OT Kyle Rittenhouse found NOT GUILTY!...

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
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 9:03 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
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.

The defense fought very hard not to allow evidence of Rittenhouse\'s
\"character\" to be admitted and the judge acquiesced, for the same reason
any defense team defending Phil would, as any jury would find him guilty
of anything if his \"character\" were allowed to be admitted as evidence,
even if he were entirely not guilty of the particular crime in question.

What\'s unfortunate is that the legal system in the US doesn\'t
universally treat the state\'s prosecution with the same amount of
contempt, as it almost always deserves it. Shoot a police officer in
\"self defense\" and see if the judge allows evidence about your
\"character\" to be admitted...
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 9:03 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
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.

The defense fought very hard not to allow evidence of Rittenhouse\'s
\"character\" to be admitted and the judge acquiesced, for the same reason
any defense team defending Phil would, as any jury would find him guilty
of anything if his \"character\" were allowed to be admitted as evidence,
even if he were entirely not guilty of the particular crime in question.

What\'s unfortunate is that the legal system in the US doesn\'t
universally treat the state\'s prosecution with the same amount of
contempt, as it almost always deserves it. Shoot a police officer in
\"self defense\" and see if the judge allows evidence about your
\"character\" to be admitted...
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 9:03 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
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.

The defense fought very hard not to allow evidence of Rittenhouse\'s
\"character\" to be admitted and the judge acquiesced, for the same reason
any defense team defending Phil would, as any jury would find him guilty
of anything if his \"character\" were allowed to be admitted as evidence,
even if he were entirely not guilty of the particular crime in question.

What\'s unfortunate is that the legal system in the US doesn\'t
universally treat the state\'s prosecution with the same amount of
contempt, as it almost always deserves it. Shoot a police officer in
\"self defense\" and see if the judge allows evidence about your
\"character\" to be admitted...
 
F

Flyguy

Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:08:58 PM UTC-8, 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 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.

A woman\'s history would come up if the woman knew the accused, not if it were a random event on the street as I mentioned.

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever, which is why it was excluded as be prejudicial. SNIPPERMAN wants to throw this shit in exactly for that purpose: prejudice the case against Rittenhouse. If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron, he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.
 
F

Flyguy

Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:08:58 PM UTC-8, 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 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.

A woman\'s history would come up if the woman knew the accused, not if it were a random event on the street as I mentioned.

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever, which is why it was excluded as be prejudicial. SNIPPERMAN wants to throw this shit in exactly for that purpose: prejudice the case against Rittenhouse. If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron, he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.
 
F

Flyguy

Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 5:08:58 PM UTC-8, 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 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.

A woman\'s history would come up if the woman knew the accused, not if it were a random event on the street as I mentioned.

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever, which is why it was excluded as be prejudicial. SNIPPERMAN wants to throw this shit in exactly for that purpose: prejudice the case against Rittenhouse. If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron, he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 9:29 PM, Flyguy 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, 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.

A woman\'s history would come up if the woman knew the accused, not if it were a random event on the street as I mentioned.

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever, which is why it was excluded as be prejudicial. SNIPPERMAN wants to throw this shit in exactly for that purpose: prejudice the case against Rittenhouse. If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron, he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately. Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t
deeply invested.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 9:29 PM, Flyguy 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, 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.

A woman\'s history would come up if the woman knew the accused, not if it were a random event on the street as I mentioned.

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever, which is why it was excluded as be prejudicial. SNIPPERMAN wants to throw this shit in exactly for that purpose: prejudice the case against Rittenhouse. If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron, he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately. Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t
deeply invested.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 9:29 PM, Flyguy 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, 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.

A woman\'s history would come up if the woman knew the accused, not if it were a random event on the street as I mentioned.

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever, which is why it was excluded as be prejudicial. SNIPPERMAN wants to throw this shit in exactly for that purpose: prejudice the case against Rittenhouse. If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron, he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately. Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t
deeply invested.
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
Flyguy wrote:

===============

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life
at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever,

** His only contact with \" proud boys\" was a month AFTER the event.

If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron,
he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.

** The criminal past and serious mental illness of the three attackers was kept out.


...... Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
Flyguy wrote:

===============

The case against Rittenhouse boiled down to ONE thing: did he fear for his life
at the moment he pulled the trigger; his past conduct had no bearing whatsoever,

** His only contact with \" proud boys\" was a month AFTER the event.

If he had to defend himself to the point of killing the assailant using, say, a tire iron,
he wouldn\'t want all the crap he has posted on SED to point out what a \"bad\" person he was.

