Now that it’s with the jury, where do you stand.

[workswithseed 2,115]

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,146]

20 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

like it or not, there is a ton of disinformation out there about this case, because it has become so politicized.

i don't know why so many people are taking this so personally, aside from maybe the rittenhouses or the victims' families.

there is a ton of identity politics tied to this case for varying reasons, i reckon.

in the end, it's really about the gun, and that will, over the next 20 years or so, will be the reckoning, if shit like this continues. and i'm a gun guy, just not a "strap on a gun and go to a protest" guy. it's a dangerous precedent about to be set.

Taking guns into an already charged situation makes EVERYONE less safe.  This whole Good Guy with a Gun argument is complete horseshit.  

We are watching the Supreme Court case regarding NYC and licenses to carry guns outside homes very closely.  I mean, I have never felt so unsafe anywhere I have lived that I felt it necessary to arm myself.  How awful life must be for you if you feel a gun is necessary to walk to your car, or to walk to work.  

[DDD Dad 14,352]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

Nonresponsive.

Reporter raises a question regarding a tweet from over a year ago.  Press secretary declines to comment due to ongoing trial.  

I wonder who it is that is attempting to make this an issue now.  

[fattyflattie 4,638]

7 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Other than the tweet during last year's campaign that Trump supporters seized upon out-of-context, what other comments has the current President made about Rittenhouse?

Other than that? So you feel it’s appropriate for a senior senator, VP, and presidential candidate that had 12m Twitter followers to assassinate the character of a suspect, publicly?   Do you feel this contributed to his ability to have a fair trial?  You know, with one of the most famous and powerful people on earth commenting (falsely, I might add) on him?   If it’s no big deal, surely it can be explained away and discussed?  Oh no, we’ll have to circle back to that one at another time  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/psaki-refuses-explain-why-biden-204338524.html
 

[DDD Dad 14,352]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

Other than that? So you feel it’s appropriate for a senior senator, VP, and presidential candidate that had 12m Twitter followers to assassinate the character of a suspect, publicly?   Do you feel this contributed to his ability to have a fair trial?  You know, with one of the most famous and powerful people on earth commenting (falsely, I might add) on him?   If it’s no big deal, surely it can be explained away and discussed?  Oh no, we’ll have to circle back to that one at another time  

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/psaki-refuses-explain-why-biden-204338524.html
 

Remains to be seen about this.  Rittenhouse did seem to enjoy the company of white supremacists (Proud Boys, e.g.), until the judge ordered him to stop.  My mom told me that you are judged by the company you keep.

From AP story in February:

Quote

Last month Rittenhouse was seen drinking at a bar in Mount Pleasant, Wisconsin, and posing for photos with two men as they made “OK” signs with their hands, a symbol used by white supremacists, according to prosecutors. Five men at the bar also serenaded Rittenhouse with a song that has become the anthem of neo-fascist group the Proud Boys, prosecutors alleged.

Rittenhouse is now 18 but still too young to drink. However, he could consume alcohol in a bar under Wisconsin law because he was with his mother.

The judge ordered him not to have any contact with white supremacists after that episode.

 

[Dr. Teeth 5,845]

Voted not guilty based on what I think happens. I figured if they were going to come back with guilty, it would have come back before last night. I think they the juror is trying to show they are really looking at the evidence so no one accuses them of racism. But I think he should be guilty of all charges. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Remains to be seen about this.  Rittenhouse did seem to enjoy the company of white supremacists (Proud Boys, e.g.), until the judge ordered him to stop.  My mom told me that you are judged by the company you keep.

That’s pretty impressive.  Biden can’t read a fucking teleprompter, but can correctly assume people’s character. And I’m sure you’d be good with if Trump would have tweeted, “Ahmad Arbery would be alive if not caught stealing by keen neighborhood watch”.   I mean, while we’re making immediate assumptions that won’t influence the public and all. 

[DDD Dad 14,352]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s pretty impressive.  Biden can’t read a fucking teleprompter, but can correctly assume people’s character. And I’m sure you’d be good with if Trump would have tweeted, “Ahmad Arbery would be alive if not caught stealing by keen neighborhood watch”.   I mean, while we’re making immediate assumptions that won’t influence the public and all. 

You seem much more invested in the outcome of this case than I.  I find it fascinating how people have drawn battle lines over it.  It's pretty clear to me where you stand.

Edited November 18, 2021 by DDD Dad

[South Austin 52,625]

Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.

[DDD Dad 14,352]

1 minute ago, South Austin said:

Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.

Paranoia strikes deep.

Edited November 18, 2021 by DDD Dad

[fattyflattie 4,638]

5 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You seem much more invested in the outcome of this case than I.  I find it fascinating how people have drawn battle lines over it.  It's pretty clear to me where you stand.

