Welcome Notice

Register Log in

OT Kyle Rittenhouse found NOT GUILTY!...

A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:42:50 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
<snip>

\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

Hey Sloman, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
Far from it. A woman is entitled to dress any way she likes, and that never gives anybody the right to rape her.

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative, and Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace - not that there\'s a whole lot of peace around in the middle of a riot - and likely to lead to the lethal confrontations that it did. It is unfortunate that the prosecution didn\'t charge Rittenhouse under a law where they could get ac onviction.

There may not be any law against being stupid, but there are lots of laws about not being stupid in ways that lead to people ending up dead. Flying an aircraft when you\'ve got advanced senile dementia would be one of them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 7:42 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution
presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges.
On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED
Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to
acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to
do the opposite.

A retarded kid with an illegally acquired gun walking down the street
of a town he doesn\'t even live in.

It was murder.

EVERYTHING the dopey putz did from the moment he acquired the gun
illegally was a crime.

DecayedBrainMatter is criminally ignorant of the law which DID allow Rittenhouse to legally own the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 he used in self-defense (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031):

\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys, enjoyed chats
with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good, but yeah that\'s somewhat beside the
point.

Conversely in rape trials evidence about the woman\'s \"character\" is
often regularly admitted, where was she going, what was she doing,
what\'s her sexual history like, does she have a history of promiscuity? etc.

If it were common for all judges in the US to treat the prosecution with
the same amount of contempt and derision as the judge did in this case,
the US legal system would be way better. Fat chance of that, though.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 7:42 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution
presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges.
On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED
Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to
acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to
do the opposite.

A retarded kid with an illegally acquired gun walking down the street
of a town he doesn\'t even live in.

It was murder.

EVERYTHING the dopey putz did from the moment he acquired the gun
illegally was a crime.

DecayedBrainMatter is criminally ignorant of the law which DID allow Rittenhouse to legally own the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 he used in self-defense (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031):

\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys, enjoyed chats
with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good, but yeah that\'s somewhat beside the
point.

Conversely in rape trials evidence about the woman\'s \"character\" is
often regularly admitted, where was she going, what was she doing,
what\'s her sexual history like, does she have a history of promiscuity? etc.

If it were common for all judges in the US to treat the prosecution with
the same amount of contempt and derision as the judge did in this case,
the US legal system would be way better. Fat chance of that, though.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 7:42 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution
presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges.
On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED
Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to
acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to
do the opposite.

A retarded kid with an illegally acquired gun walking down the street
of a town he doesn\'t even live in.

It was murder.

EVERYTHING the dopey putz did from the moment he acquired the gun
illegally was a crime.

DecayedBrainMatter is criminally ignorant of the law which DID allow Rittenhouse to legally own the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 he used in self-defense (https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031):

\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys, enjoyed chats
with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good, but yeah that\'s somewhat beside the
point.

Conversely in rape trials evidence about the woman\'s \"character\" is
often regularly admitted, where was she going, what was she doing,
what\'s her sexual history like, does she have a history of promiscuity? etc.

If it were common for all judges in the US to treat the prosecution with
the same amount of contempt and derision as the judge did in this case,
the US legal system would be way better. Fat chance of that, though.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 8:08 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 11/19/2021 7:42 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution
presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges.
On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED
Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to
acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to
do the opposite.

A retarded kid with an illegally acquired gun walking down the street
of a town he doesn\'t even live in.

It was murder.

EVERYTHING the dopey putz did from the moment he acquired the gun
illegally was a crime.

DecayedBrainMatter is criminally ignorant of the law which DID allow
Rittenhouse to legally own the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 he used in
self-defense
(https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031):


\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce
Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge.
Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to
an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess
shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception
renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous
weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s
rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length
allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more
guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left
after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the
prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support
their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting
Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t
been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It
was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely
pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed
two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse
wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid
to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged
with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges.
These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to
be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a
woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.


Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys, enjoyed chats
with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good, but yeah that\'s somewhat beside the
point.

