Rittenhouse trial

[Sharpie]

3 hours ago, JFK-1 said:

The boy is a Billy Liar, a fantasist who premeditatedly put himself into a volatile situation. A location where the situation was so volatile the authorities had imposed a curfew he was ignoring.

That's not to say the self defence plea is flawed, in terms of US laws it's probably a sound plea. In normal circumstances that is.

By normal circumstances I mean someone just walking along the street minding their own business and being set upon unprovokedly.

But these weren't normal circumstances were they? It was a major disturbance with a curfew in place and this fantasist just can't resist getting into the drama. Play out a character.

Is this acceptable? A vigilante Mad Max style society where any young/old wacko can take to the streets toting military style kit? Simply adding to the confusion and the likelihood of deadly incidents.

If this boy killed or injured anybody who thought he was an active shooter he's guilty of murder. Murder with a weapon he was illegally carrying during a curfew he was illegally breaking.

What would you have thought if you had come across him shooting people with a rifle? in a country where there are frequent active shooter drills exactly because of the fact such incidents are frequent?

 

If this boy just walks away from this he's going to be a poster boy for every far right gun nut in the country and it will further embolden said gun nuts. That's just one thing that's at stake here.
 

 

Good points, but my concern is the Jury, they are seeing a young man accused of what can be defined as murder.  They have seen what from my viewing is a Judge who almost gives the impression that the case should not even be before him. They see a prosecutor who in some ways seems unprepared and has made some prosecutorial errors, which said Judge has pointed out strongly. I have no idea who is on the Jury but there will be some I am sure who will be impressed by the tearless sobbing. 

[JFK-1]

45 minutes ago, Sharpie said:

I have no idea who is on the Jury but there will be some I am sure who will be impressed by the tearless sobbing. 

 

I haven't seen that and have no intention of seeing it anytime soon. It's an irrelevant distraction to the case. Even if his performance were from the heart and for the benefit of the dead and injured it's still irrelevant. It's what he did not how he feels about it that's at issue.

Personally if I were in a situation where I could potentially be locked up for decades at 18 years old I would be traumatised. At that age it would seem like forever, longer than your current total life experience no less.

And that's intimidating enough to provoke an emotional reaction from any 18 year old. If he were faking it as you appear to imply then that makes him even weirder.

[Sharpie]

48 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I haven't seen that and have no intention of seeing it anytime soon. It's an irrelevant distraction to the case. Even if his performance were from the heart and for the benefit of the dead and injured it's still irrelevant. It's what he did not how he feels about it that's at issue.

Personally if I were in a situation where I could potentially be locked up for decades at 18 years old I would be traumatised. At that age it would seem like forever, longer than your current total life experience no less.

And that's intimidating enough to provoke an emotional reaction from any 18 year old. If he were faking it as you appear to imply then that makes him even weirder.

 

I saw it so feel competent to discuss it. In my opinion the performance was false, and was motivated by a desire to influence the Jury. Nothing that happens in a Court of Law is irrelevant, everything is under scrutiny.

 

If you were in a position as the accused was where you were driving regularly without a drivers licence, having a serious piece of firepower purchased illegally for you because you were under age, and then carrying it into a hostile area where there were other armed people, you would have to be mentally unstable not to realise the laws you were contravening  and that there were similar people with your mental and reasoning abilities as well armed and likely to use the weaponry as you, then you are the maker of your own fate. If you would be trautamised when facing Trial regarding the deaths of other human beings would you not have realised that your deliberate denial of the mores of a normal world would have serious consequences. Having been a father and a grandfather, and in my profession seen lots of tears that were brought on, on demand, and I can say I am confident in my opinion and not in any way implying that his whole emotional outburst was a false and deliberate act to incur sympathy from a Jury

 

I would also stick with my previous diagnosis that this young man suffers from low self esteem, and his actions in seeking positions where he will be seen as some form of saviour and hero are fairly classic symptoms of that, his need to have a large and powerful weapon  in his possession and his need to go where he had no right to be, as his duty had been clearly defined as securing a piece of private property are further indications of this problem. You state that if you were in Court you would be trautamised if you were facing a similar possible sentence, but trauma would not have kept you from imposing death sentences on other humans,it would me, and I can state quite honestly that I have been in a situation here I had legal and in fact ordered right to take a life and hesitated at the last second, to find that I would have killed a man who breached a formal directive but not with the intent to do me harm. I was highly trained in methods of taking life, but never had any ambition to put them to use.