I care about the way the trial is conducted, not the outcome. When public perception influences someone’s right to a fair trial, it’s a problem. When jurors make decisions based on whether their town will burn with the wrong choice, it’s a problem. When the the VP of the United States is using his platform with millions of followers to fuck over an “innocent until proven guilty suspect” for political points, it’s a problem.  When the media spins the happenings so hard it’s onion-Esque, that’s a problem.  
 

I’d deflect if I couldn’t defend my arguments, too. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by fattyflattie

[DDD Dad 14,352]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

When the president of the VP of the United States is using his platform with millions of followers to fuck over an “innocent until proven guilty suspect” for political points, it’s a problem. 

I'm not deflecting.  The President isn't using his platform to fuck over anyone in the conduct of this trial.  Rittenhouse's mom (and Fox News and others) have brought this up during the trial, for whatever purposes they have deemed necessary.  You are the one who has claimed that the tweet's implication is false.  It's not clear whether that is true.  IIRC the tweet, for what it's worth, was a video of several different events, including Charlottesville, and was directed at then President Trump for refusing to disavow white supremacists at the debate that occurred the night before.  To claim that Biden is trying to fuck over the trial is disingenuous or just plain stupid.  I'll go with disingenuous so as not to insult you.

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

IIRC the tweet, for what it's worth, was a video of several different events, including Charlottesville, and was directed at then President Trump for refusing to disavow white supremacists at the debate that occurred the night before. 

Would you be OK with Trump doing the same thing in a high profile murder case?  Would you be OK if he tweeted several videos of black perpetrators committing crimes, then ending it with a pic of Ahmed Arbery, asking the current president why he's soft on crime.  (Please keep in mind that's the defense's story at the moment, and has yet to be proven true/false)   You are OK with that, right?  Or would you be happier if they just shut their fucking mouths about ongoing cases, and didn't use the people as pawns in their political game?

[DDD Dad 14,352]

Would you be OK with Trump doing the same thing in a high profile murder case?  Would you be OK if he tweeted several videos of black perpetrators committing crimes, then ending it with a pic of Ahmed Arbery, asking the current president why he's soft on crime.  (Please keep in mind that's the defense's story at the moment, and has yet to be proven true/false)   You are OK with that, right?  Or would you be happier if they just shut their fucking mouths about ongoing cases, and didn't use the people as pawns in their political game?

Well let’s see here. I don’t believe Rittenhouse had been charged with a crime at the time of the tweet (but I haven’t checked). If my memory is correct, Biden didn’t open his mouth about an ongoing case.

When his press secretary was asked for a comment about the ongoing case she declined.

So I guess you approve.

[Wulaw Horn 19,153]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Well let’s see here. I don’t believe Rittenhouse had been charged with a crime at the time of the tweet (but I haven’t checked). So Biden didn’t open his mouth about an ongoing case.

When his press secretary was asked for a comment about the ongoing case she declined.

So I guess you approve.

Yeah he had.  That was in late September right?  The shooting happened 8/25 and the charges came in in a matter of a couple days.  At least that's how I heard the timeline explained while half assed listening to the prosecutions close. I think he mentioned 3 or 4 days on the charges. 

[DDD Dad 14,352]

Yeah he had.  That was in late September right?  The shooting happened 8/25 and the charges came in in a matter of a couple days.  At least that's how I heard the timeline explained while half assed listening to the prosecutions close. I think he mentioned 3 or 4 days on the charges. 

If so then Biden should have refrained from commenting.

[fattyflattie 4,638]

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

So I guess you approve.

I actually do.  And the reporter should have stfu about it, too.  This can all be discussed in a week, potentially. 

[Chuckie Finster 22,752]

15 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Would you be OK with Trump doing the same thing in a high profile murder case?  Would you be OK if he tweeted several videos of black perpetrators committing crimes, then ending it with a pic of Ahmed Arbery, asking the current president why he's soft on crime.  (Please keep in mind that's the defense's story at the moment, and has yet to be proven true/false)   You are OK with that, right?  Or would you be happier if they just shut their fucking mouths about ongoing cases, and didn't use the people as pawns in their political game?

See, here's where I'm at in the year 2021.

No.  I don't want Trump doing it.  But he did/does shit like that every day and you and your team keep quiet (or feign "concern" to no one in particular) and then nothing happens and you claim we are deranged for talking about this stuff and then you vote for the motherfucker again.  And now he's spawned an entire political party that does it as well without any repercussions.  But then, when someone on the other side does it even once, all hell breaks loose on Facebook and Fox News.

So no I don't like that Joe did it.  But honestly you can get fucked with your concerns.  A society cannot function when only one political party is expected to play by the rules.

Edited November 18, 2021 by Chuckie Finster

[Wulaw Horn 19,153]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

If so then Biden should have refrained from commenting.

