Kyle Rittenhouse

[lilMAC25 3807]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The going angle among our right wing "friends" is that Kyle won't have to work a day in his life.

I mean, it's an angle.  It's a stupid angle, but it's an angle.

Nick Sandmann probably doesn’t have to work unless he wishes. 

[lilMAC25 3807]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

And he may. I'd just like to see how media coverage in this case opens the door to defamation anymore than the average high profile case. Hell, Richard Jewell lost the only defamation suit he filed that did not settle, IIRC. Its a high bar. 

I expect most will settle. Like CNN and the others sued by Sandman.

[South Austin 52568]

1 minute ago, lilMAC25 said:

Nick Sandmann probably doesn’t have to work unless he wishes. 

He didn't kill anyone.  MAGA demands greater sacrifice.

[Valmy77 13270]

7 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Is he the actual active shooter? Then you’ll be added to his tally. 

If he isn’t, he’ll have to articulate why he thought shooting you was self defense from great bodily harm.

 

That is not how the justice system works though. A prosecutor would have to prove it wasn't self defense. That strikes me as a very hard thing to prove.

[DigglerontheHoof 21212]

To paraphrase Chris Rock from the OJ trial.  "Right wing way too happy, left wing way to pissed."

[lilMAC25 3807]

3 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

That is not how the justice system works though. A prosecutor would have to prove it wasn't self defense. That strikes me as a very hard thing to prove.

plenty of people who claim self defense are tried and convicted

 

and that’s EXACTLY how it works. Kyle was able to prove that he was under threat from the 3 people he shot.

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[hayden_horn 11365]

2 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

To paraphrase Chris Rock from the OJ trial.  "Right wing way too happy, left wing way to pissed."

not sure i agree here.

i feel likr right wing way to happy, left wing shrugs. 

but i dunnp.

[South Austin 52568]

Just now, lilMAC25 said:

I expect most will settle. Like CNN and the others sued by Sandman.

I doubt it.  Nick Sandmann did nothing more than wear a MAGA hat and a smirk on his face.  He was brought to that location with a group of his classmates on a high school field trip, and did not bring a weapon. 

Does that mean Rittenhouse's defamation suits are going to get tossed out from the word go?  No.  But CNN and others have a better reason to fight Rittenhouse than they did Sandmann.

[lilMAC25 3807]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

not sure i agree here.

i feel likr right wing way to happy, left wing shrugs. 

but i dunnp.

Left wing shrugs? Lolk

 

 

as proof, see @PenelopeWitherspoon frantically negging my posts. What an utter buffoon.

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[Valmy77 13270]

Just now, lilMAC25 said:

plenty of people who claim self defense are tried and convicted.

 

People who were actually physically attacked? How does that work legally? Remember I tackled the guy thinking he was an active shooter.

[lilMAC25 3807]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

I doubt it.  Nick Sandmann did nothing more than wear a MAGA hat and a smirk on his face.  He was brought to that location with a group of his classmates on a high school field trip, and did not bring a weapon. 

Does that mean Rittenhouse's defamation suits are going to get tossed out from the word go?  No.  But CNN and others have a better reason to fight Rittenhouse than they did Sandmann.

Maybe, but I disagree. I guess time will tell.

[lilMAC25 3807]

4 minutes ago, Valmy77 said:

People who were actually physically attacked? How does that work legally? Remember I tackled the guy thinking he was an active shooter.

Again, if he’s not the active shooter, I assume legally he’s likely in the clear because you’d be trying to disarm him and he’s just defending himself… but he’s gonna have to articulate the threat.

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[Gidnik 3285]

It’s disturbing to me so many people disagree with this verdict. If you watched the trial this was the only verdict that the jury could come up with. To be guilty it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And it was never done. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The going angle among our right wing "friends" is that Kyle won't have to work a day in his life.

I mean, it's an angle.  It's a stupid angle, but it's an angle.

possibly even obtuse

[Chuckie Finster 22725]

A) Concerned Citizen A hears gunshots inside of a church. While he does not personally witness the gunshots, he rushes to the scene and witnesses someone fleeing while holding a gun. He engages with a weapon in an attempt to prevent additional shooting.

B) Concerned Citizen B hears gunshots in the middle of a protest. While he does not personally witness the gunshots, he rushes to the scene and witnesses someone fleeing while holding a gun. He engages with a weapon in an attempt to prevent additional shooting.

What’s the legal difference here? Why is Citizen A a hero while Citizen B someone who deserved to die?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

oops

Edited November 19, 2021 by Longhorn_Fan68

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, Gidnik said:

It’s disturbing to me so many people disagree with this verdict. If you watched the trial this was the only verdict that the jury could come up with. To be guilty it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And it was never done. 

I don’t see many disagreeing with the verdict specifically.  The sentiment is mostly that this kid should be punished for what he did and our society/justice system is too broken to do so.  Therefore, we get to look forward to more senseless killings by idiots without consequences. Hooray us. 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

8 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

Left wing shrugs? Lolk

 

 

as proof, see @PenelopeWitherspoon frantically negging my posts. What an utter buffoon.