Conversely in rape trials evidence about the woman\'s \"character\" is
often regularly admitted, where was she going, what was she doing,
what\'s her sexual history like, does she have a history of promiscuity?
etc.

If it were common for all judges in the US to treat the prosecution
To be more clear, the state DA\'s office in general.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 8:08 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 11/19/2021 7:42 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution
presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges.
On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED
Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to
acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to
do the opposite.

A retarded kid with an illegally acquired gun walking down the street
of a town he doesn\'t even live in.

It was murder.

EVERYTHING the dopey putz did from the moment he acquired the gun
illegally was a crime.

DecayedBrainMatter is criminally ignorant of the law which DID allow
Rittenhouse to legally own the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 he used in
self-defense
(https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031):


\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce
Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge.
Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to
an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess
shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception
renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous
weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s
rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length
allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more
guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left
after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the
prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support
their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting
Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t
been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It
was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely
pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed
two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse
wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid
to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged
with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges.
These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to
be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a
woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.


Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys, enjoyed chats
with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good, but yeah that\'s somewhat beside the
point.

Conversely in rape trials evidence about the woman\'s \"character\" is
often regularly admitted, where was she going, what was she doing,
what\'s her sexual history like, does she have a history of promiscuity?
etc.

If it were common for all judges in the US to treat the prosecution
To be more clear, the state DA\'s office in general.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 8:08 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 11/19/2021 7:42 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution
presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges.
On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED
Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to
acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to
do the opposite.

A retarded kid with an illegally acquired gun walking down the street
of a town he doesn\'t even live in.

It was murder.

EVERYTHING the dopey putz did from the moment he acquired the gun
illegally was a crime.

DecayedBrainMatter is criminally ignorant of the law which DID allow
Rittenhouse to legally own the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 he used in
self-defense
(https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031):


\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce
Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge.
Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to
an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess
shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception
renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous
weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s
rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length
allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more
guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left
after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the
prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support
their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting
Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t
been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It
was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely
pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed
two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse
wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid
to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged
with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges.
These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to
be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a
woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.


Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys, enjoyed chats
with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good, but yeah that\'s somewhat beside the
point.

Conversely in rape trials evidence about the woman\'s \"character\" is
often regularly admitted, where was she going, what was she doing,
what\'s her sexual history like, does she have a history of promiscuity?
etc.

If it were common for all judges in the US to treat the prosecution
To be more clear, the state DA\'s office in general.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 8:08 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 11/19/2021 7:42 PM, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org
wrote:
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 2:55:35 PM UTC-8,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Flyguy <soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:e9cac7d7-9610-4441...@googlegroups.com:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution
presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges.
On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED
Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to
acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to
do the opposite.

A retarded kid with an illegally acquired gun walking down the street
of a town he doesn\'t even live in.

It was murder.

EVERYTHING the dopey putz did from the moment he acquired the gun
illegally was a crime.

DecayedBrainMatter is criminally ignorant of the law which DID allow
Rittenhouse to legally own the Smith & Wesson M&P 15 he used in
self-defense
(https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031):


\"Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce
Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge.
Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to
an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess
shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.

Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception
renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous
weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s
rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length
allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.\"
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more
guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left
after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the
prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support
their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting
Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t
been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It
was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely
pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed
two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse
wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid
to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged
with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges.
These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to
be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a
woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.


Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys, enjoyed chats
with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good, but yeah that\'s somewhat beside the
point.

Conversely in rape trials evidence about the woman\'s \"character\" is
often regularly admitted, where was she going, what was she doing,
what\'s her sexual history like, does she have a history of promiscuity?
etc.

If it were common for all judges in the US to treat the prosecution
To be more clear, the state DA\'s office in general.
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
bitrex - LIAR wrote:
================
Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys,
** 100% false.

> with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

** Bollocks.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good,
** 100% bollocks
FOAD you tenth wit.

..... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
bitrex - LIAR wrote:
================
Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys,
** 100% false.

> with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

** Bollocks.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good,
** 100% bollocks
FOAD you tenth wit.

..... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
bitrex - LIAR wrote:
================
Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys,
** 100% false.

> with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

** Bollocks.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good,
** 100% bollocks
FOAD you tenth wit.

..... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
Know Nothing Lying Fuchead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================
Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

> Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

> It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace

** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking insane !!!

He might disturb a RIOT !!!!
======================


> There may not be any law against being stupid,

** Or rabid fuckwits like you would be in jail right now.


..... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
Know Nothing Lying Fuchead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================
Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

> Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

> It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace

** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking insane !!!

He might disturb a RIOT !!!!
======================


> There may not be any law against being stupid,

** Or rabid fuckwits like you would be in jail right now.


..... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
bitrex - LIAR wrote:
================
Interesting analogy - the judge denied the admission of an amount of
\"character\" evidence to the effect that Rittenhouse was essentially a
\"bad person\" (he is), and had hung around with Proud Boys,
** 100% false.

> with violent thugs on the Internet, and stuff like that.

** Bollocks.

And the chances he\'ll show up in court again down the road for some
other violent crime are very good,
** 100% bollocks
FOAD you tenth wit.

..... Phil
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:06:11 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,

** He certainly did.

What makes you think that?
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"? In his fantasy world, maybe.

and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

** Totally false argument and false logic.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn to original purpose.
The outcome should have been expected. Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction. Killing people isn\'t a great way to pacify rioters. Individual rioters don\'t do much after they are dead, but the rest of the mob gets even more upset.

Kent State isn\'t recorded as a triumph for crowd control.

<snipped the rest of Phil being even more idiotic than usual>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:06:11 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,

** He certainly did.

What makes you think that?
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"? In his fantasy world, maybe.

and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.

** Totally false argument and false logic.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn to original purpose.
The outcome should have been expected. Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction. Killing people isn\'t a great way to pacify rioters. Individual rioters don\'t do much after they are dead, but the rest of the mob gets even more upset.

Kent State isn\'t recorded as a triumph for crowd control.

<snipped the rest of Phil being even more idiotic than usual>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:41 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
Know Nothing Lying Fuchead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?
How would you expect them to behave?

Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.
It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace

** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking insane !!!

He might disturb a RIOT !!!!
======================
Exactly. Some riots are lot more violent and destructive than others. Rittenhouse made his riot more deadly than it would otherwise have been.

There may not be any law against being stupid,

** Or rabid fuckwits like you would be in jail right now.
Probably not. The same law would have completely filled up the jails with people like you and Flyguy long before they got around to me.

I might get a caution for provoking an irritable twit like you, but the courts would probably be much too busy to bother.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:41 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
Know Nothing Lying Fuchead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?
How would you expect them to behave?

Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.
It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace

** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking insane !!!

He might disturb a RIOT !!!!
======================
Exactly. Some riots are lot more violent and destructive than others. Rittenhouse made his riot more deadly than it would otherwise have been.

There may not be any law against being stupid,

** Or rabid fuckwits like you would be in jail right now.
Probably not. The same law would have completely filled up the jails with people like you and Flyguy long before they got around to me.

I might get a caution for provoking an irritable twit like you, but the courts would probably be much too busy to bother.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 12:44:41 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
Know Nothing Lying Fuchead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?
How would you expect them to behave?

Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.
It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace

** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking insane !!!

He might disturb a RIOT !!!!
======================
Exactly. Some riots are lot more violent and destructive than others. Rittenhouse made his riot more deadly than it would otherwise have been.

There may not be any law against being stupid,

** Or rabid fuckwits like you would be in jail right now.
Probably not. The same law would have completely filled up the jails with people like you and Flyguy long before they got around to me.

I might get a caution for provoking an irritable twit like you, but the courts would probably be much too busy to bother.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
P

Phil Hobbs

Guest
Simon S Aysdie wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty

I wonder if CNN, MSNBC, et al, will now be compensating him like they did Sandmann. lol
Maybe, but it\'s far from a slam dunk. All Sandmann did was stand there
while a professional agitator walked up and yelled in his face.

On the other hand, Rittenhouse killed a couple of guys and wounded a
third. The prosecution clearly failed to prove their case against him,
but the two situations are pretty different.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
 
Toggle Sidebar

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top