Kyle Rittenhouse trial

54,557 Views | 970 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by boognish_bear
fadskier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Canon • 1:37p, 11/12/21
Canon said:
fadskier said:
RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
vigilante

vj-lnt
noun
[ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    Reply Quote
    1
    Canon
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to fadskier • 1:41p, 11/12/21
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    Reply Quote
    6
    GrowlTowel
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    1:42p, 11/12/21
    hero

    noun

    [ol]
  • 1.
    a person who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities.
    • [/ol]
    Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
    Reply Quote
    1
    1 edit
    Jack Bauer
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    1:57p, 11/12/21
    Reply Quote
    1
    Jack Bauer
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    1:59p, 11/12/21
    "Correction: Defense attorney for William Bryan in Arbery shooting trial, not an attorney for Kyle Rittenhouse."

    Reply Quote
    1
    Jack Bauer
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    2:00p, 11/12/21
    Reply Quote
    4
    fadskier
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Canon • 2:27p, 11/12/21
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    Reply Quote
    2
    Porteroso
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to fadskier • 2:46p, 11/12/21
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3
    You're assuming he reads that many lines down on any post.
    Reply Quote
    1
    Forest Bueller_bf
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to 303Bear • 3:26p, 11/12/21
    303Bear said:
    quash said:
    Wangchung said:
    quash said:


    The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.
    The trial is being held to determine their status. They aren't victims if the shootings were justified.

    No. The trial is to determine the guilt/innocence of the defendant. That much is obvious, or should be.

    One survivor is available to be tried as something other than a victim; he has not been charged with anything.
    Disagree. Their status as "victim" necessitates the implication that a crime has been committed. It is a fine line, but I am ok with the exclusion of the use of the term in this case since if the three shot men were aggressors from which KR was defending himself, there were not victims.

    Whether or not a witness has been charged with a crime separate from the acts for which the defendant is being tried at trial does not have any bearing to me.
    When you are trying to kill someone and they shoot you in the act of you trying to kill or maim them, you are not a victim.
    Reply Quote
    8
    Osodecentx
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Forest Bueller_bf • 3:32p, 11/12/21
    Forest Bueller_bf said:
    303Bear said:
    quash said:
    Wangchung said:
    quash said:


    The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.
    The trial is being held to determine their status. They aren't victims if the shootings were justified.

    No. The trial is to determine the guilt/innocence of the defendant. That much is obvious, or should be.

    One survivor is available to be tried as something other than a victim; he has not been charged with anything.
    Disagree. Their status as "victim" necessitates the implication that a crime has been committed. It is a fine line, but I am ok with the exclusion of the use of the term in this case since if the three shot men were aggressors from which KR was defending himself, there were not victims.

    Whether or not a witness has been charged with a crime separate from the acts for which the defendant is being tried at trial does not have any bearing to me.
    When you are trying to kill someone and they shoot you in the act of you trying to kill or maim them, you are not a victim.
    Seems pretty straight forward, doesn't it?

    Reply Quote
    1
    Canon
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to fadskier • 5:32p, 11/12/21
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reply Quote
    6
    Porteroso
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Canon • 7:17p, 11/12/21
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Reply Quote
    3
    Wrecks Quan Dough
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    7:33p, 11/12/21
    It is a referendum on rioting and arson. Kyle walks.
    Reply Quote
    2
    Wangchung
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Porteroso • 7:57p, 11/12/21
    Porteroso said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Kyle tried to put out the fires. An officer would arrest the arsonist.
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Reply Quote
    2
    Porteroso
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Wangchung • 8:18p, 11/12/21
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Kyle tried to put out the fires. An officer would arrest the arsonist.
    He did that in addition to preventing them. This doesn't have to be as hard as you're trying to make it. Just admit you're wrong and move on.

    Edit: for clarity, I'm referring to my previous comment. He had a gun to prevent fires, and a fire extinguisher to put them out.
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    Canon
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Porteroso • 8:23p, 11/12/21
    Porteroso said:
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Kyle tried to put out the fires. An officer would arrest the arsonist.
    He did that in addition to preventing them. This doesn't have to be as hard as you're trying to make it. Just admit you're wrong and move on.


    He didn't. You are clearly lying. You should stop lying. It's a bad look.
    Reply Quote
    8
    303Bear
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Forest Bueller_bf • 8:23p, 11/12/21
    Forest Bueller_bf said:
    303Bear said:
    quash said:
    Wangchung said:
    quash said:


    The judge has banned calling the dead "victims". Absurd use of PC thinking. And having the courtroom applaud a witness on the stand is textbook impermissible comment on the weight of the evidence.
    The trial is being held to determine their status. They aren't victims if the shootings were justified.

    No. The trial is to determine the guilt/innocence of the defendant. That much is obvious, or should be.

    One survivor is available to be tried as something other than a victim; he has not been charged with anything.
    Disagree. Their status as "victim" necessitates the implication that a crime has been committed. It is a fine line, but I am ok with the exclusion of the use of the term in this case since if the three shot men were aggressors from which KR was defending himself, there were not victims.