** The criminal past and serious mental illness of the three attackers was kept out.


...... Phil
 
S

Simon S Aysdie

Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:04:35 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
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.

No defamation case is a slam dunk. They are all difficult in the US. I heard it on my TeeVee. However, like Sandmann, we was not a public figure, so the additional public figure barrier is not there.

Rittenhouse was smeared in many similar ways to Sandmann. That\'s my thought. We\'ll see, but the verdict would seem to open it up as a possibility a lot better than a hung jury.

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.

It turns out they were all assholes and it was self-defense. He missed a fourth. Essentially, they begged it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

> The prosecution clearly failed to prove their case against him, ...

He shouldn\'t have been indicted.

> but the two situations are pretty different.

okay, thanks for clarifying.... I kind of get the gist of what you\'re saying. lol

I wouldn\'t do that... I usually stay away from protests because tear gas burns my eyes. But, it\'s a choice, and he had a right to be there. He might think twice next time there is a \"mostly peaceful protest.\"
 
S

Simon S Aysdie

Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:04:35 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
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.

No defamation case is a slam dunk. They are all difficult in the US. I heard it on my TeeVee. However, like Sandmann, we was not a public figure, so the additional public figure barrier is not there.

Rittenhouse was smeared in many similar ways to Sandmann. That\'s my thought. We\'ll see, but the verdict would seem to open it up as a possibility a lot better than a hung jury.

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.

It turns out they were all assholes and it was self-defense. He missed a fourth. Essentially, they begged it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

> The prosecution clearly failed to prove their case against him, ...

He shouldn\'t have been indicted.

> but the two situations are pretty different.

okay, thanks for clarifying.... I kind of get the gist of what you\'re saying. lol

I wouldn\'t do that... I usually stay away from protests because tear gas burns my eyes. But, it\'s a choice, and he had a right to be there. He might think twice next time there is a \"mostly peaceful protest.\"
 
S

Simon S Aysdie

Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:04:35 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
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.

No defamation case is a slam dunk. They are all difficult in the US. I heard it on my TeeVee. However, like Sandmann, we was not a public figure, so the additional public figure barrier is not there.

Rittenhouse was smeared in many similar ways to Sandmann. That\'s my thought. We\'ll see, but the verdict would seem to open it up as a possibility a lot better than a hung jury.

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.

It turns out they were all assholes and it was self-defense. He missed a fourth. Essentially, they begged it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

> The prosecution clearly failed to prove their case against him, ...

He shouldn\'t have been indicted.

> but the two situations are pretty different.

okay, thanks for clarifying.... I kind of get the gist of what you\'re saying. lol

I wouldn\'t do that... I usually stay away from protests because tear gas burns my eyes. But, it\'s a choice, and he had a right to be there. He might think twice next time there is a \"mostly peaceful protest.\"
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
==================>
Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.

** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


> Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.

..
........ Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
==================>
Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.

** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


> Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.

..
........ Phil
 
P

Phil Allison

Guest
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
==================>
Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.

** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


> Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.

..
........ Phil
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 11/19/2021 9:46 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
===================

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.


** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.

.
....... Phil

The same prosecutor\'s office who had refused to file charges against
officer the defense was talking about - lol! It wasn\'t a fair comment
(relevance?) but it was a smart one, what the fuck were they going to
say in their objection anyway. \"Your honor we object on the grounds that
it was us who said that was ok in the first place\"
 
S

Simon S Aysdie

Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 6:04:35 PM UTC-8, Phil Hobbs wrote:
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.

No defamation case is a slam dunk. They are all difficult in the US. I heard it on my TeeVee. However, like Sandmann, we was not a public figure, so the additional public figure barrier is not there.

Rittenhouse was smeared in many similar ways to Sandmann. That\'s my thought. We\'ll see, but the verdict would seem to open it up as a possibility a lot better than a hung jury.

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.

It turns out they were all assholes and it was self-defense. He missed a fourth. Essentially, they begged it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

> The prosecution clearly failed to prove their case against him, ...

He shouldn\'t have been indicted.

> but the two situations are pretty different.

okay, thanks for clarifying.... I kind of get the gist of what you\'re saying. lol

I wouldn\'t do that... I usually stay away from protests because tear gas burns my eyes. But, it\'s a choice, and he had a right to be there. He might think twice next time there is a \"mostly peaceful protest.\"
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top