Kyle Rittenhouse is about to testify. Livestream here

originally posted by: FunshineCD

It's difficult to debate this when you don't even have a simple grasp of the facts.

You toss out rhetoric copied from CNN and MSNBC and expect rational debate when your position is irrational to begin with.

a reply to: DBCowboy
what in my response to you do you think I copied from CNN or MSNBC? I do not watch news.

what is your "more than simple" grasp of the facts? Where you there to witness it? Or do you also suffer from a simple grasp of the facts? Because if you did not witness the event, you also have no "grasp of the fact"...

I watched the trial, I watched the videos presented in court.

Obviously that was more than you have done.

You are welcome to your opinion, but if it's not based on the actual evidence provided, then you're doing a bang up job of making a fool of yourself.

a reply to: DBCowboy
well if you think I am making a fool of myself do tell why. You said I was was repeating CNN but cant back it up, you already made a fool of yourself.lol...

a reply to: DBCowboy

I watched the trial, I watched the videos presented in court.

What do you think the allowance of the grainy video allegedly providing provocation on the behalf of KR?

Social and independent media has been crying in their cheerios over it saying this is a nail in KR coffin.

I'm of the opinion that the jurors probably wont give it much weight as it doesn't outweigh the demeanor and actions of Rosenbaum.

You are welcome to your opinion, but if it's not based on the actual evidence provided, then you're doing a bang up job of making a fool of yourself.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Kinda like Jan 6 right?

originally posted by: FunshineCD

You are welcome to your opinion, but if it's not based on the actual evidence provided, then you're doing a bang up job of making a fool of yourself.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Kinda like Jan 6 right?

That literally makes no sense.

Which also proves DB's point.


Who also happens to be a fool, just not in the way you are eluding to.

I watched the trial, I watched the videos presented in court.

Obviously that was more than you have done.

a reply to: DBCowboy

yep. and your opinion means just as much as mine, doesnt it?

originally posted by: FunshineCD

I watched the trial, I watched the videos presented in court.

Obviously that was more than you have done.

a reply to: DBCowboy

yep. and your opinion means just as much as mine, doesnt it?

I would say an informed opinion probably has more value than an uninformed one.

And that's not an insult, it's just common sense.

I guess what i am saying, since sometimes I have hard times articulating, I have my opinions, You dont like them, go flick yourself.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: FunshineCD

It's difficult to debate this when you don't even have a simple grasp of the facts.

You toss out rhetoric copied from CNN and MSNBC and expect rational debate when your position is irrational to begin with.

a reply to: DBCowboy
what in my response to you do you think I copied from CNN or MSNBC? I do not watch news.

what is your "more than simple" grasp of the facts? Where you there to witness it? Or do you also suffer from a simple grasp of the facts? Because if you did not witness the event, you also have no "grasp of the fact"...

I watched the trial, I watched the videos presented in court.

Obviously that was more than you have done.

You are welcome to your opinion, but if it's not based on the actual evidence provided, then you're doing a bang up job of making a fool of yourself.

Thank-you for sharing that important information. Very few people have followed this Rittenhouse trial like you have.

As a remote juror, how do you think the in-house jurors will rule?

originally posted by: FunshineCD
I guess what i am saying, since sometimes I have hard times articulating, I have my opinions, You dont like them, go flick yourself.

supercool!!

someone going to flick themselves is about 1500% more informative than your opinions as has been documented in this thread.

Kind of off-topic, but I think one area the legal system is failing, and contributing to today's hateful environment, is the simple acknowledgement that calling someone racist qualifies as hateful speech. I mean not only criminally but also as a civil matter. imo, it's clearly a hurtful use of words, intended to cause harm and inflict distress. It's pretty clear that hurtful speech is not covered by First Amendment.

Once we don't have people running around calling others "racist", and without any consequence, things might simmer down.

I don't know, man. If "hurtful" speech isn't protected, then what does "freedom of speech" even mean? Even Saddam Hussein would let people in his country speak freely if they only had nice things to say about him.

Outlawing "hate speech" creates a problem that, instead of people saying they hate each other publicly now they're doing it in private, and not telling anyone. If they publicly open up and discuss it then you can talk them out of it, or see it coming when they start acting on it and be ready with a response.

What should be illegal is making threats of harm. That crosses the line between speech and action.

Threatening to riot if you don't get your way isn't protected free speech. A course of action is being chained to the thing being said, and someone else's freedom to choose their own course of action is being limited. The stopping point for all freedoms is the point where they infringe on someone else's freedom.

a reply to: carewemust

The issue is and always has been, did Rittenhouse act in self defense?

The media, pundits and prosecutors have been obfuscating this core issue.

If Rittenhouse acted in self defense then he should be found not guilty.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't know, man. If "hurtful" speech isn't protected, then what does "freedom of speech" even mean? Even Saddam Hussein would let people in his country speak freely if they only had nice things to say about him.

Outlawing "hate speech" creates a problem that, instead of people saying they hate each other publicly now they're doing it in private, and not telling anyone. If they publicly open up and discuss it then you can talk them out of it, or see it coming when they start acting on it and be ready with a response.

What should be illegal is making threats of harm. That crosses the line between speech and action.

Threatening to riot if you don't get your way isn't protected free speech. A course of action is being chained to the thing being said, and someone else's freedom to choose their own course of action is being limited. The stopping point for all freedoms is the point where they infringe on someone else's freedom.

Freedom of speech is "F this", hurtful speech is "F you".

originally posted by: FlyingFox

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I don't know, man. If "hurtful" speech isn't protected, then what does "freedom of speech" even mean? Even Saddam Hussein would let people in his country speak freely if they only had nice things to say about him.

Outlawing "hate speech" creates a problem that, instead of people saying they hate each other publicly now they're doing it in private, and not telling anyone. If they publicly open up and discuss it then you can talk them out of it, or see it coming when they start acting on it and be ready with a response.

What should be illegal is making threats of harm. That crosses the line between speech and action.

Threatening to riot if you don't get your way isn't protected free speech. A course of action is being chained to the thing being said, and someone else's freedom to choose their own course of action is being limited. The stopping point for all freedoms is the point where they infringe on someone else's freedom.

Freedom of speech is "F this", hurtful speech is "F you".

Do I have reason to believe that a person who tells me "F you" is planning to act on what they have said?

This looks to me like a big problem American culture has when encountering foreign or minority cultures. It's sort of forbidden in some cultures to hurt anyone's feelings, but in the USA it's considered fine, and even necessary.

How is a person supposed to grow if you never tell them they haven't met your expectations? That they're a Dusche bag, or a loser, and you don't respect them as they stand now?

In some cultures "respect" is an entitlement, and you're considered to have every right to become violent if somebody doesn't respect you. In American culture, respect is something to be earned, and it is always your own fault, and nobody else but you, if you're not getting respect. Because if you wanted respect, you should have done something to earn it.

I really don't want there ever to be a law that requires this cultural bridge to be gapped. Or if there is one, it should be one requiring foreign cultures to do that gapping to our way (at least tolerate it). We shouldn't have to conform to anyone else's cultural ideals when they're in our lands. You want to come here, then you can conform to ours.

Good point made here: twitter.com...

Accused double-murderers are usually shackled/restrained in some way.

It's pretty good when the Judge can't tell if Rittenhouse violated the law by carrying the rifle. The Judge states that he had put numerous hours on trying to figure out the law and if it applies in this case. He's stated that he can't figure it out even though he's had legal training, how is an ordinary citizen supposed to know if they are in compliance.

www.foxnews.com... how is an ordinary citizen supposed to know if they are in compliance.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: carewemust

The issue is and always has been, did Rittenhouse act in self defense?

The media, pundits and prosecutors have been obfuscating this core issue.

If Rittenhouse acted in self defense then he should be found not guilty.

This.

Not one single angle from any single video that was shown in court showed Kyle as the aggressor. He was shown to be protecting himself and the prosecution was backed into a corner. They were asking the kid if he had the intention to kill that day since the bullets he used weren't the kind that stop inside the body, which in turn put others in harm's way. I've never seen a more inept, desperate Prosecution.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
It's pretty good when the Judge can't tell if Rittenhouse violated the law by carrying the rifle. The Judge states that he had put numerous hours on trying to figure out the law and if it applies in this case. He's stated that he can't figure it out even though he's had legal training, how is an ordinary citizen supposed to know if they are in compliance.

www.foxnews.com... how is an ordinary citizen supposed to know if they are in compliance.

So if a 17 year old is working for..... lets say UPS or Fedex and for a local hub in Kenosha. And a package which came into the facility is a rifle being shipped across the U.S. and they actually have to handle the box and pick it up for some reason or another are they breaking the law just because they had to pick it up? the weapon is in their possession.

Self defense is what again? 😃

Long gun measures how long again? 😃