Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse trial


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, chum said:

Well that’s no bs, it was a long time ago. 

in a galaxy far far away...................

Say goodnight Chumly.

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

4 hours ago, Mark K said:

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

Because the body of Self-Defense laws, as I understand it and I don't claim to be a legal scholar on this.... but this is what I've been taught in CCW classes over the years is that: Legal Self defense comes into play when you or others are directly threatened.  Once that threat is moving away and are no longer directly threatening you or others - then you must cease any aggression or pursuit.  You put yourself into a very grey legal area as to whether your right to SD is still in effect or not.  So the common wisdom (if not law) is that you disengage when the threat is no longer an issue to you or others in your immediate vicinity. 

Chasing someone for a couple of blocks, to me, totally violates that premise.  KR was not threatening anyone as he was jogging along the road to the police line.  What I worry about in the actions of the mob is that unless any of them pursuing KR directly witnessed the first shooting AND could assess that he was the aggressor - pursuing and then attacking him puts the mob at risk of getting shot (and rightfully so) because he has every right to SD because the rest of the mob didn't see it happen - it puts any armed citizen at huge risk who might have earlier stopped a crime or active shooter but the mob interprets it differently.  So the basic tenets of SD are 1) don't be the aggressor and 2) disengage when there is no longer a threat to you or others immediately around you.  If the threat starts running away, maybe follow at a safe distance, call 911 and get your camera rolling.  

But unarmed folks or even armed with skateboards are fucking stupid for trying to take down someone with an AR-15.  That was some darwinism going on there.  

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

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

No, You must let him go because he is no longer a threat to you and your Self-Defense get out of jail free card ended/

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

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

 

Except that when he initially aimed at KR and KR aimed back at him - shitbag bicep(less) boi then pulled back and gave the "I surrender, we're all good" sign and then as soon as KR lowered his gun bicep(less) drew down on him again - which is what got him shot.  Had he backed away and gave no more menacing moves towards KR, his arm would be intact.  He was attempting to be a vigilante that night.  How's that work out for him?

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

Except that when he initially aimed at KR and KR aimed back at him - shitbag bicep(less) boi then pulled back and gave the "I surrender, we're all good" sign and then as soon as KR lowered his gun bicep(less) drew down on him again - which is what got him shot.  Had he backed away and gave no more menacing moves towards KR, his arm would be intact.  He was attempting to be a vigilante that night.  How's that work out for him?

That's contrary to what he testified, from the news I saw.

- DSK

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

Oh well then, that’s different, no danger there.

Seriously, I love it. He threatens them and asks if they feel threatened. WTF?

puts them in the mind of the skateboarder, etc. Well, shit, that really is a threat...

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

No, You must let him go because he is no longer a threat to you and your Self-Defense get out of jail free card ended/

Cause when they have a bit of space, they can't stop, turn around and fire. Right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's contrary to what he testified, from the news I saw.

- DSK

Says an awful lot about your sources.  I’m guessing MSNBC because they flat out lied about his testimony, claimed he had his arms raised when he was shot.  

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

That was a Perry Mason moment.  It will probably show up in law schools as how to conduct a cross examination.  The prosecutions body language response was classic. 

What body language?

image.thumb.png.cf984af5e03c774225374bfe8b36d161.png

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

  Had he backed away and gave no more menacing moves towards KR, his arm would be intact.  He was attempting to be a vigilante that night.  How's that work out for him?

Maybe your police officers need to take a leaf from that book of yours and left the black guy in the car alone.:rolleyes:

"He was attempting to be a vigilante that night.  How's that work out for him?"

Who are you talking about now? Rittenhouse or the other guy?

Seriously, this thread is bizarre.

it takes a lot to beat some of the logical acrobatics one finds on some of the threads here, bit this one beats all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ShortForBob said:

Maybe your police officers need to take a leaf from that book of yours and left the black guy in the car alone.:rolleyes:

"He was attempting to be a vigilante that night.  How's that work out for him?"

Who are you talking about now? Rittenhouse or the other guy?

Seriously, this thread is bizarre.

it takes a lot to beat some of the logical acrobatics one finds on some of the threads here, bit this one beats all.

I agree 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BravoBravo said:

Pointing directly at the jury … intimation? 

must be a liberal anti gun nj like the movie guy . 
101 stuff 

never put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire 

 

AAD325D4-7AB3-4DD6-A06C-C2389B9EB026.jpeg

This genius also suggested that firing "warning shots" over the crowd would have been appropriate. The good news for someone with his level of gun knowledge? I hear Alec Baldwin is looking for an armorer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 86 explains the disconnect.

Quote

 

But, on page 23, you say that in founding-era America, legal reference guides advised local officials to "arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed."  And this is a citation to John Haywood, A Manual of the Laws of North Carolina, 1814.

 So I looked at this manual, and what it actually says is "you shall arrest all such persons as in your sight shall ride or go armed offensively."  And somehow that word "offensively" got dropped

 

It got dropped because it's irrelevant and goes without saying. Someone who is armed is offensive, period. (Unless, of course, they have a badge and/or impeccable TeamD credentials.)

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

I just learned something. I don’t know if it is universal or particular to Wisconsin. Twelve jurors will be randomly picked out of the 18 that sat through the trial to deliberate and reach a verdict 

Sounds like the best way to do it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hrothgar said:

I read this AM that the judge dismissed the gun charge which was a class A misdemeanor...seems odd as that was the only thing that appeared to be a slam dunk for the prosecution.

Hroth

I was told this is likely because Wisconsin allows underage individuals to carry under the supervision of adults (not sure of specific legalese).  Kinda like why it was okay for him to be in a bar, drinking alcohol.

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

I was told this is likely because Wisconsin allows underage individuals to carry under the supervision of adults (not sure of specific legalese).  Kinda like why it was okay for him to be in a bar, drinking alcohol.

From the AP--EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge? (msn.com)

Apparently its OK to carry an AR-15 but not a sawed off shotgun...

Hroth

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

it puts any armed citizen at huge risk who might have earlier stopped a crime or active shooter but the mob interprets it differently. 

This is the prob Jeffy..  The risk is mitigated by simply not having normal citizens cary gunz.   No gunz, no shootings...  Simple no??  

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

To be fair, I’m pretty sure the law was written to deal with hunting in mind, not roaming the streets during a riot. 

Actually, the law has something to do with quelling gang violence...from the link above....

But Rittenhouse's attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled. The language stems from a bill that then-Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson signed in 1991. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence around that time. Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini said the law was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns.

Hroth

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well media Bias shows up again. 
FOX covers closing statements for both sides and the prosecutions rebuttal 

CNN covers closing for Prosecution skips first Hour of Defense then shows the end and prosecution rebuttal 

MSNBC covers closing for Prosecution skips all of the defense closing 

This is the same crap that has been going on for a year and explains why so many Americans have opinions that do not line up with the facts. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hrothgar said:

Actually, the law has something to do with quelling gang violence...from the link above....

But Rittenhouse's attorneys seized on a subsection of the Wisconsin law that states the ban on minors possessing dangerous weapons applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns only if those weapons are short-barreled. The language stems from a bill that then-Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson signed in 1991. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence around that time. Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini said the law was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns.

Hroth

 

Yes, but it specifically ignored standard length shot guns and rifles, you know, hunting guns. Otherwise you’d be able to arrest tens of thousands of minors every time deer hunting season rolls around. 

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

Well media Bias shows up again. 
FOX covers closing statements for both sides and the prosecutions rebuttal 

CNN covers closing for Prosecution skips first Hour of Defense then shows the end and prosecution rebuttal 

MSNBC covers closing for Prosecution skips all of the defense closing 

This is the same crap that has been going on for a year and explains why so many Americans have opinions that do not line up with the facts. 

314350_image.jpg

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

Well media Bias shows up again. 
FOX covers closing statements for both sides and the prosecutions rebuttal 

CNN covers closing for Prosecution skips first Hour of Defense then shows the end and prosecution rebuttal 

MSNBC covers closing for Prosecution skips all of the defense closing 

This is the same crap that has been going on for a year and explains why so many Americans have opinions that do not line up with the facts. 

Umm, no one but fox viewers want to sit through a trial. Ratings would fall through the floor. Hell, I can't see why anyone would watch that shit anyway. But Court TV has a following, so who knows?

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

Well media Bias shows up again. 
FOX covers closing statements for both sides and the prosecutions rebuttal 

CNN covers closing for Prosecution skips first Hour of Defense then shows the end and prosecution rebuttal 

MSNBC covers closing for Prosecution skips all of the defense closing 

This is the same crap that has been going on for a year and explains why so many Americans have opinions that do not line up with the facts. 

