Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse trial


Recommended Posts

  • 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

On 11/16/2021 at 11:51 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Foxy News could cover a dog taking a shit on a sidewalk and a week later, 1/3-1/2 of the country would deem it the Issue of Our Time, condemn democRATS for being dirty and unsanitary, boycott Sarah Mclachlan, and demand that Biden do more to stop dogs from crossing the border. 

What do D's have against Sarah McLachlan???  Fucking Commies!!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2021 at 11:56 AM, chum said:

It was not a good choice of PDW for those circumstances.

why do you say that.  It was a great PDW for those circumstances.  He walked away unscathed.  What more were you looking for?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2021 at 12:16 PM, Mark K said:

What did your CCW class say about fleeing the scene after you shoot someone? 

If there are still threats there, I would say that a CCW class would tell you to get to safety and turn yourself in.  

Pretty much textbook is what KR.

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

 

With that, the States have gone from merely weirdly dysfunctional to downright surreal.

David Lynch could not have come up with anything that bizarre.

Come to think of it, Gaetz does kinda look and act like a character from Twin Peaks.

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

I’ll play Steams lawyer.  He’s saying there is in fact such law.  And because there is, KR circumvented it.  Not pertaining to the case, pertaining to KR planning to be in Keisha with a weapon he can’t buy himself.

Might have a viable argument if he bought (had his friend buy) the gun the day/week prior with the intent of taking it to the riot.

So just how much time before did he arrange to have it bought for him?

Shit, this is such a lame argument. It would be equally valid to claim that I circumvent State laws here because I live most of the time in one State and own/keep guns in a different State. It's irrelevant unless you can show some kind of intent.

Much more likely his buddy was holding the gun until KR turned 18 and it was legal - stupid but legal - for KR to carry it in the State it was bought.

'Circumvent'. Pfffft. Hands up everyone who has never ever done anything that some party somewhere couldn't claim was done to circumvent a law.

Anyone?

Yeah - what I thought.

FKT

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

Are there laws about transporting weapons across state lines (that young hero Kyle might have also circumvented)?

 

8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

-if- there are laws about carrying a firearm across state lines, the he certainly did circumvent them by staging the gun.

 

8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is there a law about crossing state lines with a firearm?

You're awfully curious for someone with no apparent ability to look something up.

FYI, the FOPA of 1986 was (briefly) popular on the left when it looked like a way out of the doomed NY Supreme Court case that was later deemed "moot" (except for the part about lawyers getting paid).

Among the amendments,

Quote

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

So, he didn't cross any state lines with the gun, and if he had, it may well have been legal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BravoBravo said:
7 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Did I stutter?  

Yo! You want to make a bet on the outcome of the trial? 

A frendley, gentellemanley waigere is permitted, butte anny Gastineau-esk sack dance gettes the ED fired up.  (worde to teh wise! )                                  :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

...

'Circumvent'. Pfffft. Hands up everyone who has never ever done anything that some party somewhere couldn't claim was done to circumvent a law.

Anyone?

Yeah - what I thought.

FKT

How many have shot 3 people, killing 2, after "possibly" circumventing a few firearms laws?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

A juvenile kills two people with a weapon he shouldn't have in a place he shouldn't have been. 

People should just be allowed to riot, destroy propety and give people good beatings in peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

 

'Circumvent'. Pfffft. Hands up everyone who has never ever done anything that some party somewhere couldn't claim was done to circumvent a law.

Anyone?

Yeah - what I thought.

FKT

Me.

(goody two shoes :D )

Now the defence want to declare a mistrial over video footage of Kyle pointing his gun at the first victim when he claimed he didn't.

If it's granted, will there be a new Judge too?

A case of being careful hat you wish for.

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

Me.

(goody two shoes :D )

Now the defence want to declare a mistrial over video footage of Kyle pointing his gun at the first victim when he claimed he didn't.

If it's granted, will there be a new Judge too?

A case of being careful hat you wish for.

There is no footage of him pointing the gun at Rosenbaum until he shot him.

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

Me.

(goody two shoes :D )

Now the defence want to declare a mistrial over video footage of Kyle pointing his gun at the first victim when he claimed he didn't.

If it's granted, will there be a new Judge too?

A case of being careful hat you wish for.

Wrong as usual.  The claim, that is not even very clear in the enhanced video is that he raised his gun at other protestors while setting down the fire extinguisher and that supposedly triggered Rosenbaum to chase him. 
 

