Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

The more I learn about this kid, the more I like him.
He sounds very credible in the Youtube video clip.
I suggest hyperpartisan progressives avoid watching.

Slink away? ha! you wish

I posed the question whether you would be as heartless about the woman and her unborn child if it was your girlfriend, sister or somebody you knew and you conveniently avoided answering it. Instead you call me names.

Do you know why I posted an image of those two old crazies who pointed their weapons at the BLM protestors? Because you and your ilk were supporting their right to i) bear arms and ii) stand their ground iii) exercise their right to shoot protestors if they felt threatened

Now how exactly is that so different to what Sara Morales did? She was on her property, she felt threatened and pointed a weapon at the motorcyclist, The motorcyclist chose to kill her and her unborn child instead of leaving the premises.
The morotcyclist had witnesses, licence plate and address. He could have filed a police report like a normal person. Did he really need to kill her?

The problem is you cant get your story straight when defending gun nuts who soot first and ask questions later.

It's a fact.

When you give guns to people like Rittenhouse or the motorcyclist who gunned down a pregnant woman and her unborn child it supports what policy makers have been saying for years.

Giving civilians guns does not reduce crime or reduce murders
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... nce-shows/

The police involved in the Sara Morales killing don't even follow their own advice where they encourage citizens not to use guns in conflict or against criminals

why?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph- ... ggests-no/

You realize that I do this for my own entertainment, right? That by popping up and saying stupid things that I can dunk on, you're doing me a favor? Not to mix metaphors, but this is like skeet shooting fish in a barrel, with fish that are just asking for it so I don't even need to feel bad about the lack of challenge.



I didn't answer it because it was a stupid question that Pepe already addressed by pointing out that it was an appeal to emotion, but since you insist, if someone close to me was dumb and reckless enough to deliberately hit someone with their car and then point a gun at them, I might be sad that they were gone, but it wouldn't change my feelings about the righteousness of what happened. It's called being consistent, you should try it some time.

I also didn't call you any names, I've said you're dishonest and stubborn and your posts are delusional, but those are all observations based on your behavior, not mere insults. You could easily avoid the labels by being honest and reasonable, but that seems to be beyond you, so here we are.



Was I? Seeing as how my posting history shows a break from 2017 up until August of this year and that incident happened last summer, it would seem that you're lying yet again. I could ding you for more lies for putting words in my mouth, but that feels gratuitous at this point, you're a liar, you make things up about people because you can't argue very well and also can't admit when you are wrong, and everyone knows it, you just make it clearer and clearer with every post.



You're really not leaving me much choice short of questioning your intellect if you really think that someone who commits a hit and run assault on someone, flees to their house, and then emerges with a gun pointed at the guy who's just there directing the cops is at all similar to Rittenhouse being attacked during a riot, or the McCloskeys standing on their porch with weapons while a large groups of protestors trespasses nearby, you'd have to be dumb or dishonest to make that claim. The chain of events is she hits the guy, she flees the scene, he and some witnesses follow her while phoning in the police report, and she comes out with a gun pointed at them; she is the aggressor at every point in the incident, and is the one who escalates it from people standing outside her house with phones into a gunfight, baring new evidence it's completely on her.



Well, since she had a gun pointed at him and had already acted extremely aggressively, a reasonable person might say he did. Following someone who tried to run you down with their vehicle, a potentially fatal attack, to make sure the police are able to swiftly apprehend them, is not a particularly reckless action, nor one that you would expect to escalate into gunfire, and that is completely on her, had the man not been armed it may have been he or one of the bystanders who was killed had she opened fire, she might have even shot at the cops given how erratically she was behaving.



L O L.

Whiff, you're engaging with an argument that no one is making, it's not even a strawman as no one is actually arguing gun policy here.

I feel we don't know the events leading to her "deliberately" hitting the motorcyclist . The police are happy that she was the aggressor but I don't know what the motorcyclist hoped to achieve by following her and confronting her in her home?

Her library co-workers have supported her in saying this is completely out of character for her so something doesn't sit quite right in just assuming she went bonkers.

Why do you believe her co-workers and not the witnesses to the crime? Maybe she had a hormonal imbalance that caused her to act erratically, maybe she was a psycho all along and had been hiding it up till now, we can speculate all day, but nothing is going to change the fact that this case has nothing to do with what you claimed it did, and you're being too stubborn to admit it as you desperately seek a face saving escape hatch yet again.

I wonder why the traffic accident is being called a "road rage"?

She called police and reported the men were threatening her, and harassing her, was this part of the "road rage" earlier or when they showed up at her home later?

I wonder how anyone can know that she *intentionally* hit the motorcycle?

I am assuming all the witnesses are motorcycle buddies of the killer? (As it's abnormal, for a group of witnesses to follow someone home like that. However, it would make sense if they're all together).

I also find the 911 call interesting because the caller says, "... she tried to pull her gun on him" ..". So she didn't actually pull her gun on him, but made a motion that made him think she would? Did they both have their guns out and he was the faster draw? Why is a witness using the word "tried"?

A lot of people who are against Rittenhouse being acquitted I noticed, will often point how how he crossed state lines, and carrying an illegal weapon, but in court, the judge ruled that there was no law against carrying this particular weapon across the state lines.

So it doesn't count as him breaking those particular laws if people are just going to make laws up, including the prosecution. And this also goes to show what kind of government the people who are against him being acquitted seem to want to live under, is that they want to live in a world, where you have to show papers and be searched as you go from state to state it seems, or at least it seems to send that message.

People may be both emotional *and* rational at the same time.
Others seem to be incapable of that and let their emotions dominate their thinking.



Some people have trouble differentiating observations from insults or personal attacks.
We are not "some people".



Well, cyber can't be referring to me.
I'm not an "elk", let alone an "ilk".
I am a skunk.



I have *observed* that "logical thinking" is not cyber's strong point.



I concur.

cyber is known for his non-sequiturs.

I believe the person she attacked wanted her apprehended.

The thought had crossed my mind, but I didn't want to bring it up.
I'm no hero.

I will admit when I am wrong.
It adds to my "credibility coinage".

A lot of people aren't interested in the facts.
Some people have a narrative to service.

BTW, some people still think Rittenhouse killed 2 black people.
Some people think this was a race-based trial.
I tend to ignore "some people".

And this is exactly why I compared this to the Rittenhouse case. The circumstances leading to the woman's death is extremely blurry and not clear. Ahmed Arbery supposedly attacked McMichael after he "followed" Arbery and in the altercation discharged his weapon killing Arbery. McMichael was charged with murder, how exactly is that different to the death's of Huber and Rosenbaum (or Travon Martin for that matter)? All of these cases involve very ambiguous situations that lead to unnecessary deaths that stemmed from civilians being allowed to carry loaded weapons.

When you start normalising vigilante action then its a really slippery slope. The rules are not as clear and precise as the pro-gun, pro-stand your ground people are making out. All of these incidents I mentioned resulted in innocent people getting killed for no reason.

Last time I checked that's the job of the police, not vigilantes.