[Sooperstar]

The prosecution must be wishing Rittenhouse was a bit more accurate when he shot this guy...

 

 

[Des Lynam]

13 hours ago, Sooperstar said:

The prosecution must be wishing Rittenhouse was a bit more accurate when he shot this guy...

 

 

 

 

I thought his testimony was pretty poor. 

[Felix Lighter]

On 12/11/2021 at 14:21, JackLadd said:

 

Smeaton at Glasgow Airport should have just say back in 07 a

 

 

This is at the point he's tripped over and is killing Huber and let off at the other guy on the left, was at least a few seconds before that he had the gun aimed at Grosskreutz and his pistol was not drawn. 

 

You said earlier in this thread that you had watched the trial in full from the start, but you continually get facts wrong.

 

Footage was shown during Grosskreutz' time on the stand that showed him pulling his weapon from it's belt clip whilst he and the mob were in pursuit of Rittenhouse and he admitted to doing so, contradicting his earlier statement to the police where he said the weapon fell out of his belt earlier and he was unarmed when shot and had his hands up. He later admitted under cross examination that Rittenhouse fired at him only after he had pointed his loaded pistol at him ( slam-dunk for the defence ). He also stated on the stand that Rittenhouse " re-racked " the rifle prior to him being shot, saying that Rittenhouse tried to shoot him whilst he had his hands up but the rifle jammed. Another lie, " re-racking " would have ejected a live round from the chamber, no live rounds were found at the scene and the magazine had 22 rounds of the 30 left in it after Rittenhouse fired off 8 rounds in total. 4 at Rosenbaum, 2 at drop kick guy, 1 at Huber and 1 at Grosskreutz.  

Grosskreutz, interestingly, has a pending civil case where he is suing for damages to the tune of $10 million, in that case he has conveniently left out of his testimony the fact that he was illegally armed. A criminal conviction will pretty much guarantee he wins his civil case, so no conflict of interest there then. The prosecutions star witness was utterly discredited.

 

On 12/11/2021 at 12:20, Sooperstar said:

1st guy: he was chasing Rittenhouse but was unarmed. Rittenhouse turned round and shot him. Some say Rittenhouse may have heard another gunshot and thought the chaser was shooting at him. Don't care, you can't just say I thought he was shooting at me. Guilty.

 

2nd guy: was attacking Rittenhouse with a skateboard because he had just shot someone else and he wanted to disarm him. Tries to wrestle the gun from him and gets shot. If that's a terrorist doing the shooting then he doesn't get off with that one in self defence. Neither should Rittenhouse. Guilty.

 

3rd guy: points his gun at Rittenhouse and then gets shot. OK, he can have a not guilty for the attempt charge.

 

1st guy: Unarmed, yes. With the benefit of hindsight. Rittenhouse did not know this, and to my recollection neither he or his counsel has claimed he thought he was being shot at. He has testified that he shot because he felt cornered and Rosenbaum, who had earlier threatened to kill him, lunged at him and grabbed his rifle.

The pathologist ( prosecution witness ) stated that in his opinion the forensic evidence pointed to this ( location of powder burns, location of gsw ),as did the journalist who was directly behind Rosenbaum. 

 

2nd guy: How can you claim to know the motives of Huber? 

That is just your opinion.

You have destroyed your own argument by admitting Huber grabbed the rifle. Huber, a convicted criminal with a history of violence, actually hit Rittenhouse twice with his skateboard,  the first time he dropped the board, retrieved it and carried on the chase, hit him again when Rittenhouse was prostrate, grabbed the rifle and was shot. 

 

3rd guy: Agreed. 

 

4th guy: Yes, there was a 4th guy. He was also chasing Rittenhouse. He got to Rittenhouse first and to within a few feet of him, but stopped and backed off with his hands up when Rittenhouse points his rifle at him. Did Rittenhouse shoot him? No. Why not? Possibly because he no longer posed a threat to Rittenhouse' safety. Hardly the actions of a crazed active shooter, hellbent on going out to kill people. 

 

 

Seriously, folk need to drop the political crap and judge on the evidence presented. Imo it's a travesty this has gone to trial when under normal circumstances it would likely be thrown out.