There are very strict rules on providing the defense the highest quality video available.  The prosecution fucked up.  Every other  Video was sent by drop box, which keeps the quality the same.    Why was this one clip sent via cell phone where it was compressed?  Incompetence or deliberate that’s for the judge to decide.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jzk said:
50 minutes ago, Blue Crab said:

A juvenile kills two people with a weapon he shouldn't have in a place he shouldn't have been. 

People should just be allowed to riot, destroy propety and give people good beatings in peace.

And this is where it all springs from.

Those awful terrible no-good rioting BLM people deserve to be punished.

Kyle stepped up, now he owns maximum libs. He's a hero, and heroes are never guilty

- DSK

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

There is no footage of him pointing the gun at Rosenbaum until he shot him.

yes there is.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056650542/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-jury-deliberation-day-two

As the jury deliberated for a second day in the criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 18-year-old who fatally shot two people during unrest last year in Kenosha, Wis., defense attorneys petitioned for a mistrial over a key piece of video evidence that could be crucial to the prosecution's case.

The mistrial request — which is the defense's second of the trial — came Wednesday afternoon after jurors asked to review a handful of videos from the case.

That included a video introduced by prosecutors halfway through the trial. Filmed by a drone from roughly a block away, the footage shows an overhead view of the first deadly incident on the night of Aug. 25, 2020, in which Rittenhouse fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, after being chased through a used car lot.

The video, which was shown to the jury during prosecutors' closing statements on Monday, is key to their argument that Rittenhouse provoked the encounter with Rosenbaum by pointing his AR-15-style rifle near him, prompting him to chase Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse testified that he feared Rosenbaum would steal his gun and use it to shoot him.

 

The jurors spent 46 minutes Wednesday reviewing the drone video and other video evidence, including another recording of Rittenhouse's encounter with Rosenbaum filmed from overhead by an FBI aircraft.

Why the defense is calling for a mistrial

At the crux of the defense's mistrial request Wednesday was a difference in video quality between the prosecution's version of the drone video file, and what was given to Rittenhouse's attorneys.

 

With closing arguments over, the Kyle Rittenhouse case now heads to the jury

Although the footage had appeared on Fox News during an interview with Rittenhouse's original defense attorney just days after the shootings, neither prosecutors nor Rittenhouse's current lawyers had been able to track it down before the trial began.

Then, halfway through the trial, a person who refused to give his name came to the prosecutors' office in Kenosha County with the video, said Assistant District Attorney James Kraus in court Wednesday.

Prosecutors conceded that the video file was inadvertently compressed when they attempted to send it to Rittenhouse's defense team. The file size, according to Natalie Wisco, a defense lawyer, had shrunk from 11.2 megabytes to 3.6, an indication that the file had lost some of its visual quality.

Defense lawyers said they did not realize there was a difference until after testimony ended last week.

 

"We would have done this case in a little bit different manner if that was the situation ... where we didn't have the quality of evidence the state had until the case had been closed," said defense attorney Corey Chirafisi as he called for a mistrial.

Chirafisi added that they would ask for a mistrial without prejudice, meaning that, if granted, Rittenhouse could be tried again.

 

What we learned from the 2nd week of the Kyle Rittenhouse homicide trial

"But then I think we will all have the same information, the same quality of videos, and I think that is required in a case like this where he's looking at a life sentence potentially without parole if he's convicted," he said. "And to not get that until the evidence has already been closed? That doesn't strike me as fair."

Prosecutors called the difference unintentional

Prosecutors replied that it was an honest mistake, and that the defense lawyers were only objecting now because Rittenhouse testified that he had not pointed his gun at anybody until after Rosenbaum began to chase him.

"We didn't compress anything. We didn't change anything. That would have been something that happened in the transfer that we have no knowledge of. We of course did not mean to give them a different copy," said Kraus.

Judge Bruce Schroeder said he had "qualms" about the video, but still allowed jurors to review it. He did not rule on the mistrial request.

"My view on it now is, where we are — we might as well follow through with it, and if they've got everything correct and it's reliable, then we won't have a problem. And if it isn't, it'll be ugly," Schroeder said.

 

Defense calls for mistrial as Kyle Rittenhouse takes the stand in his homicide trial

Jurors also asked Wednesday to review several other videos, including bystander footage of Rittenhouse shooting Anthony Huber, 26, and Gaige Grosskreutz, then 26, and a video filmed by Grosskreutz as he spoke briefly to Rittenhouse in the moments after shooting Rosenbaum. Grosskreutz survived the shooting, but Huber was killed. They have not yet reviewed that footage.

