Rittenhouse jury just went to deliberate

What will the verdict be?

  • Guilty on all charges

    Votes: 2 2.7%
  • Not guilty on all charges

    Votes: 53 72.6%
  • Some yes and some no

    Votes: 18 24.7%

  • Total voters
    73
A neo-Con is a globalist who loves slave labor, is greedy and suffers from avarice and doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
A neo-Con sends other people to fight their fights.
A neo-Con does not consider events in context, but reacts emotionally and intellectually to every event that effects their assets, realized and unrealized,

Yes, I know many neo-Cons.
You have part of it right. A small part. They are globalists. However, I doubt that you know what that means. That’s about all you got right but you don’t know why.
 
You’re little more than a Neo-NUT
So there is that.
Actually he’s a malcontent who simply opposes things only because he doesn’t understand the idea or basic philosophy. It’s obvious that he’s not a conservative. He’s the type who mindlessly follows the marching orders fed to him by his favorite talk show host.
 

The donkey told the tiger, “The grass is blue.”

The tiger replied, “No, the grass is green.”

The discussion became heated, and the two decided to submit the issue to arbitration, so they approached the lion.

As they approached the lion on his throne, the donkey started screaming: ′′Your Highness, isn’t it true that the grass is blue?”

The lion replied: “If you believe it is true, the grass is blue.”

The donkey rushed forward and continued: ′′The tiger disagrees with me, contradicts me and annoys me. Please punish him.”

The king then declared: ′′The tiger will be punished with 3 days of silence.”

The donkey jumped with joy and went on his way, content and repeating ′′The grass is blue, the grass is blue…”

The tiger asked the lion, “Your Majesty, why have you punished me, after all, the grass is green?”



The lion replied, ′′You’ve known and seen the grass is green.”

The tiger asked, ′′So why do you punish me?”

The lion replied, “That has nothing to do with the question of whether the grass is blue or green. The punishment is because it is degrading for a brave, intelligent creature like you to waste time arguing with an ass, and on top of that, you came and bothered me with that question just to validate something you already knew was true!”
 
Unless you withdraw.
Meaning run away...just like Kyle did.

That's why everyone (including the judge and prosecutor) is talking about perfect self defense because they recognize it as such.
In an active shooter situation, the shooter trying to getaway is hardly de-escalation.
 
That's absurd. Rittenhouse wasn't authorized or qualified, or even asked to defend anything. Nothing I say should be construed to support the illegal actions of the rioters, but it must be noted that their illegal actions were intended to reduce the epidemic of cops killing black men with seemingly no consequences. If you want to condemn rioters, and call them vigilantes, I won't disagree with you, but that still doesn't justify Rittenhouse's vigilantism.


I don't care if he was authorized or asked. He had the right to stand there adn protect property and in doing so, he was violating no laws and not hurting anyone.


The rioters, were looking to burn and destroy. That was breaking laws and hurting people.


You asked how they were different. As I explained, they are different in every way.


Now that you know that, now please explain what your point was. Were you trying to make the point that they were the same?


Because now you see that is NOT the case. CLEARLY.


Does that now change your view of the rioters or Rittenhouse?
 
Actually he’s a malcontent who simply opposes things only because he doesn’t understand the idea or basic philosophy. It’s obvious that he’s not a conservative. He’s the type who mindlessly follows the marching orders fed to him by his favorite talk show host.
Didn’t take you long to figure this hellhole out. Nice work
 
Pointing it at people did. After the first murder, he was an active shooter trying to escape.


Depends why he was "pointing" it at people. And even if it was a provocation, the bit were he ran and ran, would have been him deescalating the confrontation and the bit where the rioters chased him down and attacked him, would have flipped the legal onus back onto them.


He was never an "active shooter". He was an "active trying to get away".
 
I don't see any evidence the rioters were even primarily Black, much less anti white.
All the people shot by Rittenhouse were white.


Oh, antifa is definitely anti-white racist assholes.
 
I don't care if he was authorized or asked. He had the right to stand there adn protect property and in doing so, he was violating no laws and not hurting anyone.


The rioters, were looking to burn and destroy. That was breaking laws and hurting people.


You asked how they were different. As I explained, they are different in every way.


Now that you know that, now please explain what your point was. Were you trying to make the point that they were the same?


Because now you see that is NOT the case. CLEARLY.


Does that now change your view of the rioters or Rittenhouse?
Your silly explanations were absurd, and proved nothing.
 
Your silly explanations were absurd, and proved nothing.


Said the man that asked a question, and when I answered it, paid no attention to the answer.


That is a fine example of how "questions" from libs, are not really questions, and are actually lies.

Because you were not really asking a question. You did not care about any answer and did not listen to, nor respond to the answer.


Thus, the act of asking the question, is a lie. Because it is not a question. YOu are using the form of the question to hide your unsupported and indefensible assertions.


Rittenhouse defending property is not hurting anyone, indeed, is helping people. Rosenbaum burning shit down, is hurting people. That is the difference.


Your side bad guys. My side good guys.
 
15th post
Said the man that asked a question, and when I answered it, paid no attention to the answer.


That is a fine example of how "questions" from libs, are not really questions, and are actually lies.

Because you were not really asking a question. You did not care about any answer and did not listen to, nor respond to the answer.


Thus, the act of asking the question, is a lie. Because it is not a question. YOu are using the form of the question to hide your unsupported and indefensible assertions.


Rittenhouse defending property is not hurting anyone, indeed, is helping people. Rosenbaum burning shit down, is hurting people. That is the difference.


Your side bad guys. My side good guys.

Rittenhouse was not defending any property.
If there was property for him to defend, then he would have stayed on that property, instead of going from person to person, trying to intimidate them.
 
Nonsense.
Antifa is anti-fascist, so is not anti-white.
Most antifa is white.


1. Antifa is not "anti-fascist". They are using text book fascists tactics.

2. Antifa is certainly anti-white racist.

3. But thanks for not insulting my intelligence with the stupid lie that they do not exist. Some libs are such assholes that they make that claim.
 
Rittenhouse was not defending any property.
If there was property for him to defend, then he would have stayed on that property, instead of going from person to person, trying to intimidate them.


Sure he was. The car dealership.


That bit where you had to lie? That was your brain dealing with the fact that is knows that your position, is complete shit.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom