony Kyle aimed his gun at the crowd (hell, could've just turned with it held up a bit in a ready pose and would've looked like he pointed at the crowd) and there is testimony he argued with the crowd. Jury will decide if he did anything to initiate contact.

Then, there is the "get out of jail free" card for Kyle, which, even if he did initiate the hostilities, he had the right to shoot when they came for his precious.

 

The Georgia 3 are making the case they were chasing an attempted burglar, and it didn't get ugly till the guy grabbed for the shotgun.  That's when the SYG gets reset. The way the Wisconsin law and Georgia law are written is similar. You can't claim Self Defense if you initiate, but you CAN if you try to disengage and then get dragged back into it. Shotgun dude will likely say "Everything was fine. He just had to chill out and wait for the cops. I don't know why he attacked, but when he did, I have every right to defend myself"

 

Again, the jury will decide. 

 

I think Kyle will walk, and am 50/50 on the Georgia 3, but then again, I thought Zimmerman was going to do a lot of time. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

No no no.  You're conflating something that doesn't exist because you joined the convo late.  My example of the woman carrying a gun in her purse to go to work was a direct shot at @jocal505 for saying specifically in past threads that she was a vigilante simply by carrying the gun.  He has specifically and clearly said that the very act of carrying that weapon changes her mental mindset into one of a vigilante.  My post on that had ZERO to do with KR's actions but rather a reflection that joey is not only inconsistent but also a hypocritical bitch.  He says the actions by the 3 attackers who tried to stop KR that night were NOT vigilantes - even though they clearly are - while saying the soccer mom IS a vigilante simply by choosing to protect herself by carrying a gun in her purse to/from work.  

See the difference?

Anyone who carries a gun to work is a fucking nut.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

No no no.  You're conflating something that doesn't exist because you joined the convo late.  My example of the woman carrying a gun in her purse to go to work was a direct shot at @jocal505 for saying specifically in past threads that she was a vigilante simply by carrying the gun.  He has specifically and clearly said that the very act of carrying that weapon changes her mental mindset into one of a vigilante.  My post on that had ZERO to do with KR's actions but rather a reflection that joey is not only inconsistent but also a hypocritical bitch.  He says the actions by the 3 attackers who tried to stop KR that night were NOT vigilantes - even though they clearly are - while saying the soccer mom IS a vigilante simply by choosing to protect herself by carrying a gun in her purse to/from work.  

See the difference?

I think you're getting me confused with Jocal. I've never said anything about the pistol-packin momma, and I don't think Jocal's jumped into the Georgia 3 conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Then, there is the "get out of jail free" card for Kyle, which, even if he did initiate the hostilities, he had the right to shoot when they came for his precious.

 

OMG.  RIF!!!!  Even your own article says that the initiator of the aggression is not entitled to Self-defense.  He was not.  The GA 3 were the aggressors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I think you're getting me confused with Jocal. I've never said anything about the pistol-packin momma, and I don't think Jocal's jumped into the Georgia 3 conversation.

And you have a reading comprehension problem, that seems to be getting worse btw.  Just saying.  Go and look at who I responded to.  hint.... it wasn't you.  Dumbass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

OMG.  RIF!!!!  Even your own article says that the initiator of the aggression is not entitled to Self-defense.  He was not.  The GA 3 were the aggressors.

What if two of them were trying to stop an active shooter fleeing the scene? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

OMG.  RIF!!!!  Even your own article says that the initiator of the aggression is not entitled to Self-defense.  He was not.  The GA 3 were the aggressors.

Did they? Who threw the first punch? I agree that if the law was moral and just, these fuckheads would stay in prison until they were in the same state of decomposition at their victim, but that's not the law. Remember, Zimmerman chased down Martin, but Martin threw the first punch, therefore, he deserved to die. At least in Florida. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Ok I can see where you are coming from.  Those yelling he just shot someone are referring to Rosenbaum 

What's the problem with taking down an active shooter fleeing the scene of a shooting? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

What's the problem with taking down an active shooter fleeing the scene of a shooting? 