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

Wrong as usual.  The claim, that is not even very clear in the enhanced video is that he raised his gun at other protestors while setting down the fire extinguisher and that supposedly triggered Rosenbaum to chase him. 
 

There are very strict rules on providing the defense the highest quality video available.  The prosecution fucked up.  Every other  Video was sent by drop box, which keeps the quality the same.    Why was this one clip sent via cell phone where it was compressed?  Incompetence or deliberate that’s for the judge to decide.   

There are 3 potential reasons for the mistrial:

1.  Withholding of evidence - disclosing the low res video instead of the high res video.  

2.  Asking the defendant about his post arrest silence in front of the jury in violation of the 5th Amendment.

3.  Introducing evidence in front of the jury that has been previously ruled inadmissible.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Steam Flyer said:

And this is where it all springs from.

Those awful terrible no-good rioting BLM people deserve to be punished.

Kyle stepped up, now he owns maximum libs. He's a hero, and heroes are never guilty

- DSK

Not at all.  He should have just gotten his jaw broken in 3 places like this guy.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/watch-now-man-viciously-beaten-during-kenosha-riots-doesn-t-let-that-night-define-him/article_0d54414f-a95c-56b8-b346-f4af7fa7568d.html

People are not allowed to protect their city from destruction because it is only "property."  The brown immigrants who spent their entire lives building that car lot business should just smile and take the $2.5 million uninsurable loss because, well, social justice.

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

Wrong as usual.  The claim, that is not even very clear in the enhanced video is that he raised his gun at other protestors while setting down the fire extinguisher and that supposedly triggered Rosenbaum to chase him. 
 

There are very strict rules on providing the defense the highest quality video available.  The prosecution fucked up.  Every other  Video was sent by drop box, which keeps the quality the same.    Why was this one clip sent via cell phone where it was compressed?  Incompetence or deliberate that’s for the judge to decide.   

Agree, the defense must be provided with everything the law & court system has available.

- DSK

 

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

There are 3 potential reasons for the mistrial:

1.  Withholding of evidence - disclosing the low res video instead of the high res video.  

2.  Asking the defendant about his post arrest silence in front of the jury in violation of the 5th Amendment.

3.  Introducing evidence in front of the jury that has been previously ruled inadmissible.  

so. would there be a new judge? that was my question.

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

Could you post a still frame shot of the Defendant pointing his gun at someone prior to being chased by the Pedo?

Hang on a minute and I'll go ask for one.

hmm better wait until the jury has done with them.

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

Well that didn’t show up in the trial, he was always seen carrying the rifle in a safe non threatening manner. 

Ah well, what would a courtroom drama be without some urgent bit of evidence turning up at the last minute?

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

Not at all.  He should have just gotten his jaw broken in 3 places like this guy.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/watch-now-man-viciously-beaten-during-kenosha-riots-doesn-t-let-that-night-define-him/article_0d54414f-a95c-56b8-b346-f4af7fa7568d.html

People are not allowed to protect their city from destruction because it is only "property."  The brown immigrants who spent their entire lives building that car lot business should just smile and take the $2.5 million uninsurable loss because, well, social justice.

Why can you not grasp the difference between criminal acts, and the actions deliberately taken on behalf of ALL OF US by law enforcement and the courts?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BravoBravo said:
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agree, the defense must be provided with everything the law & court system has available.

 

Evidence tampering charges could be claimed! 

Maybe, if they did it on purpose. Hard to prove intent, of course.

More likely just another example of lack of thinking ahead by the prosecutor (and his minions). But still a do-over.

- DSK

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

Prosecution claim it was an honest mistake.

 

Interesting that they knew they had a higher res version when the defense tried to play the video in court.  "Your honor, we have a higher res version."

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

The evidence entering phase of the trial is over, please get up to speed. 

Sorry abt the font size.

Although the footage had appeared on Fox News during an interview with Rittenhouse's original defense attorney just days after the shootings, neither prosecutors nor Rittenhouse's current lawyers had been able to track it down before the trial began.

Then, halfway through the trial, a person who refused to give his name came to the prosecutors' office in Kenosha County with the video, said Assistant District Attorney James Kraus in court Wednesday.

Prosecutors conceded that the video file was inadvertently compressed when they attempted to send it to Rittenhouse's defense team. The file size, according to Natalie Wisco, a defense lawyer, had shrunk from 11.2 megabytes to 3.6, an indication that the file had lost some of its visual quality.

