Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:22:00 PM (view original):
First off, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to frisk someone to make sure they’re unarmed when they’re attacking you. There’s no way of knowing if a person is unarmed at night in a chaotic situation. There’s a lot of places to conceal a pistol that someone could get to within milliseconds. He also retreated, which he had no legal obligation to do, but it does work towards his defense that he attempted to get away before resorting to shooting the guy.

Why didn’t he retreat earlier when his friend did? His friend wasn’t there. Why did he leave the property he was there to protect? Why drop the fire extinguisher?

”He might’ve had a gun” isn’t the best defense, either. So we can just shoot anyone who’s running now?

He had no legal obligation to leave that property. He had just as much right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else there did. He also didn’t have to stay at that one Car Source location. Same answer as above. He had as much of a legal right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else. I don’t remember why he sat the fire extinguisher down on the sidewalk, but I don’t see how that is relevant either.

I don’t remember the exact question, but you essentially asked why he shot an unarmed man. My point is that no reasonable person could know that Rosenbaum was unarmed in that situation. Rittenhouse knew he was being attacked. That’s pretty good justification for shooting someone.

There was a curfew, he actually shouldn’t have been there and most reasonable people weren’t.

Nobody else had a visible gun, except his friends, who had fallen back.

He said he was there to put out fires but he put down the fire extinguisher, Id say that’s relevant.

”No reasonable person could know he was unarmed” and any reasonable person could see who was armed.

“Was being attacked” is good justification for shooting someone to you, ok then. Again, I’d like my daughters to grow up in a country without armed kids shooting anyone they “feel threatened by.” I like law and order.

I never said his actions were okay. People do things all the time that I disagree with. My argument is strictly legal. It sounds like your issues are with the laws on the book. Arguing whether Rittenhouse should be found guilty or not guilty is a different argument than arguing that the laws should be changed.

I don’t disagree with the law. I now believe that Rosenbaum was murdered.
I do believe that under the circumstances Rittenhouse should have stopped after the first shot and most definitely the second.
He has no right in any civilized place to execute an unarmed man with one arm and one hand who is also barely able to move.
So I’m being a little facetious but he had no visible weapon and he was most certainly incapacitated and Rittenhouse was in total and complete control. It was his decision to kill - at that point and the law everywhere says that cannot be allowed because it was no longer self defense.

We should know if you’re right in a couple of days. Like I said, I’m not rooting for anyone here. If you’re right, you’re right.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 5:04:00 PM (view original):
We need more conservatives on here. My thumbs can’t keep up with the 2 on 1.

I don’t think this is a liberal or conservative issue.
I agree with the law - and I am applying that law to the facts as I understand them.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 5:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 5:05:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:54:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:49:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:37:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 4:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 4:22:00 PM (view original):
First off, I’m pretty sure you don’t have to frisk someone to make sure they’re unarmed when they’re attacking you. There’s no way of knowing if a person is unarmed at night in a chaotic situation. There’s a lot of places to conceal a pistol that someone could get to within milliseconds. He also retreated, which he had no legal obligation to do, but it does work towards his defense that he attempted to get away before resorting to shooting the guy.

Why didn’t he retreat earlier when his friend did? His friend wasn’t there. Why did he leave the property he was there to protect? Why drop the fire extinguisher?

”He might’ve had a gun” isn’t the best defense, either. So we can just shoot anyone who’s running now?

He had no legal obligation to leave that property. He had just as much right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else there did. He also didn’t have to stay at that one Car Source location. Same answer as above. He had as much of a legal right to be anywhere in downtown Kenosha as anyone else. I don’t remember why he sat the fire extinguisher down on the sidewalk, but I don’t see how that is relevant either.

I don’t remember the exact question, but you essentially asked why he shot an unarmed man. My point is that no reasonable person could know that Rosenbaum was unarmed in that situation. Rittenhouse knew he was being attacked. That’s pretty good justification for shooting someone.

There was a curfew, he actually shouldn’t have been there and most reasonable people weren’t.

Nobody else had a visible gun, except his friends, who had fallen back.

He said he was there to put out fires but he put down the fire extinguisher, Id say that’s relevant.

”No reasonable person could know he was unarmed” and any reasonable person could see who was armed.