Clearly, if the shooter is running away you must let him go, cause he's a good guy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mark K said:

What's the problem with taking down an active shooter fleeing the scene of a shooting? 

You claimed he only engaged after the second shooting.  Now we are talking about an active shooter.   He was not by any definition an active shooter.   He ran two blocks after defending himself from a maniac. He ran past dozens of people he never fired a shot. Didn’t even point his gun at them.   He fired his second shots after being engaged by the mob. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Clearly, if the shooter is running away you must let him go, cause he's a good guy.

When he is running directly to the police down the middle of the street.  Yeah that is exactly what should have happened.  I thought you had a problem with vigilantes 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You claimed he only engaged after the second shooting.  Now we are talking about an active shooter.   He was not by any definition an active shooter.   He ran two blocks after defending himself from a maniac. He ran past dozens of people he never fired a shot. Didn’t even point his gun at them.   He fired his second shots after being engaged by the mob. 

 Why was Kyle above suspicion of being a active shooter fleeing the scene of him shooting someone?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Joker said:

When he is running directly to the police down the middle of the street.  Yeah that is exactly what should have happened.  I thought you had a problem with vigilantes 

Sorry, you can't play the 

"Only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" card

AND the

"How would you really know that the guy who just shot 2 guys is bad? Huh, how?" card.
 

You're going to have to pick. Either you think we are all armed and can collectively defend ourselves, or that's just a stupid idea and we should stop playing John McClane.

(and Bicep boy was Option 1, but we know option 1 is problematic as cops shoot guys who choose option 1)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mark K said:

 Why was Kyle above suspicion of being a active shooter fleeing the scene of him shooting someone?  

 

I'm pretty sure that if a cop had been in Bicep boy's place, Kyle would be dead. Like John Hurley:

 

“Our role was to look at the facts and compare them to law. The officer here had objectively reasonable grounds to believe — and did believe — that he and other people were in imminent danger of being killed,” King said. “The officer’s decision to shoot John Hurley was legally justified, despite his heroic actions that day.”

The incident started when Troyke, 59, shot and killed Beesley in the Olde Town Arvada square, after the officer had been called to investigate a suspicious person in the area. Police later said Troyke had left behind a four-page note, explaining his hatred for police and his intent to harm Arvada police officers.

Hurley was in an Army surplus store when he heard the shots and, according to police, ran outside and fatally shot Troyke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Sorry Mark you are wrong.  He was seen in the video charging when skater boy was shot  that was over a block from where Kyle told him he was going to the police. 

Citation needed, not that the statement he was over a block away doesn't prove my point about when the conversation between bicep boy and Kyle took place, or anything. Funny how badly you want to paint him as a wild man with a gun looking for vigilante justice. 

Biceps boy and Kyle were both brandishing their guns in self defense. The difference is that biceps boy was standing next to somebody that Kyle had just shot; and when he aimed at Kyle he decided not to shoot.

This is what 3 different witnesses testified, including biceps boy; among the few clips of the trial showed on the news other than brief snippets of Kyle's.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm pretty sure that if a cop had been in Bicep boy's place, Kyle would be dead. Like John Hurley:

 

“Our role was to look at the facts and compare them to law. The officer here had objectively reasonable grounds to believe — and did believe — that he and other people were in imminent danger of being killed,” King said. “The officer’s decision to shoot John Hurley was legally justified, despite his heroic actions that day.”

The incident started when Troyke, 59, shot and killed Beesley in the Olde Town Arvada square, after the officer had been called to investigate a suspicious person in the area. Police later said Troyke had left behind a four-page note, explaining his hatred for police and his intent to harm Arvada police officers.

Hurley was in an Army surplus store when he heard the shots and, according to police, ran outside and fatally shot Troyke.

How's this relevant?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

How's this relevant?

Trying to point out to The Joke that even professionals cannot tell "good guys with guns" from "bad guys with guns" in real life. And there was no riot to distract the cop in Hurley's case. Expecting Bicep guy to be better than a cop at differentiating during a riot? Monday Morning QB'ing extraordinaire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I'm pretty sure that if a cop had been in Bicep boy's place, Kyle would be dead. Like John Hurley:

 

“Our role was to look at the facts and compare them to law. The officer here had objectively reasonable grounds to believe — and did believe — that he and other people were in imminent danger of being killed,” King said. “The officer’s decision to shoot John Hurley was legally justified, despite his heroic actions that day.”

The incident started when Troyke, 59, shot and killed Beesley in the Olde Town Arvada square, after the officer had been called to investigate a suspicious person in the area. Police later said Troyke had left behind a four-page note, explaining his hatred for police and his intent to harm Arvada police officers.

Hurley was in an Army surplus store when he heard the shots and, according to police, ran outside and fatally shot Troyke.

  Kyle is all but sure to dodge the murder raps, but IMO he's still at significant risk of getting stuck with reckless endangerment. He ran into a riot alone sporting a rifle, and as a minor in the illegal possession of that firearm. Everything that happened afterwards could be viewed as a direct result of that illegal and profoundly stupid action. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  Kyle is all but sure to dodge the murder raps, but IMO he's still at significant risk of getting stuck with reckless endangerment. He ran into a riot alone sporting a rifle, and as a minor in the illegal possession of that firearm. Everything that happened afterwards could be viewed as a direct result of that illegal and profoundly stupid action. 

 

I may be incorrect, but I think the judge dismissed the firearms carry charges today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I may be incorrect, but I think the judge dismissed the firearms carry charges today.

You are correct

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge-judge-jury-instructions-20211115-grgmffpwsnf3tbw7ezizjkfaxa-story.html

 

what next for Judge Schroeder, declare Rittenhouse man of the year and give him a parade and the keys to the city?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mark K said:

  Kyle is all but sure to dodge the murder raps, but IMO he's still at significant risk of getting stuck with reckless endangerment. He ran into a riot alone sporting a rifle, and as a minor in the illegal possession of that firearm. Everything that happened afterwards could be viewed as a direct result of that illegal and profoundly stupid action. 

 

Judge ruled it was legal for him to have the gun.  The law also states that if he was entitled to self defense any part of that incident is not reckless endangerment.    So unless they convict count 1 count 2 reckless endangerment cannot apply. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Judge ruled it was legal for him to have the gun.  The law also states that if he was entitled to self defense any part of that incident is not reckless endangerment.    So unless they convict count 1 count 2 reckless endangerment cannot apply. 

The judge also stated they didn't have to convict on the most serious charges but could substitute in other charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fat Point Jack said:

In the November 9th edition of The New Yorker, The Talk of The Town had an article on Owsley Stanley and his recording of Johnny Cash in 1968 at The Carousel Ball Room in San Francisco, just before he did the Folsom Prison recording.

One of the Songs is "Don't Take Your Guns To Town".  It's a song about a mother who pleads with her son not to, but he has to prove he doesn't have a little dick.  He didn't go on trial, he just ended up dead.

After listening to part of the defendant's mother's interview, she wasn't enough of a mother to give him that advice.

When you take it to town, it's generally a bad choice.

Maybe the only relevant post in this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The prosecutor compared it to a bar fight then told the jury Like you have been involved in.  WTF?  He also pointed the AR 15 directly at the jury.  Maybe he should take an NRA Class. 
Rebuttal.  Ok forget about what my partner said for 2 hours.  I don’t care about provoking.   Now they are claiming he should have taken on Rosenbaum hand to hand.  They are completely inept. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

Does he honor a bet, cause you as shit didn't.

There is honor among Thebes.

Link to post
Share on other sites