Defense lawyers said they did not realize there was a difference until after testimony ended last week.

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

Why can you not grasp the difference between criminal acts, and the actions deliberately taken on behalf of ALL OF US by law enforcement and the courts?

- DSK

Is there a point in there somewhere, or do you simply have no idea what is going on here?

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

What evidence in the trial “ proves” him a lair? 
 

If the video shows him pointing the gun and he said he didn't.

It proves him a liar.

Or totally unreliable. 

If he got that bit wrong, what else did he get wrong?

In a trial such as this, when the dead can't speak and much is made of K's testimony, his testimony is undermined when he gets something this big wrong.

Anyway you look at it, It's not good for K.

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

Ignorance of the law is no excuse , especially if you are a lawyer … the difference is striking! 
Question … is the original video the degraded video 

or is the original video the high definition video 

did the state submit a purposely degraded video to the defense? 

Who knows.

But a retrial might not go too  well with a different judge.

Like I said. It's a bummer either way.

And if the video is not damming, why to the defense want to claim mistrial over it and risk a less sympathetic judge?

 

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

Who knows.

But a retrial might not go too  well with a different judge.

Like I said. It's a bummer either way.

And if the video is not damming, why to the defense want to claim mistrial over it and risk a less sympathetic judge?

 

The video is not any more damming than anything else.  It is just a reason for the defense to overturn a guilty verdict if that happens.

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

If there are still threats there, I would say that a CCW class would tell you to get to safety and turn yourself in.  

Pretty much textbook is what KR.

Ah no. he says he tried to turn himself in. there's a difference.

What we know he did was he went home to mum who turned him in.

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

Ah no. he says he tried to turn himself in. there's a difference.

What we know he did was he went home to mum who turned him in.

Have you watched any of the video in this case or any of the testimony?  When he tried to turn himself in to the police, they told him to back off.  He persisted and they shot at him with pepper spray to get him to back away.  That is the testimony from the cop that shot the pepper spray.

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

The video is not any more damming than anything else.  It is just a reason for the defense to overturn a guilty verdict if that happens.

Overturn?

I don't think it works that way. 

A retrial might have an even worse outcome.

New Judge, new Jury and that enhanced video.

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

Overturn?

I don't think it works that way. 

A retrial might have an even worse outcome.

New Judge, new Jury.

It works exactly that way.  Why would you think otherwise?

If the jury acquits, then we don't have to deal with the mistrial motions.

If the jury convicts, then the judge has to deal wtih it.  And he stated "there will be a day of reckoning with regard to the prosecutions actions."  Or something to that effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jzk said:
1 hour ago, Blue Crab said:

A juvenile kills two people with a weapon he shouldn't have in a place he shouldn't have been. 

People should just be allowed to riot, destroy propety and give people good beatings in peace.

I don't believe anyone is seriously arguing that point.

But, since you responded to Blue Crab with that justification, it appears you feel law enforcement isn't up to the job and favor vigilante justice.

Good reason to defund the police.B)

 

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

I don't believe anyone is seriously arguing that point.

But, since you responded to Blue Crab with that justification, it appears you feel law enforcement isn't up to the job and favor vigilante justice.

Good reason to defund the police.B)

 

If you want to defund the police, then prepare for more armed citizens doing what was supposed to have been their job.

If the police just did their jobs during the riots, we wouldn't be having this converstation.  The brown car lot people wouldn't have lost everything, the 70 year old guy wouldn't have gotten his jaw broken in 3 places, and the pedo would be out and about in society.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if he did point his gun for a split second at other protestors  proving that it triggered Rosenbaum to chase him is a major stretch.   If the jury throws out self defense because he pointed a gun at others.  Then it is a mistrial because the only evidence that shows that is the enhanced video that was not provided to the defense. 

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

Wrong as usual.  The claim, that is not even very clear in the enhanced video is that he raised his gun at other protestors while setting down the fire extinguisher and that supposedly triggered Rosenbaum to chase him. 
 

There are very strict rules on providing the defense the highest quality video available.  The prosecution fucked up.  Every other  Video was sent by drop box, which keeps the quality the same.    Why was this one clip sent via cell phone where it was compressed?  Incompetence or deliberate that’s for the judge to decide.   

So, the defense is scared now? Why the motion if not? Thought this was a cut and dried acquittal? 

