Kyle Rittenhouse - The Truth in 11 Minutes

#1,976
#1,976
OHvol40 said:
Being concerned enough with this particular trial that you have it “on in the background” is the point. Why is this trail more important than any other one? Because it’s been chosen for you as a yet another item in the identity politics game. Anyone who lets this trial occupy anything more than an after-thought has been sucked into the latest version of divisive propaganda. So before you start soapboxing about main stream media, why don’t you self reflect about why you care about this trial over the thousands of others taking place simultaneously in this country. Hint: you’ve been told to.
Click to expand...
It isn’t. Nice try but it isn’t. No it isn’t even a nice try. You came in hot with blanks blazing and showed your ass and you were wrong with the stupid **** you spewed. That is totally on you and has nothing to do with my “identity politics” 🤡
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher and StarRaider
#1,979
#1,979
volinbham said:
the applause thing is the only real critique I have of the judge.
Click to expand...
I haven't been keeping up too much, but that's my main problem. My recent conversation with @DynaLo makes me think he may have been using the ring tone on purpose, but I have no proof of that other than suspicion. I dont think itshould be something to challenge a jury decision.
 
#1,981
#1,981
volinbham said:
you keep arguing that cops don't want civilian help and didn't in this specific case despite direct evidence to the contrary.

seems you will argue anything
Click to expand...
That depends on how you are defining "help". They do not want private citizens leaving their residences to go downtown and take up arms against other citizens during a riot. It will create more problems than it will solve. In order for vigilantism to be legally justified, there will be a threshold of self-defense to meet, and even then you can still find yourself the defendant in a trial, as Rittenhouse has.
 
#1,982
#1,982
clarksvol00 said:
I could agree with that. I guess you could put me on the ambivalent side. Hypothetically, it looked like the state was winning and planned on calling an EMT (no reason just a hypothetical) as a witness and the judge said, let's give a round of applause to first responders, I could see this being a completely different conversation for some people.

Edit: I'll add the caveat that my opinion is right and everyone else's is wrong.
Click to expand...

If the judge opened court with recognition of (the hypothetical major federal holiday) National First Responders Day and asked those in attendance if any were FR to be applauded I don't think it would change the views of most. Why would it?
 
#1,984
#1,984
BowlBrother85 said:
That depends on how you are defining "help". They do not want private citizens leaving their residences to go downtown and take up arms against other citizens during a riot. It will create more problems than it will solve. In order for vigilantism to be legally justified, there will be a threshold of self-defense to meet, and even then you can still find yourself the defendant in a trial, as Rittenhouse has.
Click to expand...
He clearly defined the case of help he was referring to.
 
#1,985
#1,985
hndog609 said:
If the judge opened court with recognition of (the hypothetical major federal holiday) National First Responders Day and asked those in attendance if any were FR to be applauded I don't think it would change the views of most. Why would it?
Click to expand...
I dont think a judge needs to ask a crowd and jury to applaud anybody.
 
#1,987
#1,987
BowlBrother85 said:
That depends on how you are defining "help". They do not want private citizens leaving their residences to go downtown and take up arms against other citizens during a riot. It will create more problems than it will solve. In order for vigilantism to be legally justified, there will be a threshold of self-defense to meet, and even then you can still find yourself the defendant in a trial, as Rittenhouse has.
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem like anyone was saying cops want citizens to go downtown to take up arms against other citizens during a riot or to practice vigilantism. Taking a defensive posture to deter attack is different than vigilantism or taking up arms against other citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher and NorthDallas40
#1,988
#1,988
I still think he’s just a USA loving old fart of an early boomer era Judge that really likes a song from the 1980’s. Maybe some clerks or staff will come out after the trial with the dirt on the ringtone.😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#1,989
#1,989
clarksvol00 said:
I dont think a judge needs to ask a crowd and jury to applaud anybody.
Click to expand...

As I told BB I understand the observation and reject it did jack regarding influencing the trial. More to the point your post asked a hypothetical question of people having a different view given that scenario. I wouldn't nor do I think the majority would.
 
#1,990
#1,990
hndog609 said:
As I told BB I understand the observation and reject it did jack regarding influencing the trial. More to the point your post asked a hypothetical question of people having a different view given that scenario. I wouldn't nor do I think the majority would.
Click to expand...
I disagree.
 
#1,993
#1,993
NorthDallas40 said:
But who knows, just might be some quirky thing about the guy. All in all it really isn’t anything and he damn sure wasn’t grandstanding.
Click to expand...
Another possibility : This judge is all too aware of the presence of television cameras in his court room, and knows he is on the 3 major cable news networks. He is enjoying this newfound attention, and milking it for everything it's worth.
 
#1,994
#1,994
BowlBrother85 said:
Another possibility : This judge is all too aware of the presence of television cameras in his court room, and knows he is on the 3 major cable news networks. He is enjoying this newfound attention, and milking it for everything it's worth.
Click to expand...

Lol ... Only in your little screwed up mind. Nobody cares about that but you.
 
#1,995
#1,995
NorthDallas40 said:
It isn’t. Nice try but it isn’t. No it isn’t even a nice try. You came in hot with blanks blazing and showed your ass and you were wrong with the stupid **** you spewed. That is totally on you and has nothing to do with my “identity politics” 🤡
Click to expand...
I earned the concession clown. Excuse me while I bask in your anger lol
 
#1,996
#1,996
BowlBrother85 said:
Another possibility : This judge is all too aware of the presence of television cameras in his court room, and knows he is on the 3 major cable news networks. He is enjoying this newfound attention, and milking it for everything it's worth.
Click to expand...
So you agree that he isn’t grandstanding and offer an alternative rationale on why he would… grandstand? Ok…
 
#1,997
#1,997
OHvol40 said:
I earned the concession clown. Excuse me while I bask in your anger lol
Click to expand...
LMFAO you earned a concession where I indicated I could walk and chew gum at the same time while you countered with “while I clearly offered an opinion on something I’ve admitted I’m clueless on in the end I really don’t care about as much as you do.” You bet champ enjoy that hard earned concession 😂🤡
 
#2,000
#2,000
clarksvol00 said:
I've thoroughly described my reasoning. You may not agree with it, but don't say I'm not supporting it.
Click to expand...

Just went back through your posts in this thread and saw speculation and opinion. If that's the "support" of which you speak so be it. I'll stick with finding it unpersuasive.

FWIW I'd have much preferred this particular incident hadn't occurred. Not because I think it made one jot of a difference in the actual trial but it would have avoided the distraction. (Or at the very least there had been anyone else there that was a veteran, preferably someone that had anything to do with the prosecution)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top