Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

[miketx]

for what?

Civil rights violations.

 

[tahuyaman]

Improbable make pretend about what you saw on TV from “accredited sources” which happen to match your feelings is not discussion material

Good bye dumb-ass.

 

[skye]

I wonder how many cars BLM is going to f****up when the verdict is given!

 

[jc456]

Civil rights violations.

I’d sue garland for violating rittenhouse’s rights

 

[tahuyaman]

No he did not at no time did the prosecution claim that the mere act of carrying a rifle was illegal.

You moved the goal posts. First you said that the prosecutor never argued that taking the rifle to the riot was a pro active act. He did argue that.

Now you’ve changed that to say he didn’t argue that it was illegal. On that I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but seeing that he went trial with a charge of illegal possession, that says he did argue that at some point.

Seeing that it’s your position that Wisconsin being an open carry state means that displaying a weapon can’t ever be an act of provocation, does that also apply to the rioters?

 

[candycorn]

So if you are at a friend's house during curfew you should be incarcerated for the violation?

What about the constitutional right of assembly?

If you're running up and down the street...you're not a a friend's house.

 

[candycorn]

Do you really think saying, "Grotesque *****, grotesque *****!" will cure yours?

This just in: I'm still everything you aren't

Yes you are... you're a lonely bitter woman who hangs out on message boards to get the attention she can't garner in real life.

 

[tahuyaman]

Also the prosecution did not claim him having a rifle was a provocation.

Yes he did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You moved the goal posts. First you said that the prosecutor never argued that taking the rifle to the riot was a pro active act. He did argue that.

Now you’ve changed that to say he didn’t argue that it was illegal. On that I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but seeing that he went trial with a charge of illegal possession, that says he did argue that at some point.

Seeing that it’s your position that Wisconsin being an open carry state means that displaying a weapon can’t ever be an act of provocation, does that also apply to the rioters?

Again the charge was he pointed it at people not that he had it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yep. Stepping forward, to help defend society from rioters and looters and arsonists, at great risk to himself.


Any society that punishes that, is a sick and dying society.

 

[tahuyaman]

Because it's not.

The prosecutor did argue that and the judge said that the jury could decide / consider that during their deliberations on one of the murder counts, but not on both.

Any reasonable person would consider that it’s a very provocative act to arm yourself then willfully engage in a violent riot situation.

 

[Indeependent]

You moved the goal posts. First you said that the prosecutor never argued that taking the rifle to the riot was a pro active act. He did argue that.

Now you’ve changed that to say he didn’t argue that it was illegal. On that I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but seeing that he went trial with a charge of illegal possession, that says he did argue that at some point.

Seeing that it’s your position that Wisconsin being an open carry state means that displaying a weapon can’t ever be an act of provocation, does that also apply to the rioters?

The word argue infers illegality.

 

[jc456]

I wonder how many cars BLM is going to f****up when the verdict is given!

For what reason would they riot?

 

[skye]

For what reason would they riot?

Just because!

To riot is in their DNA!

 

[tahuyaman]

Again the charge was he pointed it at people not that he had it.

Wouldn’t you consider it a provocative act to point a rifle at people?

How can you point a rifle at someone if you dont have one? Now, stop moving the goal posts.

Initially the kid was charged with illegal possession. The judge dropped that charge. Obviously at some point the prosecutor argued that Rittenhouse was illegally in possession of the rifle. The prosecutor lost that one.

Ne also has argued the charge that he provoked a confrontation with at least one of the guys he killed. That one has yet to be decided.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 565435

He avenged a crime?

 

[tahuyaman]

The word argue infers illegality.

Huh? This was a criminal trial. You know. A trial about someone accused of illegal conduct. Duh.

 

[Indeependent]

Wouldn’t you consider it a provocative act to point a rifle at people?

You are carrying a rifle in one hand and a medical kit in the other hand.
In what position do you maintain the rifle?

 

[Indeependent]

Huh? This was a criminal trial. You know. A trial about someone accused of illegal conduct. Duh.

Exactly...the prosecutor was arguing something he knew wasn't illegal.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wouldn’t you consider it a provocative act to point a rifle at people?

Not in in defense of self NO and that's what he did.