Incidentally, the prosecution have been outed for witness tampering, they also conveniently failed to act on a search warrant for Grosskreutz' phone, and the police conveniently forgot to swab the rifle barrel for prints. 

 

I'm of the opinion that those who attacked Rittenhouse saw a baby faced kid with a rifle, they thought he would be a soft touch who wouldn't defend himself and wanted to steal the rifle. The notion that they were stand up guys doing their civic duty in trying to disarm an active shooter when Rittenhouse was running toward the police line to surrender himself doesn't tally. If they were so concerned with seeing justice being done why not escort him peacefully to the police to make sure he turns himself in?

I'm also of the opinion that had they managed to get his rifle off him then Rittenhouse would have been lynched.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  

 

 

 

 

[Des Lynam]

1 hour ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

You said earlier in this thread that you had watched the trial in full from the start, but you continually get facts wrong.

 

Footage was shown during Grosskreutz' time on the stand that showed him pulling his weapon from it's belt clip whilst he and the mob were in pursuit of Rittenhouse and he admitted to doing so, contradicting his earlier statement to the police where he said the weapon fell out of his belt earlier and he was unarmed when shot and had his hands up. He later admitted under cross examination that Rittenhouse fired at him only after he had pointed his loaded pistol at him ( slam-dunk for the defence ). He also stated on the stand that Rittenhouse " re-racked " the rifle prior to him being shot, saying that Rittenhouse tried to shoot him whilst he had his hands up but the rifle jammed. Another lie, " re-racking " would have ejected a live round from the chamber, no live rounds were found at the scene and the magazine had 22 rounds of the 30 left in it after Rittenhouse fired off 8 rounds in total. 4 at Rosenbaum, 2 at drop kick guy, 1 at Huber and 1 at Grosskreutz.  

Grosskreutz, interestingly, has a pending civil case where he is suing for damages to the tune of $10 million, in that case he has conveniently left out of his testimony the fact that he was illegally armed. A criminal conviction will pretty much guarantee he wins his civil case, so no conflict of interest there then. The prosecutions star witness was utterly discredited.

 

 

1st guy: Unarmed, yes. With the benefit of hindsight. Rittenhouse did not know this, and to my recollection neither he or his counsel has claimed he thought he was being shot at. He has testified that he shot because he felt cornered and Rosenbaum, who had earlier threatened to kill him, lunged at him and grabbed his rifle.

The pathologist ( prosecution witness ) stated that in his opinion the forensic evidence pointed to this ( location of powder burns, location of gsw ),as did the journalist who was directly behind Rosenbaum. 

 

2nd guy: How can you claim to know the motives of Huber? 

That is just your opinion.

You have destroyed your own argument by admitting Huber grabbed the rifle. Huber, a convicted criminal with a history of violence, actually hit Rittenhouse twice with his skateboard,  the first time he dropped the board, retrieved it and carried on the chase, hit him again when Rittenhouse was prostrate, grabbed the rifle and was shot. 

 

3rd guy: Agreed. 

 

4th guy: Yes, there was a 4th guy. He was also chasing Rittenhouse. He got to Rittenhouse first and to within a few feet of him, but stopped and backed off with his hands up when Rittenhouse points his rifle at him. Did Rittenhouse shoot him? No. Why not? Possibly because he no longer posed a threat to Rittenhouse' safety. Hardly the actions of a crazed active shooter, hellbent on going out to kill people. 

 

 

Seriously, folk need to drop the political crap and judge on the evidence presented. Imo it's a travesty this has gone to trial when under normal circumstances it would likely be thrown out.

Incidentally, the prosecution have been outed for witness tampering, they also conveniently failed to act on a search warrant for Grosskreutz' phone, and the police conveniently forgot to swab the rifle barrel for prints. 

 

I'm of the opinion that those who attacked Rittenhouse saw a baby faced kid with a rifle, they thought he would be a soft touch who wouldn't defend himself and wanted to steal the rifle. The notion that they were stand up guys doing their civic duty in trying to disarm an active shooter when Rittenhouse was running toward the police line to surrender himself doesn't tally. If they were so concerned with seeing justice being done why not escort him peacefully to the police to make sure he turns himself in?