Lol.  You are a moron.  You have come in here to troll.  Also, you deserve negs for fucking using the Daily Caller.  Really?   

[lilMAC25 3807]

6 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

A) Concerned Citizen A hears gunshots inside of a church. While he does not personally witness the gunshots, he rushes to the scene and witnesses someone fleeing while holding a gun. He engages with a weapon in an attempt to prevent additional shooting.

B) Concerned Citizen B hears gunshots in the middle of a protest. While he does not personally witness the gunshots, he rushes to the scene and witnesses someone fleeing while holding a gun. He engages with a weapon in an attempt to prevent additional shooting.

What’s the legal difference here? Why is Citizen A a hero while Citizen B someone who deserved to die?

is the church a scene of a violent riot and is the fleeing person actively engaging other innocent people with his weapon?

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[Gidnik 3285]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I don’t see many disagreeing with the verdict specifically.  The sentiment is mostly that this kid should be punished for what he did and our society/justice system is too broken to do so.  Therefore, we get to look forward to more senseless killings by idiots without consequences. Hooray us. 

How should he punished for exercising his right of self defense?

[lilMAC25 3807]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Lol.  You are a moron.  You have come in here to troll.  Also, you deserve negs for fucking using the Daily Caller.  Really?   

I was having a relatively friendly conversation even with people that I clearly disagree with.
 

You’ve, OTOH, lost your tiny mind negging me for that conversation.

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[Carl Spackler 3495]

2 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

Not a criminal lawyer, but I believe once a defendant successfully makes self-defense an issue (by offering evidence sufficient to create a fact issue), the prosecution bears the evidentiary burden to negate that defense to a reasonable certainty.

Out here in CA, the burden of proof on that defense is beyond a reasonable doubt and it's the prosecution's burden.  I.e., once there is substantial evidence of self-defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in lawful self-defense.  I'm not sure if Wisconsin's burden of proof structure on that defense is similar, but I suspect it probably is. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

Just now, lilMAC25 said:

is the church a scene of a violent riot?

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

Just now, lilMAC25 said:

I was having a relatively friendly conversation. 
 

You’ve lost your tiny mind negging me for that conversation.

LOL.  It wasn't friendly.  You are celebrating him.  You, as others have pointed out, have misinterpreted what was said about Little Kyle, and you used the Daily Caller, a known tabloid, as your source.  You are a disingenuous cunt.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, Gidnik said:

How should he punished for exercising his right of self defense?

This is Anastasis level troll bait, respect

[ztejas 43528]

14 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

not sure i agree here.

i feel likr right wing way to happy, left wing shrugs. 

but i dunnp.

Well... ESPN's NBA coverage seems to be outraged by it.

And that's not a racial quip - just going off of what was said. 

[DDD Dad 14347]

12 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

It’s disturbing to me so many people disagree with this verdict. If you watched the trial this was the only verdict that the jury could come up with. To be guilty it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And it was never done. 

The twelve people who matter agree with you.

[lilMAC25 3807]

5 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

LOL.  It wasn't friendly.  You are celebrating him.  You, as others have pointed out, have misinterpreted what was said about Little Kyle, and you used the Daily Caller, a known tabloid, as your source.  You are a disingenuous cunt.  

You poor stupid fuck. That website had the actual tweets from multiple different politicians defaming the young man.

 

it isn’t my fault that you are so butthurt over the outcome of this trial. 
 

Another neg? Someone IS a cunt, but it isn’t me.

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

41 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

I'd bet Johhny Sacks left nut that his legal bills are already fully paid and that he's going to bank on appearance fees, a book deal and the like.  He's a GQP darling and if it he plays it right, set for life.   Until the drugs, bad decision, wine or women bring him down.

Once he does the drugs, bad decisions, wine and women he probably becomes our next president.  That shit won't bring him down in this country.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

1 minute ago, lilMAC25 said:

You poor stupid fuck. That website had the actual tweets from multiple different politicians defaming the young man.

 

it isn’t my fault that you are so butthurt over this trial. 

You mean the tweets that were about these photos?

 

 

[South Austin 52568]

1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You mean the tweets that were about these photos?

 

 

Yeah, that's not a good look for Kyle in a defamation suit.  At least his attorneys have some time to prepare him to explain all that shit in his depositions. 

[lilMAC25 3807]

3 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You mean the tweets that were about these photos?

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[South Austin 52568]

Ah, yes, the "everybody flashes the okay sign" bit.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

Forget the white supremacist angle or the 17 year old angle but is it just possible that maybe this shows that people walking around with rifles in crowded areas might just be a bad thing for our civilization?  This shouldn't be a right wing or left wing thing but kind of a common sense thing.  You can have your rifle in the woods when you are hunting or whatever but is there any reason a regular citizen should be walking around a crowd of people with a rifle?  