    Whether or not a witness has been charged with a crime separate from the acts for which the defendant is being tried at trial does not have any bearing to me.
    When you are trying to kill someone and they shoot you in the act of you trying to kill or maim them, you are not a victim.
    I 100% agree with you. The state of Wisconsin, in bringing this case, seems to have a different view.

    Shameful that a government entity would abandon / refuse to carry out one of its core functions and then prosecute a citizen caught in a bad situation (or series of situations) while tying to mitigate the damage resulting from that abdication by government.
    Reply Quote
    4
    Wangchung
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Porteroso • 8:26p, 11/12/21
    Porteroso said:
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Kyle tried to put out the fires. An officer would arrest the arsonist.
    He did that in addition to preventing them. This doesn't have to be as hard as you're trying to make it. Just admit you're wrong and move on.
    Please provide video of Kyle attempting to arrest ANYONE. Or, admit you're wrong and move on.
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Reply Quote
    3
    quash
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:26p, 11/12/21
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

    Makes you look bitter, that.

    Which procedural rule are you whining about?
    You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

    You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.
    You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.


    So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?

    Shock.

    OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.

    No, actually, I have no idea which rule you're talking about. You brought it up, you should cite it.
    I will say it again: But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.


    You called me out. Now you won't back it up.

    And you think I'm the one showing disrespect.

    You have nothing and it's showing.

    And, as usual, you're just boring us.

    “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
    Reply Quote
    Wangchung
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    8:30p, 11/12/21
    Heck, I'll even take the testimony of even ONE witness that says Kyle was out trying to arrest the arsonists. Lol
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Reply Quote
    Oldbear83
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to quash • 8:40p, 11/12/21
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    quash said:
    Oldbear83 said:
    You hate the judge for enforcing well-known rules of procedure?

    Makes you look bitter, that.

    Which procedural rule are you whining about?
    You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.

    You brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.
    You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.


    So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?

    Shock.

    OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.

    No, actually, I have no idea which rule you're talking about. You brought it up, you should cite it.
    I will say it again: But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.


    You called me out. Now you won't back it up.

    And you think I'm the one showing disrespect.

    You have nothing and it's showing.

    And, as usual, you're just boring us.

    If I was wrong, the judge would not be considering the mistrial motion.

    Come on quash, you know full well that before the jury is seated the judge discusses what will and will not be admitted into evidence. The Prosecutor repeatedly tried to use things the judge barred.

    That's been plain for days now.

    So, you have deliberately pretended a universal rule of procedure was not violated here. Hence, you have demonstrated contempt not only for the intelligence of the members of this forum, but also for your own profession.

    Hence, you deserve contempt, nothing better.

    As I posted some time back, only without the detail now presented.

    Yet you imagine you are seen as mature and in control, like a variation of Mr. Bean.

    The difference being that Rowan Atkins only plays at being a buffoon, and is well aware of his act.

    You quash. do not seem to be aware of your divorce from rational analysis,
    That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
    Reply Quote
    5
    1 edit
    Canada2017
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Oldbear83 • 8:43p, 11/12/21
    Oldbear83 said:
    303Bear: "I doubt any judge would make such a ruling in a case like this."

    The prosecution has bungled their case beyond anything I expected, and their recent behavior indicates they are hoping for a mistrial and effectively a do-over.
    My thoughts exactly.
    Reply Quote
    3
    4th and Inches
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Oldbear83 • 10:40p, 11/12/21
    Oldbear83 said:
    303Bear: "I doubt any judge would make such a ruling in a case like this."

    I agree. No one wants to be seen as having unilaterally "decided" the case. The prosecution has bungled their case beyond anything I expected, and their recent behavior indicates they are hoping for a mistrial and effectively a do-over.

    I do not believe the judge will give the prosecution that gift. He wants the jury to decide, but if the prosecution's behavior makes a mistrial unavoidable, I think the judge will make sure there is no sequel to this trial.

    I believe the prosecution knows they will lose the decision, but want to make it about the judge to limit damage to their careers.
    no way they bring this case back to trial if it gets tossed. They are getting hammered in court and they wont win now or the next time..
    “Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

    –Horace


    “Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
    Reply Quote
    Porteroso
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Wangchung • 10:43p, 11/12/21
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Kyle tried to put out the fires. An officer would arrest the arsonist.
    He did that in addition to preventing them. This doesn't have to be as hard as you're trying to make it. Just admit you're wrong and move on.
    Please provide video of Kyle attempting to arrest ANYONE. Or, admit you're wrong and move on.

    Oops that was unclear. I was referring to my comment, not his. I'm aware he didn't try to arrest anyone. I meant he both tried to put out fires, and prevent them.
    Reply Quote
    Wangchung
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Porteroso • 10:43p, 11/12/21
    Porteroso said:
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Kyle tried to put out the fires. An officer would arrest the arsonist.
    He did that in addition to preventing them. This doesn't have to be as hard as you're trying to make it. Just admit you're wrong and move on.
    Please provide video of Kyle attempting to arrest ANYONE. Or, admit you're wrong and move on.