I'm also of the opinion that had they managed to get his rifle off him then Rittenhouse would have been lynched.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  

 

 

 

 

That’s a great summary of the case so far. 

 

The bit in bold is exactly what’s going on here. 

[Felix Lighter]

54 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

That’s a great summary of the case so far. 

 

The bit in bold is exactly what’s going on here. 

 

Thanks. I was off sick so I watched the trial from the start. The political polarisation of this case in the media has been appalling, as has the behaviour of the prosecution and some of the witnesses. The brothers who ran the car lot that Rittenhouse and the others were "protecting" were quite happy to throw him under the bus and lie under oath in order to try and save their insurance claim. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Felix Lighter

[OTT]

45 minutes ago, Des Lynam said:

That’s a great summary of the case so far. 

 

The bit in bold is exactly what’s going on here. 

 

Yeah, from what I've seen the defence are absolutely filleting the prosecution, its almost amateurish but it may be that there just isn't a strong enough case. I think Rittenhouse went out of his way to insert himself into a dangerous and volatile situation for no discernible reason but ultimately as @Felix Lighter says, had they got that gun off him Rittenhouse would be dead therefore self defence is fair argument despite the idiocy of doing what he did. It seems like naivety and immaturity. Could be that despite 2 people being dead the actual criminality is around his possession of a gun/ crossing state lines with it. Do his parents bear any responsibility in that regard?

 

That Grosskreutz guy comes off as someone kidding on they're smarter than they are and Anderson Cooper despite essentially being on his side seemed to be able to poke holes in his statement without any real effort.

[Beni]

2 hours ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

1st guy: Unarmed, yes. With the benefit of hindsight. Rittenhouse did not know this, and to my recollection neither he or his counsel has claimed he thought he was being shot at.

 

Rittenhouse testified that he knew he was unarmed.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wednesday/index.html

 

He also shot him 4 times, I've not seen much said about that, but it seems excessive for self defence. 

I watched a bit on Friday where the prosecution were trying to get a lesser offence considered for the first killing but the judge wouldn't allow it.

My own suspicion is he'll be found not guilty.

[Felix Lighter]

4 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

Rittenhouse testified that he knew he was unarmed.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/10/us/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-wednesday/index.html

 

He also shot him 4 times, I've not seen much said about that, but it seems excessive for self defence. 

I watched a bit on Friday where the prosecution were trying to get a lesser offence considered for the first killing but the judge wouldn't allow it.

My own suspicion is he'll be found not guilty.

 

I don't remember that. During Rittenhouse' testimony, the DA was firing questions at him, "Is it true..." ending each question with the word "correct?" to which Rittenhouse answered in the affirmative. Is it possible that the DA squeezed in a sneaky one, Rittenhouse under intense pressure wasn't properly paying attention and just answered yes? I'd need to check as perhaps CNN are maybe being disingenuous.

Rittenhouse goes on to say, mistakenly, that he thought Rosenbaum was armed with a chain. 

 

The 4 shots that Rittenhouse fired off took 0.75 seconds, excessive? that's up for the jury to decide. For me, no.     

[Felix Lighter]

Guys, I'm up at 4am for work, off to bed. Good night. 

[Beni]

31 minutes ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

I don't remember that. During Rittenhouse' testimony, the DA was firing questions at him, "Is it true..." ending each question with the word "correct?" to which Rittenhouse answered in the affirmative. Is it possible that the DA squeezed in a sneaky one, Rittenhouse under intense pressure wasn't properly paying attention and just answered yes? I'd need to check as perhaps CNN are maybe being disingenuous.

Rittenhouse goes on to say, mistakenly, that he thought Rosenbaum was armed with a chain. 

 

The 4 shots that Rittenhouse fired off took 0.75 seconds, excessive? that's up for the jury to decide. For me, no.     

 

I don't know because I didn't watch it, only going by what I've seen reported.

 

This might be the relevant clip.

 

 

[JackLadd]

Powerful case being made against Rittenhouse thus far by prosecution closing argument. Not sure how any self defence claim can be construed there.

[Longbaws]

Guns eh, what a load of shite they are. Probably handy in revolutionary America but utterly pointless otherwise. They've allowed wee dweebs to get the upper hand on the genuine hardmen like myself.

 

Up there with bombs as the worst invention in history.

 

FT2ndAmmendment

[Seymour M Hersh]

17 hours ago, JackLadd said:

Powerful case being made against Rittenhouse thus far by prosecution closing argument. Not sure how any self defence claim can be construed there.

 

It's the polar opposite of a powerful case. The prosecutor has been utterly useless. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

On 14/11/2021 at 19:47, Des Lynam said:

That’s a great summary of the case so far. 

 

The bit in bold is exactly what’s going on here. 

 

You're not wrong. Right from the start the media and supposed fact checkers have just lied through their teeth. One fact checker (ooh the irony) stated as fact that it was illegal for him to be carrying the weapon. The MSM media and politicians just followed on without checking the States Laws.  So when it comes to it the Judge easily makes idiot prosecutor admit he was in fact legally in possession of the rifle (something about barrel length) and then promptly drops the charge against the defendant. 

[hughesie27]

Expecting verdict today?

[JackLadd]

2 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It's the polar opposite of a powerful case. The prosecutor has been utterly useless. 

 

Was a slam dunk to me. Provocation of aiming at his gun at people started the whole episode. No physical attack from Rosenbaum, kill shot a bullet in the back, crowd responding to active shooter. Huber actually a hero, and Grosskreutz they showed multiple frames of Rittenhouse with his gun pointed at Grosskreutz. He was entitled to defend himself more than Rittenhouse. Also the kid McGuinnes who was stood behind Rosenbaum when Rittenhouse let off the four full metal jacket rounds the first of which took Rosembaum down = reckless endangerment of McGuinness.  On that evidence Rittenhouse would be locked away in any sane country. 

[Sharpie]

I watched a considerable amount of the Trial, during that time I had self opined total guilt.Watching the summaries by the prosecution I haven't changed my personal opinion of guilt, but do see the reasons why there are different opinions to mine. I feel the Prosecutor did a poor job in presenting his case, he also was not convincing in his post Trial presentations, I doubt a jury will come in with a decision of Guilt. They may on one of the minor charges, with minimum sentences.

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, JackLadd said:

 

Was a slam dunk to me. Provocation of aiming at his gun at people started the whole episode. No physical attack from Rosenbaum, kill shot a bullet in the back, crowd responding to active shooter. Huber actually a hero, and Grosskreutz they showed multiple frames of Rittenhouse with his gun pointed at Grosskreutz. He was entitled to defend himself more than Rittenhouse. Also the kid McGuinnes who was stood behind Rosenbaum when Rittenhouse let off the four full metal jacket rounds the first of which took Rosembaum down = reckless endangerment of McGuinness.  On that evidence Rittenhouse would be locked away in any sane country. 

 

I think I'll go with the Law Professor from George Washington University who suggests the prosecution could not be trying any harder to reach acquittal. 

[JackLadd]

3 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I think I'll go with the Law Professor from George Washington University who suggests the prosecution could not be trying any harder to reach acquittal. 

 

He will be acquitted of course. He could have shot ten more per your invested in the politics buffoon and others like him.

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

 

He will be acquitted of course. He could have shot ten more per your invested in the politics buffoon and others like him.

 

Who is the buffoon? The Law Professor chappy or someone else? 

[JackLadd]

10 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

Who is the buffoon? The Law Professor chappy or someone else? 

 

Your professor, straight out the Dershowitz maga school of BS.

[hughesie27]

No verdict tonight. 

[Mysterion]

22 hours ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

It's the polar opposite of a powerful case. The prosecutor has been utterly useless. 

 

To use the football analogy, the prosecutor and his team have entered the field to find that their up against 11 men plus the ref. 

 

The judge in this case has used every opportunity to skew the outcome whilst hiding behind weasel words. 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, Mysterion said:

 

To use the football analogy, the prosecutor and his team have entered the field to find that their up against 11 men plus the ref. 

 

The judge in this case has used every opportunity to skew the outcome whilst hiding behind weasel words. 

 

No, they've just been terrible at their job according to most legal commentators I've read. 

[Sharpie]

Heard on the news yesterday that the Judge had given the Jury eleven sets of instructions, they were so comprehensive the Jury requested a copy each so they could efficiently study all the instructions, Just the reading and understanding could possibly have taken most of yesterday.  This is a difficult case, I know myself the heart says one thing, but the head advises another. I have to be honest and admit I just didn't like that wee nyaff but that is not grounds for a guilty verdict, the people who died seem to have been basically of a similar ilk, again doesn't justify a death sentence. I am glad I am just a constant change of minder, and not an important portion of the finished product.

[Sooperstar]

No doubt in my mind that he went there looking for bother. No doubt in my mind that he will be found not guilty.

[Longbaws]

 

Judge singing something about Autumn leaves falling, or something?

 

I think he may have asked wee Rambo if he wanted music played.

 

The longer the deliberations go on, the less chance he will get found guilty.

 

Only in America eh

[Des Lynam]

 

[Drew Wallace]

Scary

 

Reckon he will walk

 

And IMO shite

[Des Lynam]

28 minutes ago, Drew Wallace said:

Scary

 

Reckon he will walk

 

And IMO shite

He should be found not guilty. 

[Felix Lighter]

4 hours ago, Drew Wallace said:

Scary

 

Reckon he will walk

 

And IMO shite

 

It's scary because, if he is acquitted BLM/Antifa will start burning cities again and certain sections of the MSM and politicians will encourage it. The jury, I imagine, are aware of this and are under immense pressure. I hope they are brave enough to judge the case on the evidence, you can't have cases decided by mob rule. I think the longer it takes the more likely he'll be found guilty, the jury might be looking for a way to compromise on lesser charges.

[Seymour M Hersh]

2 hours ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

It's scary because, if he is acquitted BLM/Antifa will start burning cities again and certain sections of the MSM and politicians will encourage it. The jury, I imagine, are aware of this and are under immense pressure. I hope they are brave enough to judge the case on the evidence, you can't have cases decided by mob rule. I think the longer it takes the more likely he'll be found guilty, the jury might be looking for a way to compromise on lesser charges.

 

I think you are reading the situation well there Felix. 

[Ron Burgundy]

7 hours ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

It's scary because, if he is acquitted BLM/Antifa will start burning cities again and certain sections of the MSM and politicians will encourage it. The jury, I imagine, are aware of this and are under immense pressure. I hope they are brave enough to judge the case on the evidence, you can't have cases decided by mob rule. I think the longer it takes the more likely he'll be found guilty, the jury might be looking for a way to compromise on lesser charges.

 I reckon a huge percentage of these guys are hoping for a not guilty.

Gives them the excuse they need to act like animals.

[hughesie27]

1 hour ago, Ron Burgundy said:

 I reckon a huge percentage of these guys are hoping for a not guilty.

Gives them the excuse they need to act like animals.

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Ron Burgundy said:

 I reckon a huge percentage of these guys are hoping for a not guilty.

Gives them the excuse they need to act like animals.

I would humbly suggest that animals don't behave anything like them.

[Gizmo]

19 hours ago, Sooperstar said:

No doubt in my mind that he went there looking for bother. No doubt in my mind that he will be found not guilty.

Not sure why people are trying to suggest it's only blm/antifa who will riot/cause trouble if the verdict goes one way - did they miss Jan 6th? There's no limits the Trump right won't go to if they can make themselves feel oppressed - and nothing will do that more than a case involving a right-wing "Christian" shooter and a gun being pointed at the "other lot", if the Jury were to send him down. 

An absolute basket-case of a country.

 

[Longbaws]

59 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Not sure why people are trying to suggest it's only blm/antifa who will riot/cause trouble if the verdict goes one way - did they miss Jan 6th? There's no limits the Trump right won't go to if they can make themselves feel oppressed - and nothing will do that more than a case involving a right-wing "Christian" shooter and a gun being pointed at the "other lot", if the Jury were to send him down. 

An absolute basket-case of a country.

 

Well said👍 If US cops stopped shooting/killing black people then these demonstrations wouldn't have happened. 

 

I believe Jacob Blake was shot seven times in the back and was paralysed. George Floyd was murdered slowly but the rednecks were ok to invade the Capitol Building??

 

These are only two examples and we all know there is probably tens of thousands more, at least.

 

Blaming people for reacting to these instances shows a lack of understanding. But that can be excused by the way these events are portrayed in the media.

 

Scotland is not squeaky clean in these respects either.

 

 

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, Gizmo said:

Not sure why people are trying to suggest it's only blm/antifa who will riot/cause trouble if the verdict goes one way - did they miss Jan 6th? There's no limits the Trump right won't go to if they can make themselves feel oppressed - and nothing will do that more than a case involving a right-wing "Christian" shooter and a gun being pointed at the "other lot", if the Jury were to send him down. 

An absolute basket-case of a country.

 

  Trump ally Bannon to appear in Court on charges of Contempt, his TV interview was loaded with veiled threats of possible actions. Violence in the States has always been a presence. In the thirties the gangsters, in the old West gunmen today its political idealists, and such things as the 6th January attack on Congress are if not totally condemned are starting to become acceptable and anticipated. The way now to show any form of dissent is by demonstrations and parades, some becoming violent and leading to property damage, watching the news programs is almost like many years ago listening to propaganda broadcasts. For such as I the concern is not for self but for  young relatives who will have to live through the crisis generated by these actions, and the difficult recovery of normalcy as a result.

[dobmisterdobster]

1 hour ago, Longbaws said:

Blaming people for reacting to these instances shows a lack of understanding. But that can be excused by the way these events are portrayed in the media.

 

White fentanyl addicts shouldn't be torching low income neighbourhoods. That's doesn't help black people or anybody for that matter.

 

Everyone Kyle shot turned out to be a convicted felon. Imagine my surprise.

[Gizmo]

4 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

White fentanyl addicts shouldn't be torching low income neighbourhoods. That's doesn't help black people or anybody for that matter.

 

Everyone Kyle shot turned out to be a convicted felon. Imagine my surprise.

What an outstanding patriot he truly is, cleaning up the streets one corpse at a time. 

[dobmisterdobster]

3 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

What an outstanding patriot he truly is, cleaning up the streets one corpse at a time. 

 

He's not. He's a reckless idiot who shouldn't have been there. On the same note, none of the other three should've been there burning down petrol stations.

[Longbaws]

36 minutes ago, dobmisterdobster said:

 

He's not. He's a reckless idiot who shouldn't have been there. On the same note, none of the other three should've been there burning down petrol stations.

Some good points there👍 I still stay racism is the root cause of all of this.

 

The cop wasn't charged in the end but look at the carnage his actions caused. Lives taken and lives ruined.

 

[Longbaws]

 

Anyone know if this increases the chances of a mistrial?

 

 

[Sharpie]

35 minutes ago, Longbaws said:

Some good points there👍 I still stay racism is the root cause of all of this.

 

The cop wasn't charged in the end but look at the carnage his actions caused. Lives taken and lives ruined.

 

 So I am sure you are not suggesting that there is any justifications in rioting, killing or injuring in the name of justice. Seventeen year old on the street being photographed with his rifle in a ready to fire position with his finger close to the trigger. Armed demonstrators, lighting fires, causing damage, threatening gestures, and having been around this old world for a while and spending a lot of time dealing with people I would suggest that probably the largest percentage of the demonstrators have no knowledge or interest in the cause they are claiming to represent. 

[Longbaws]

1 minute ago, Sharpie said:

 So I am sure you are not suggesting that there is any justifications in rioting, killing or injuring in the name of justice. Seventeen year old on the street being photographed with his rifle in a ready to fire position with his finger close to the trigger. Armed demonstrators, lighting fires, causing damage, threatening gestures, and having been around this old world for a while and spending a lot of time dealing with people I would suggest that probably the largest percentage of the demonstrators have no knowledge or interest in the cause they are claiming to represent. 

Correct...ish. The riots should have been directed at the police, not at innocent people or their businesses. There are very, very few instances where killing is acceptable. 

 

Now we have a guy who is paralysed, another who was injured and 2 folk lost their lives.

 

All because a cop shot someone in the back 7 times.

 

I'm not 100% sure about your point but I hope that explains it👍👍

 

[Captain Sausage]

Some very interesting mental gymnastics going on around this case. Well I’ll be. 
 

Almost like you can’t say he shouldn’t have been there without being a hard left commie member of Antifa and you can’t say the people he killed shouldn’t have attacked him without being a nazi. 
 

The polarisation of ideas because of social media is an absolute poison. 

[Des Lynam]

1 hour ago, Captain Sausage said:

 

The polarisation of ideas because of social media is an absolute poison. 

Great point. 
 

And the media are showing themselves up for the absolute filth they have become.