[South Austin 52568]

Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Forget the white supremacist angle or the 17 year old angle but is it just possible that maybe this shows that people walking around with rifles in crowded areas might just be a bad thing for our civilization?  This shouldn't be a right wing or left wing thing but kind of a common sense thing.  You can have your rifle in the woods when you are hunting or whatever but is there any reason a regular citizen should be walking around a crowd of people with a rifle?  

Great question. I'll ask Greg Abbott.

[Foosters 17882]

2 minutes ago, lilMAC25 said:

 

Ah, I see. Just a troll.

[lilMAC25 3807]

6 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Ah, yes, the "everybody flashes the okay sign" bit.

The FBI had time and reason to search Kyle’s phone and computer for White Supremacist ideology and came up with zilch…

 

Alternate title.

 

ah yes, the “Every Conservative White Person Is A White Supremacist”  bit.

 

 

I don’t fucking buy it.

Edited November 19, 2021 by lilMAC25

[Goredho 17413]

[Azbadlands 109]

35 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ok....

That doesn't really answer the question, unless you're suggesting he's going to sue The President?

That Sandman kid made bank sueing news outlets for Slander...The kid with the MAGA hat that had the Indian pounding the drum in his face..CNN apparently did not learn the lesson and will probably hear from Kyle's lawyers..

[JimmyJames 12271]

48 minutes ago, Bravo said:

FIFY

Greetings from Hawaii. Told you so he was not guilty. Sorry I havent been able to post nonstop. BTW that was my own diploma moron which I assume you dont have. Suck it. Now back to the pool for 2 days.

Look whose back! Still 6’3”? And talking about how big your cock is again? 
 

Sucks being a supposed UT grad and a pool cleaner though. Most UT grads do better than that. 

[wildcat09 29376]

Lotta defamation lawsuit experts up in here today.

[Chuckie Finster 22725]

is the church a scene of a violent riot and is the fleeing person actively engaging other innocent people with his weapon?
 

Concerned Citizen A has no idea what is happening inside the church, and is not actively engaged with the person with the gun until he initiates contact. The only context he has is gunshots and someone running with a gun.

[South Austin 52568]

Just now, Chuckie Finster said:

Concerned Citizen A has no idea what is happening inside the church, and is not actively engaged with the person with the gun until he initiates contact. The only context he has is gunshots and someone running with a gun.

Was it Pledge Sunday?

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Azbadlands said:

That Sandman kid made bank sueing news outlets for Slander...The kid with the MAGA hat that had the Indian pounding the drum in his face..CNN apparently did not learn the lesson and will probably hear from Kyle's lawyers..

Getting around 25k after fees and expenses is hardly “making bank.” Or maybe it is to you.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

And for all those talking about what Joe Biden said, here are his remarks right after.  

 

This is how a President should be. 

I wonder how TFG would have reacted if something didn't go his way?

Oh yeah...

 

 

And that is just this week!!!!!

 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Great question. I'll ask Greg Abbott.

Abbott may have other motives for open carry.  Maybe he figures the more people that get shot could end up paralyzed and in a wheel chair like him giving him more people to choose from for his Paralympic basketball team.  8D chess and whatnot.

[Azbadlands 109]

4 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Forget the white supremacist angle or the 17 year old angle but is it just possible that maybe this shows that people walking around with rifles in crowded areas might just be a bad thing for our civilization?  This shouldn't be a right wing or left wing thing but kind of a common sense thing.  You can have your rifle in the woods when you are hunting or whatever but is there any reason a regular citizen should be walking around a crowd of people with a rifle?  

You're right.  Concealed carry with lots of training is a better option...

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19142]

4 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Great question. I'll ask Greg Abbott.

Why? Greg Abbott isn't going to be walking around anywhere.  

[Foosters 17882]

Just now, Azbadlands said:

That Sandman kid made bank sueing news outlets for Slander...The kid with the MAGA hat that had the Indian pounding the drum in his face..CNN apparently did not learn the lesson and will probably hear from Kyle's lawyers..

For about the 4th time, I've asked for evidence of media defamation in this case. The responses I've received have been to some tweets by random persons, a quote from Joe Biden, and a two sentence summary of the Sandman kid. 

I'm not sayin the media did not defame KR. But there are multiple posters who have repeatedly stated with certainty that KR will recover damages in a suit. I'm assuming - perhaps naively - that there is a basis for their opinion.

[goatsaag 279]

22 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

A) Concerned Citizen A hears gunshots inside of a church. While he does not personally witness the gunshots, he rushes to the scene and witnesses someone fleeing while holding a gun. He engages with a weapon in an attempt to prevent additional shooting.

B) Concerned Citizen B hears gunshots in the middle of a protest. While he does not personally witness the gunshots, he rushes to the scene and witnesses someone fleeing while holding a gun. He engages with a weapon in an attempt to prevent additional shooting.

What’s the legal difference here? Why is Citizen A a hero while Citizen B someone who deserved to die?

Is this a real question? They both think they are heroes and are trying to play hero. How they are thought of after is entirely determined by who the person fleeing with a gun ends up being. "Good guy with a gun" is fucking stupid.