So, NOW you are concerned about how each media outlet is covering it and find fault when they are not all giving it equal time/attention.

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

But unarmed folks or even armed with skateboards are fucking stupid for trying to take down someone with an AR-15.  That was some darwinism going on there.  

I'm having a struggle with calling these assholes "victims" too. Here's the three killed or injured. I'll admit to being impressed with Huber's smile in his booking photo. I haven't followed this case. Are these 3 AntiFas? I ask because they appear to be plain ol Fas to me.

Image

Again, pardon my ignorance ... KR kills two or three bonified assholes and blacks will riot if he walks? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

I'm having a struggle with calling these assholes "victims" too. Here's the three killed or injured. I'll admit to being impressed with Huber's smile in his booking photo. I haven't followed this case. Are these 3 AntiFas? I ask because they appear to be plain ol Fas to me.

Image

Again, pardon my ignorance ... KR kills two or three bonified assholes and blacks will riot if he walks? 

He was defending the property owned by the brown people.

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

Curious why you didn’t address the point?

I was not aware I needed to respond to each and every topic in a way you find acceptable.

Regardless, I am wondering if The Joker is appreciative of your interjecting yourself on his behalf.

Is he one of these "buddies" you've been talking about?

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

Gunz don’t kill people 

any more than trains planes boats cars or any other inanimate object 

Momma Always Said Sometimes You Just Can't Fix Stupid Gump Stupid -  Quickmeme | You Meme on ME.ME

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

Please explain.

CNN, Fox, MSNBC et al are businesses. Their customers are their viewers. They show what their viewers want. Else, no business.  Really quite easy to understand if you take your political slant out of it.

"Why doesn't CNN show Rittenhouse's defense team?" - Cause CNN viewers will shut off the TV. Duh.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

CNN, Fox, MSNBC et al are businesses. Their customers are their viewers. They show what their viewers want. Else, no business.  Really quite easy to understand if you take your political slant out of it.

"Why doesn't CNN show Rittenhouse's defense team?" - Cause CNN viewers will shut off the TV. Duh.

Actually, it's a bit more subtle. Their customers are actually the advertisers, the product are the viewers. No product, no advertisers, no $s...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shaggy said:

This is the prob Jeffy..  The risk is mitigated by simply not having normal citizens cary gunz.   No gunz, no shootings...  Simple no??  

And how do you propose there be no gunz?  Are you and jocal jointely developing that super magnet?

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

So, NOW you are concerned about how each media outlet is covering it and find fault when they are not all giving it equal time/attention.

You would see it that way. If it's not important and based on the coverage I'd say you are wrong,  it is a huge story being followed by millions.  They could choose to ignore it and not cover it at all, something you accuse FOX doing, but to only cover the prosecutions side is a deliberate effort to divide this country and a failure of honest journalism  FOX NEWS would never pull that crap on a trial, with national interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, chum said:

I didn’t say you had to do anything, I said I was curious why you didn’t answer the question.

IDK, but I don’t think you guys are buddies, no.

Sorry.  I wasn't clear.  Is The Joker one of your "buddies"? 

Being able to identify "buddies" seems to be rather important to you.

I just want to keep up.

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

You would see it that way. If it's not important and based on the coverage I'd say you are wrong,  it is a huge story being followed by millions.  They could choose to ignore it and not cover it at all, something you accuse FOX doing, but to only cover the prosecutions side is a deliberate effort to divide this country and a failure of honest journalism  FOX NEWS would never pull that crap on a trail, with national interest.

It's not that I "accuse" Fox of ignoring or not covering important topics.  The recent example of them tucking a story in the "Politics" section, while you falsely claimed it to be a lead story, is but one example.  Another would be them changing the letter after the name of a politico doing something ungood.  That is a conscious effort to deceive.

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

Actually there is some truth in that, because the MSM edits and withholds any video that doesn’t fit their narrative of what happened on 6 January 

What video would that be?

Shirley, you have a cite.

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

It's not that I "accuse" Fox of ignoring or not covering important topics.  The recent example of them tucking a story in the "Politics" section, while you falsely claimed it to be a lead story, is but one example.  Another would be them changing the letter after the name of a politico doing something ungood.  That is a conscious effort to deceive.

They also like to do stuff like this

https://sports.yahoo.com/fox-news-appears-scrub-mentions-153052886.html

and this

https://politicalwire.com/2021/11/12/fox-news-caught-in-deceptive-video-edit/

And this

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/fox-news-runs-digitally-altered-images-in-coverage-of-seattles-protests-capitol-hill-autonomous-zone/

No reasonable person can confuse them with a news outlet

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

Actually there is some truth in that, because the MSM edits and withholds any video that doesn’t fit their narrative of what happened on 6 January 

Not just MSM.  All media.  Court TV, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, websites, PA, et al.  Nothing they say is real, no video is real, it's all fake.  The only way to have an opinion about anything in the world is to be there in person and question anyone involved yourself.  Then make up your own mind and keep it to yourself, otherwise your opinion becomes fake news to someone else.  The only thing that is important now is voting for someone who bases their opinions off the same fake news you do.  And if they don't win, you just change the rules.  This is a banana republic and we are all on our own, like Somalia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
15 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

That's contrary to what he testified, from the news I saw.

Watch the video.

Uh huh... and you make the assumption I haven't, because... well because I disagree and you can't stand that.

What I saw corresponded with what I stated.

You guys are verging further into fantasy land; trying to justify "self-defense" as threatening to shoot somebody and when they object (or try to defend themselves) you shoot them.

And if this is NOT the case then biceps-boy needs to stay in court for his day of getting sentenced for perjury

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice thought from Trevor Noah

“Some guy decided to drive to Kenosha with his ‘militia’ buddies to protect a business and apparently ended up shooting three people and killing two,” Noah said. “But don’t worry — the business is OK. And let me tell you something: No one drives into a city with guns because they love someone else’s business that much.

“No one has ever thought, ‘Oh, it’s my solemn duty to pick up a rifle and protect that TJ Maxx.’ They do it because they’re hoping to shoot someone. That’s the only reason people like him join these gangs in the first place. And yes, I said it: a gang. Enough with this ‘militia’ b—. This isn’t the Battle of Yorktown. It’s a bunch of dudes threatening people with guns.”

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't so fucked up and dystopian this whole thing would be funny.

Arguing whether or not a teenager filled with Rambo fantasies was justified in taking a high powered weapon to a protest and shooting and killing people.

None of the people arguing sides in this seem to be able to see the fundamental problem here - America's insane gun culture.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

More banana republic stuff.  KR stands behind the judge to watch video, an accused 1st degree murderer uncuffed, leaning over a judge's shoulder.  Then KR chooses his jurors himself out of a rotating drum.  I didn't have bingo on my bingo card. 

Kind of like the huge riots expected after the verdict, I'm morbidly curious as to the giant celebration the Joke is planning when he spikes the ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

If it wasn't so fucked up and dystopian this whole thing would be funny.

Arguing whether or not a teenager filled with Rambo fantasies was justified in taking a high powered weapon to a protest and shooting and killing people.

None of the people arguing sides in this seem to be able to see the fundamental problem here - America's insane gun culture.

Disagree... I've said that from the first, and said that Kyle was being built up into a RWNJ folk hero.

Facts don't matter with folk heroes, nobody cares how many trees Paul Bunyan -really- cut down.

This is a tragedy where a large number of armed people who genuinely believe that their right to "self-defense" includes threatening other people with an illegally-obtained firearm, then shooting them.

We have a lot of psychopaths here in the USA, people who genuinely believe that there's nothing wrong with killing other people. Something badly wrong here.

 

2 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:

Gee… I missed the part of the trial that established he was “filled with Rambo fantasies “

Let’s try and stay on the same page 

Why did he go to Kenosha during a riot to "protect property" that was not owned by anybody he knew personally? Maybe it had something to do with his previously expressed desire to shoot shoplifters?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monkey said:

Yes, but it specifically ignored standard length shot guns and rifles, you know, hunting guns. Otherwise you’d be able to arrest tens of thousands of minors every time deer hunting season rolls around. 

Fair

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

If it wasn't so fucked up and dystopian this whole thing would be funny.

Arguing whether or not a teenager filled with Rambo fantasies was justified in taking a high powered weapon to a protest and shooting and killing people.

None of the people arguing sides in this seem to be able to see the fundamental problem here - America's insane gun culture.

Or maybe its more to do with America's insane culture of rioting every time something bad happens to a person of color...

Hroth

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

If it wasn't so fucked up and dystopian this whole thing would be funny.

Arguing whether or not a teenager filled with Rambo fantasies was justified in taking a high powered weapon to a protest and shooting and killing people.

None of the people arguing sides in this seem to be able to see the fundamental problem here - America's insane gun culture.

Or maybe it is America's insane riot culture where brown immigrants have to watch $2.5 million in car inventory get torched.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Why did he go to Kenosha during a riot to "protect property" that was not owned by anybody he knew personally? Maybe it had something to do with his previously expressed desire to shoot shoplifters?

Bingo.

If somebody with bad intentions wanted to shoot somebody and get away with it, what would they

do differently than Kyle?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Monkey said:

Yes, but it specifically ignored standard length shot guns and rifles, you know, hunting guns. Otherwise you’d be able to arrest tens of thousands of minors every time deer hunting season rolls around. 

So, basically, a way to make sure black kids can't carry gunz, but white kids can.

They could have had the same result if they said "can't carry" unless in the act of transporting to hunting or the act of hunting. But they didn't. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, hrothgar said:

Or maybe its more to do with America's insane culture of rioting every time something bad happens to a person of color...

Hroth

The race assertion here should be tested in the next few days.  I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, roundthebuoys said:

The race assertion here should be tested in the next few days.  I'm looking forward to seeing what happens.

I'm not.  It will be a sad testimony to the state of affairs regardless of what happens.  If he is convicted, the mob wins.  If he is acquitted, the mob will rage again.  Bad outcome either way with a lot of lives destroyed in the process.

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

I'm not.  It will be a sad testimony to the state of affairs regardless of what happens.  If he is convicted, the mob wins.  If he is acquitted, the mob will rage again.  Bad outcome either way with a lot of lives destroyed in the process.

If he is convicted, that means a jury finds he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, no mob winning. Maybe a bit of justice in that people's actions SHOULD mean they will be held accountable. 

If he's aquitted, it's the opposite, but I'd blame the law for allowing people to kill without consequence.

 

I've no idea if there will be another riot. I would be surprised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hrothgar said:

How about this...when the mob doesn't like what a white person does to a black person...

23 minutes ago, hrothgar said:

Or maybe its more to do with America's insane culture of rioting every time something bad happens to a person of color...

If you boil down the reasons for this riot, and previous instances of civil unrest to what you wrote, then there's no helping you.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

No it's not.  If the kid has a tag and is in the designated quadrant for such tag, then have at it.  Otherwise carrying a non-hunting rifle down a city street is not relevant at all.  At least, to normal people.

No one is saying it’s normal, we were just discussing why the law was written the way it was. I would hope the law gets revised. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

More banana republic stuff.  KR stands behind the judge to watch video, an accused 1st degree murderer uncuffed, leaning over a judge's shoulder.  Then KR chooses his jurors himself out of a rotating drum.  I didn't have bingo on my bingo card. 

Kind of like the huge riots expected after the verdict, I'm morbidly curious as to the giant celebration the Joke is planning when he spikes the ball.

What an idiot.  He did not get to pick who he wanted on his jury.  You really need better news sources. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Monkey said:

No one is saying it’s normal, we were just discussing why the law was written the way it was. I would hope the law gets revised. 

Not just deer season bird season too. I carried a double barrel 410  when I was 10 and upgraded to a 12 gauge auto at 13.  I still own both guns,  but haven’t fired them in 30 years. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Dem Underground . . .  

"Trayvon Martin could not buy a bag of Skittles without getting shot and killed. Meanwhile, Rittenhouse thought he had the right to go back to his dad's community, bringing along an AR-15, and provoking a situation that killed two people and wounded a third.

This is what happens when the court system is more interested in twisting the law to protect their white base.

Everyday, we see evidence that supports CRT." 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Joker said:
1 hour ago, BravoBravo said:

Actually there is some truth in that, because the MSM edits and withholds any video that doesn’t fit their narrative of what happened on 6 January 

Yep

BB hasn't provided a cite as I requested (he may not have seen my request), but I trust you can cite the video which the MSM has edited or withheld. 

Link to post
Share on other sites