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

If you want to defund the police, then prepare for more armed citizens doing what was supposed to have been their job.

If the police just did their jobs during the riots, we wouldn't be having this converstation.  The brown car lot people wouldn't have lost everything, the 70 year old guy wouldn't have gotten his jaw broken in 3 places, and the pedo would be out and about in society.

It would be you who is advocating the responsibility for maintaining order fell on the shoulders of a 17 year old kid with a gun.  That is the upshot of your justification in the post I quoted a few minutes ago.

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

So, the defense is scared now? Why the motion if not? Thought this was a cut and dried acquittal? 

Only a complete fucking moron would think that a murder trial is cut and dried anything.

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

It would be you who is advocating the responsibility for maintaining order fell on the shoulders of a 17 year old kid with a gun.  That is the upshot of your justification in the post I quoted a few minutes ago.

Yeah, in this case it seems that it is true.  No one was taking responsibility for defending the city, so this group of kids went out there and gave it a try.

I asked previously what about the brown immigrants who lost their $2.5 mllion car lot, and no one seemed to give a fuck.

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

The defense is furious not scared!

For months they will building their case using degraded evidence provided by the prosecutors 

Of course the defense is scared.  Anyone that isn't scared of facing a murder trial and life in prison is a fucking moron.

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

Of course the defense is scared.  Anyone that isn't scared of facing a murder trial and life in prison is a fucking moron.

Particularly when your best defense is a made for TV "self defense" plea with an illegal long gun. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Blue Crab said:

Particularly when your best defense is a made for TV "self defense" plea with an illegal long gun. 

How was the long gun "illegal?"

Do you know anything at all about the facts and law of this case?  Anything?

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

How was the long gun "illegal?"

Do you know anything at all about the facts and law of this case?  Anything?

None of us do, that’s why a jury is working on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, jzk said:

Of course the defense is scared.  Anyone that isn't scared of facing a murder trial and life in prison is a fucking moron.

Anyone deliberately rushing into in a riot with a firearm is a fucking moron, as is obvious.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, jzk said:

I asked previously what about the brown immigrants who lost their $2.5 mllion car lot, and no one seemed to give a fuck.

As long as you are so concerned about property, we have little (if anything) to discuss.

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

As long as you are so concerned about property, we have little (if anything) to discuss.

The nice thing about an internet forum, is that you are free to not respond.

For the record, I am very concerned about those Eastern Indian immigrants who worked for years to grow their business only to have some criminals burn it all down.  Very concerned.  They should be able to defend their property.

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

The nice thing about an internet forum, is that you are free to not respond.

For the record, I am very concerned about those Eastern Indian immigrants who worked for years to grow their business only to have some criminals burn it all down.  Very concerned.  They should be able to defend their property.

Perhaps the USA should have a more civilized culture for the new immigrants to thrive in.

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

For the record, I am very concerned about those Eastern Indian immigrants who worked for years to grow their business only to have some criminals burn it all down.  Very concerned.  They should be able to defend their property.

This would be a different case if they were on trial for defending their own property. 

But no.

 

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

The nice thing about an internet forum, is that you are free to not respond.

For the record, I am very concerned about those Eastern Indian immigrants who worked for years to grow their business only to have some criminals burn it all down.  Very concerned.  They should be able to defend their property.

Kyle should’ve stayed there to protect it then. Instead he went off looking for action, so the protection excuse is no longer valid.

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

Perhaps the USA should have a more civilized culture for the new immigrants to thrive in.

We agree.  Let's start with one that is so civilized that they don't have to fear their life's work being burned down just because a criminal going for a knife was killed by police.

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

We agree.  Let's start with one that is so civilized that they don't have to fear their life's work being burned down just because a criminal going for a knife was killed by police.

He wasn’t killed paralyzed from the waist down. 

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

None of us do, that’s why a jury is working on it.

FFS The firearm charge was dismissed. Just keep spreading the lies, it's what you do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

image.jpeg.29cd683a6152ccbe3f548024435d9444.jpeg

Razer claimed in an earlier post there was actual testimony that he said “I’m going to look for some more action.”   
now he is repeating that claim.  
 
That is the cite I’m waiting to read. 

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

Razer claimed in an earlier post there was actual testimony that he said “I’m going to look for some more action.”   
now he is repeating that claim.  
 
That is the cite I’m waiting to read. 

Yeah. I know. But the picture tells its own story. And here's the entire picture:

image.jpeg.368d19b95a12721ffe1a3aac218cb016.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites