Verdict returned in Rittenhouse trial

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah I know, but the "oh his tears were sincere" is equally uninformed.

I did write “I think”. It’s possible the tears were fake, if they were not fake Rittenhouse must have gone to a good acting school. It’s possible his support for BLM is fake. It’s possible I was not fooled but like so many he was by the their simplistic but effective name. BLM’s and Cyberdad’s rejection of that possibility is no surprise. In their world view one is a vile racist or one is not.

Just look up court trials of 16-17 yr olds charged with manslaughter or murder or reckless driving leading to death, They all (without fail) start crying on cue when they take the stand. Read the thousands of comments, everyone knows this is coached.

Now that the verdict is in - This is what happens - You get more Rittenhouse's



The motorcyclist who shot the pregnant woman dead was never charged as he claimed he was standing his ground.

“Everyone Knows”?????. Just by the comments on Wrong Planet we know this is literally not true. Even using “Everybody knows” as a figure of speech for Conventional Wisdom the Conventional Wisdom is often wrong such as Rittenhouse shot black people.

Ask the experts, they all think he faked it
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ywood.html

While I do not know the political beliefs of the experts quoted, Hollywood is not known to be empathic to Trump supporters. Besides the source is the Daily Mail a sensationalist tabloid. If they found experts who thought the tears were real I would expect they would not print it, not the angle they were going for.

Has anyone here actually taken that position? Unless I'm missing something, everything here has been people taking exception to your claims to knowing for sure, not being particularly moved by the tears.

Do you even look at the things you post before commenting? The preview literally says that the police say the woman who was killed was the aggressor, and the story is that she deliberately ran over a cyclist, who then followed her back to her house in the process of filing a police report, where she then retrieved a firearm and confronted the man she intentionally ran over, who then drew his own legally carried firearm in order to defend himself from her. What does that have to do with Rittenhouse?

I use my knowledge of human psychology and self awareness.
I am also focused on being objective and the Truth rather than a desire to service a narrative.
I believe I have the advantage.
I expect know you will disagree.

Last edited by Pepe on 27 Nov 2021, 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

Based on observing your reasoning abilities and results, you have a high degree of credibility, imo.
Unfortunately, cyber has not.
Not a personal attack.
Simply many years of observation.

Cyber is known for presenting articles that do not validate what he says, hence my *always* asking him for his source.
I don't understand why, but he has a talent in invalidating his arguments using the references he presents.
"Curious".

Perhaps it is a comprehension problem or simply laziness in doing due diligence.
One of the mysteries of the universe.

Yeah I did, This one is problematic because the 911 dispatch only has the motorcyclists call to go by and he could have lied.

What is known is the motorcyclist chased the 5 month pregnant woman to her house, The woman in this case was also a librarian in Volusia and everyone who knew her said the motorcyclists claims about her behaviour are completely out of character. When police checked the motorcyclist he was neither ejected from his bike or injured.

Why did he follow her? probably to threaten her for her driving. She panicked and came back with a gun to protect herself as she was alone. Should she have done that probably not. Should the motorcyclist have just filed a police report on her behavior after getting her car licence number plate and home address - probably.

When she came back with the gun he should have just left, Instead he played "Quick draw McGraw" and killed a pregnant woman and her unborn child.

I wonder how you would feel if this was your wife, girlfriend or sister and unborn kid. Probably sing a different tune then.

All that Rittenhouse's verdict does is send the wrong message to young men they can behave like Clint Eastwood shooting people claiming self-defence, even to Pregnant women (apparently you have no problem with that).

Last edited by cyberdad on 27 Nov 2021, 4:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

He had every f*****g right to shoot her.

She struck him and he followed to report the accident and had police on the phone, then she threatened him with a gun only for him to fire first.

b***h had it coming. 100%

At no point within the interaction was she not in the wrong and the aggressor.

He had every right to go to the police with video footage, witness statement, her licence plate and home address. He did not have the right to stalk her to her home (he was not injured) and threaten her. I think she came back with the gun because she felt threatened. She did not deserve to die.

What makes this worse is the he took an unborn childs life. That's totally sick.

I don't think that's an accurate description of what occurred. She made a gambit to avoid facing the consequences for the earlier incident and it cost her her life, but if you go pointing a gun at someone you better hope they're not armed and prepared to use it. She made the choice to risk her unborn child's life by pointing a gun at someone.

It raises the same question of dueling self-defense.

Rittenhouse has a gun, Grosskreuz has a gun, both claim self-defense.

Provocation must be decided.

Rittenhouse FIRST pointed his rifle at Grosskreuz, however, that wasn't considered provocation.

In this event, Sara FIRST pointed her gun at the man, so like Rittenhouse, that may not be provocation.