“Was being attacked” is good justification for shooting someone to you, ok then. Again, I’d like my daughters to grow up in a country without armed kids shooting anyone they “feel threatened by.” I like law and order.

I never said his actions were okay. People do things all the time that I disagree with. My argument is strictly legal. It sounds like your issues are with the laws on the book. Arguing whether Rittenhouse should be found guilty or not guilty is a different argument than arguing that the laws should be changed.

I don’t disagree with the law. I now believe that Rosenbaum was murdered.
I do believe that under the circumstances Rittenhouse should have stopped after the first shot and most definitely the second.
He has no right in any civilized place to execute an unarmed man with one arm and one hand who is also barely able to move.
So I’m being a little facetious but he had no visible weapon and he was most certainly incapacitated and Rittenhouse was in total and complete control. It was his decision to kill - at that point and the law everywhere says that cannot be allowed because it was no longer self defense.

We should know if you’re right in a couple of days. Like I said, I’m not rooting for anyone here. If you’re right, you’re right.

Yes... and as I said once before you are good. You create good conversation with point and counterpoint.
We don’t have to agree to have good conversation.
Im looking forward to the verdict.
I love this stuff.
And don’t forget that in just 2 weeks is the oral arguments in the Supreme Court for the Mississippi case and awaiting the Arbury verdict.

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/16/2021 5:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 5:04:00 PM (view original):
We need more conservatives on here. My thumbs can’t keep up with the 2 on 1.

I don’t think this is a liberal or conservative issue.
I agree with the law - and I am applying that law to the facts as I understand them.

+1

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/16/2021 12:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/16/2021 9:20:00 AM (view original):

Posted by Uofa2 on 11/16/2021 8:53:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/15/2021 6:25:00 PM (view original):
By far, the most boring part about the trial so far was listening to the jury’s instructions from the judge earlier today. Ironically, it might be the important part of the trial.

Ah. So you’re not interested in justice at all, it’s just a spectacle and partisan shitthrowing for you, got it.

Someone fill me in. Is this Uofa2 person a troll? Need to know whether to block him or not. I don’t have the time or desire to get into a bitchfest with someone who lacks reading comprehension.

That was my impression.
No one can really be that dumb.
I've never engaged because every post he makes is equal parts vitriol, testosterone and ignorance.

Lol yeah that sounds like me alright

good grief

Let me step up here and apologize wholeheartedly.

I 100% confused you with another poster. I went back and read a few of your posts in other threads and immediately realized my mistake.

I want to say on the record that while we certainly don't agree on a lot of issues, your posts are typically well reasoned and well articulated.

I apologize again for confusing you with the other poster.

Credit where it’s due, I appreciate that and thank you. That was nice of you.

I'd like to know which poster he confused you with?

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum

If you did not catch it Wisconsin has a rule in criminal cases that 18 jurors watch the trial and after the trial 6 juror names are taken out of a bowl and they become alternates and the rest are the jury.
In the past the person sticking their hand in the bowl was a court official.
I don’t know whose idea this was but this Cookoo Judge allowed the defendant to do it. So weird.

It made me think of Shirley Jackson and the lottery.
If he is convicted the image of him doing this will stick.

How bad at your job do you have to be to get your entire network BANNED from the public courthouse where the Rittenhouse trial is being held?

Posted by bruceleefan on 11/18/2021 2:45:00 PM (view original):
How bad at your job do you have to be to get your entire network BANNED from the public courthouse where the Rittenhouse trial is being held?

MSNBC bad, that’s how bad.

With that judge why so surprised ?

The judge long before this case came up was known throughout Wisconsin as a defendant’s judge.
Maybe he is a leftist.

Wasn't the judge appointed by a Democrat?

Posted by tangplay on 11/18/2021 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Wasn't the judge appointed by a Democrat?

That I don’t know and would be interesting.
Im just saying it is ironic that a judge who often thwarts the prosecution is now being seen nationally as a conservative judge.

Posted by Jetson21 on 11/18/2021 3:57:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/18/2021 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Wasn't the judge appointed by a Democrat?

That I don’t know and would be interesting.
Im just saying it is ironic that a judge who often thwarts the prosecution is now being seen nationally as a conservative judge.

He's an *** clown who is relishing his 15 minutes of fame. The prosecutor is also very inept and embarrassing to watch.

many prosecutors are (not all, of course).