    Oops that was unclear. I was referring to my comment, not his. I'm aware he didn't try to arrest anyone. I meant he both tried to put out fires, and prevent them.
    Got it. I thought that claim was a little fast and loose for your style.
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Reply Quote
    Porteroso
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Wangchung • 10:45p, 11/12/21
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Wangchung said:
    Porteroso said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    A police officer who prevents arson would be upholding the law. That's exactly what Rittenhouse says he was attempting. You're absolutely wrong here.
    Kyle tried to put out the fires. An officer would arrest the arsonist.
    He did that in addition to preventing them. This doesn't have to be as hard as you're trying to make it. Just admit you're wrong and move on.
    Please provide video of Kyle attempting to arrest ANYONE. Or, admit you're wrong and move on.

    Oops that was unclear. I was referring to my comment, not his. I'm aware he didn't try to arrest anyone. I meant he both tried to put out fires, and prevent them.
    Got it. I thought that claim was a little fast and loose for your style.

    Yeah I'm slow and tight, that's my style. Actually I think it may be lol.
    Reply Quote
    1
    fadskier
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Canon • 12:33a, 11/13/21
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    Reply Quote
    fadskier
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    12:34a, 11/13/21
    So the Judge is receiving threats and being called racist. Weren't all the "victims" white?
    Salute the Marines - Joe Biden
    Reply Quote
    2
    Canon
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to fadskier • 5:27a, 11/13/21
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    Canon said:
    fadskier said:
    RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:
    The kid needs to serve a little time in prison for what he has done. He went looking for trouble in a town twenty miles away from home with a firearm he was not legally allowed to own at 17. He shot three people. Two died.

    Should he not be punished whatsoever, he will be George Zimmerman 2.0 and we will hear about him again soon (not in a good way). Just my opinion.

    That being said, I am a staunch 2nd amendment advocate.
    I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.
    It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.
    vigilante

    vj-lnt
    noun
    [ol]
  • A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking.
  • A member of a vigilance committee.
  • A person who considers it their own responsibility to uphold the law in their neighbourhood.
    • [/ol]
    Looks like we are both correct
    My goodness, thanks for posting a definition that aligns EXACTLY with what I just posted. I see you are conceding the point. Well done. Points for intellectual honesty.
    I said we were both correct. Look at #3


    He didn't attempt to engage in #3. He merely tried to stand in the way of destroying. He didn't attempt to arrest anyone or enforce any laws.

    Thanks for your concession.
    Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engage


    To uphold the law (aka enforce) requires action or engagement. You are just flat out wrong. You called him a vigilante and you're trying to crawfish away from the actual definition.
    Reply Quote
    6
    Whiskey Pete
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    5:41a, 11/13/21
    The kid is a damn hero. They should tear down the George Floyd statue and build a Kyle Rittenhouse in its place.
    Reply Quote
    7
    Osodecentx
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Whiskey Pete • 8:16a, 11/13/21
    Rawhide said:
    The kid is a damn hero. They should tear down the George Floyd statue and build a Kyle Rittenhouse in its place.
    What did he do to become a hero?
    Reply Quote
    1
    Malbec
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Osodecentx • 8:22a, 11/13/21
    Osodecentx said:
    Rawhide said:
    The kid is a damn hero. They should tear down the George Floyd statue and build a Kyle Rittenhouse in its place.
    What did he do to become a hero?
    Hopefully withstand the vicious misuse of the Wisconsin justice system.
    Reply Quote
    5
    Osodecentx
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Malbec • 8:43a, 11/13/21
    Malbec said:
    Osodecentx said:
    Rawhide said:
    The kid is a damn hero. They should tear down the George Floyd statue and build a Kyle Rittenhouse in its place.
    What did he do to become a hero?
    Hopefully withstand the vicious misuse of the Wisconsin justice system.
    Low threshold for hero nowadays
    Reply Quote
    1
    4th and Inches
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to fadskier • 8:54a, 11/13/21
    fadskier said:
    So the Judge is receiving threats and being called racist. Weren't all the "victims" white?
    yes, Rittenhouse is white. No other victims in this case
    “Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

    –Horace


    “Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
    Reply Quote
    3
    Wangchung
    User Profile
    Private Message
    Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Osodecentx • 9:32a, 11/13/21
    Osodecentx said:
    Malbec said:
    Osodecentx said:
    Rawhide said:
    The kid is a damn hero. They should tear down the George Floyd statue and build a Kyle Rittenhouse in its place.
    What did he do to become a hero?
    Hopefully withstand the vicious misuse of the Wisconsin justice system.
    Low threshold for hero nowadays
    Yeah, a 17 year old steps in after 3 days of the police and local government allowing the destruction of the city where he works and his dad lives. He was outnumbered and knew very few people, but he did was was right anyway and almost died because of it. That's bravery. That's honor. The trash who riot every time a black criminal gets themselves shot by police aren't heroes. The politicians and media who provoked the attacks aren't heroes. The Monday morning hindsight 20/20 quarterbacks aren't heroes. Yes, Kyle is a hero.
    Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
    Reply Quote
    8
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.