This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.Wangchung said:
More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.ATL Bear said:This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.Wangchung said:
More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said: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.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.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.
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
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.
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.
He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.fadskier said:No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said: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.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.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.
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
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.
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.
Said nobody on this boardWangchung said:Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.ATL Bear said:This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.Wangchung said:
More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
Said literally every person who claimed Kyle had no right to be there. When the government fails it's citizens, the citizens either step up and confront the problem or they hide like cowards and call brave people stupid. This country was founded by people like Kyle and in many cases the sameOsodecentx said:Said nobody on this boardWangchung said:Certainly not as delusional as those who think Kyle is guilty of a crime worse than the rioters and the politicians that allowed them to burn cities for an entire year every time some jerkoff criminal got themselves shot by police.ATL Bear said:This is sarcasm, right? Please tell me you aren't this delusional.Wangchung said:
More like Rittenhouse is equal to the average citizens that signed up to fight under George Washington. Volunteers that risked, and in many cases lost, everything in their effort to fight oppression.
Whey they make this story into a movie, Jeffrey Tambor should play the judge.Cobretti said:No one in the room felt the need to say or do anything about an ‘accused double murderer’ leaning over the judge from behind, completely unshackled
— Jacek Posobiec 🇺🇸🇵🇱 (@JackPosobiec) November 13, 2021
Tells you everything you need to know pic.twitter.com/PhgtwaYQEa
Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.Wangchung said:
Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says Kyle Rittenhouse was a "self-appointed militia member" who drove across state lines and ended up "unloading 60 rounds, kills two people, wounds a third person." pic.twitter.com/kCAjU4TGhd
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) November 14, 2021
What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.Osodecentx said:Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.Wangchung said:
Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
No rioting
ONLY because Peter Boyle has passed on.FormerFlash said:Whey they make this story into a movie, Jeffrey Tambor should play the judge.Cobretti said:No one in the room felt the need to say or do anything about an ‘accused double murderer’ leaning over the judge from behind, completely unshackled
— Jacek Posobiec 🇺🇸🇵🇱 (@JackPosobiec) November 13, 2021
Tells you everything you need to know pic.twitter.com/PhgtwaYQEa
Now is the time on Sprockets when we predict!Amal Shuq-Up said:What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.Osodecentx said:Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.Wangchung said:
Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
No rioting
See Count 6Amal Shuq-Up said:What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.Osodecentx said:Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.Wangchung said:
Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
No rioting
Did I miss your prediction post?Amal Shuq-Up said:What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.Osodecentx said:Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.Wangchung said:
Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
No rioting
Kyle cannot violate that statute. Jonathan Turley breaks it down and explains why it is legally impossible for Kyle to be guilty of the charge alleging he possessed a dangerous weapon.Osodecentx said:See Count 6Amal Shuq-Up said:What misdemeanor? It cannot be the gun possession charge.Osodecentx said:Guilty of a misdemeanor, minor charge, probation sentence.Wangchung said:
Okay, prediction time! What do you think happens with the jury verdict? Guilty on some? All? None?
No rioting
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint
He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.Amal Shuq-Up said:He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.fadskier said:No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said: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.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.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.
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
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.
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.
fadskier said:He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.Amal Shuq-Up said:He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.fadskier said:No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said: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.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.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.
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
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.
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.
I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.
SUPERCUT!
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 15, 2021
Media: Only reason Rittenhouse will walk is because the judge sucks pic.twitter.com/PZvv8MgGUm
Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!Amal Shuq-Up said:fadskier said:He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.Amal Shuq-Up said:He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.fadskier said:No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said: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.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.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.
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
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.
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.
I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.
That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.
Oldbear83 said:If I was wrong, the judge would not be considering the mistrial motion.quash said:Oldbear83 said:I will say it again: But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.quash said:Oldbear83 said:OH I know, and you do too. But respect begets respect, while your conduct deserves none.quash said:Oldbear83 said:You've been an ass on this board for more than two months, surely you can take a break and act like an adult.quash said:Oldbear83 said:You're even more bitter now. Maybe you should just stay away from the trial.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 brought up a rule of procedure, surely you can say which one.
So you don't know which rule of procedure? That you wanted to piously cite?
Shock.
No, actually, I have no idea which rule you're talking about. You brought it up, you should cite it.
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.
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,
Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.fadskier said:Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!Amal Shuq-Up said:fadskier said:He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.Amal Shuq-Up said:He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.fadskier said:No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said: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.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.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.
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
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.
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.
I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.
That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.
Jack Bauer said:
OUT:
Kyle is a white supremacist.
IN:
The Judge is incompetentSUPERCUT!
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 15, 2021
Media: Only reason Rittenhouse will walk is because the judge sucks pic.twitter.com/PZvv8MgGUm
Media has gone well beyond calling him incompetent and has been doing so for a while.quash said:Jack Bauer said:
OUT:
Kyle is a white supremacist.
IN:
The Judge is incompetentSUPERCUT!
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 15, 2021
Media: Only reason Rittenhouse will walk is because the judge sucks pic.twitter.com/PZvv8MgGUm
The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.
90sBear said:Media has gone well beyond calling him incompetent and has been doing so for a while.quash said:Jack Bauer said:
OUT:
Kyle is a white supremacist.
IN:
The Judge is incompetentSUPERCUT!
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 15, 2021
Media: Only reason Rittenhouse will walk is because the judge sucks pic.twitter.com/PZvv8MgGUm
The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.
He's racist because of his phone ringtone, a joke he made about boats being stuck in Long Beach Harbor, and he's made it more difficult for the prosecution than they would like.quash said:90sBear said:Media has gone well beyond calling him incompetent and has been doing so for a while.quash said:Jack Bauer said:
OUT:
Kyle is a white supremacist.
IN:
The Judge is incompetentSUPERCUT!
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 15, 2021
Media: Only reason Rittenhouse will walk is because the judge sucks pic.twitter.com/PZvv8MgGUm
The judge has made some missteps but he's well under the Ito Line.
Like I keep saying, I don't watch the news, so I'll just take your word on that.
I read the statue as well. and I listened to the Judge.Amal Shuq-Up said:Actually, I can read the statute and follow Jonathan Turley's reasoning.fadskier said:Okay, whatever. That's not what the Judge says but I am sure that you know more. Congrats!Amal Shuq-Up said:fadskier said:He could have been...even the Judge said it was possible but that charged has been dropped due to the Judge saying that even if he couldn't not make sense of it, a lay person could not either. As that was the only charge that I thought he had the possibility of being convicted of, I think he's not guilty of all the others.Amal Shuq-Up said:He cannot be convicted of the gun charge.fadskier said:No I am not. Look at definition #3. Again, I don't think he'll get convicted of anything serious, not should he.Canon said:fadskier said:Reread #3…doesn't say anything about attempting to engageCanon said:fadskier said:I said we were both correct. Look at #3Canon said: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.fadskier said:vigilanteCanon said:It was not. A vigilante pursues the trouble. KR stood in the way of the trouble. It's an entirely different motivation.fadskier said:I agree to an extent. It was not his responsibility to be there or to protect business. It was vigilantism.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.
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
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.
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.
I hope he sues every news outlet and politician that said he murdered or was a white supremacist.
That is not the argument. It is statutory impossible for Kyle to be convicted of possession of a dangerous weapon under these facts.