To my way of thinking the bad thing wasn't that he commented, but that he put it out there as a well thought out position on the thing during the campaign.  I wouldn't have a problem with that kind of shit at a press conference where he doesn't have time to think- but it was pretty intentional and planned.  

It's one example of him doing something like that. We had about 1,000,000 with Trump.  Why I hated Trump.  It's really really really gross when people stir up bad shit by jumping the gun, telling lies or distorting to keep us at each others necks. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

No.  I don't want Trump doing it.  But he did/does shit like that every day and you and your team keep quiet

BUT TRUMP!!  And in record time too.

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

then you vote for the motherfucker again

Trumpwrong.gif

2 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So no I don't like that Joe did it.

Good, you shouldn't.  Someone's life is literally on the line.

3 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

But honestly you can get fucked with your concerns.  A society cannot function when only one political party is expected to play by the rules.

Lol at play by the rules. Yes, pure as the driven snow.

[Chuckie Finster 22,752]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

BUT TRUMP!!  And in record time too.

Trumpwrong.gif

Good, you shouldn't.  Someone's life is literally on the line.

Lol at play by the rules. Yes, pure as the driven snow.

You initially bringing up Trump then responding to my response with a "BUT TRUMP" is pretty wild, man.

[Gidnik 3,285]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Other than the tweet during last year's campaign that Trump supporters seized upon out-of-context, what other comments has the current President made about Rittenhouse?

He called him a white supremacist

[fattyflattie 4,638]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

You initially bringing up Trump then responding to my response with a "BUT TRUMP" is pretty wild, man.

True.  But I knew that asshole had done that, and didn't want to go back thru the chronological of when Obama interjected himself into the Travyon Martin case.  I'd like to think he commented after it was said and done, but don't have time to look it up now.  

[hayden_horn 11,365]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

True.  But I knew that asshole had done that, and didn't want to go back thru the chronological of when Obama interjected himself into the Travyon Martin case.  I'd like to think he commented after it was said and done, but don't have time to look it up now.  

pretty certain he inserted himself before it was said and done.

wasn't right then.

wasn't right for biden, really. 

but, when you hang out with proudboys, expect some flak for being a white supremacism. 

[fattyflattie 4,638]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

but, when you hang out with proudboys, expect some flak for being a white supremacism. 

And that's fair.  Like I've said, KR has a horseshoe and clover shoved up his ass.  A million tiny things could have happened that would change this verdict (potentially) to actually committing crimes.  How he potentially threaded the needle, I don't know.  But every single person here should be thinking if they really are guaranteed a fair trial in this day and age.  It's a scary thought that some activist can spout off on twitter and now your life is over, even while staying within the lanes of the law.  

[Gidnik 3,285]

Someone following the jury bus this morning. Judge should declare an immediate mistrial with prejudice. This is clear jury intimidation. 

[workswithseed 2,115]

This has basically become the cr Rittenhouse thread apparently.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

And that's fair.  Like I've said, KR has a horseshoe and clover shoved up his ass.  A million tiny things could have happened that would change this verdict (potentially) to actually committing crimes.  How he potentially threaded the needle, I don't know.  But every single person here should be thinking if they really are guaranteed a fair trial in this day and age.  It's a scary thought that some activist can spout off on twitter and now your life is over, even while staying within the lanes of the law.  

well, i would argue that thousands of people are convicted every year without a fair trial.

our justice system is far from perfect.

sometimes, without loud voices, things happen quietly and with serious injustice.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

2 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

Someone following the jury bus this morning. Judge should declare an immediate mistrial with prejudice. This is clear jury intimidation. 

link please.

[Gidnik 3,285]

 

[RomaVicta 30,030]

46 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

That’s pretty impressive.  Biden can’t read a fucking teleprompter, but can correctly assume people’s character. And I’m sure you’d be good with if Trump would have tweeted, “Ahmad Arbery would be alive if not caught stealing by keen neighborhood watch”.   I mean, while we’re making immediate assumptions that won’t influence the public and all. 

Smells like FOXNEWS induced hysteria in here. Slam Biden as incompetent raising the teleprompter image that the FOX jihadists used against poor dumb black Obama who allegedly couldn't speak without a prompter.

Then you deflect from issue at hand by raving about Biden. It must feel good to be the out party again. The unsupported attack is much more the right's style.

The issue at hand is Rittenhouse going on a combat patrol in a sometimes destructive political demonstration. He ended up killing a guy. 

 

We killed everybody in the boat, but we saved this puppy! Our intentions were to make things better. Somehow half a million soldiers armed to the teeth couldn't manage it without killing a bunch of people.

USA: Not Guilty

[elfenix 34,336]

10 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

This has basically become the cr Rittenhouse thread apparently.

well the other one is now "contingency fees: conflict of interest?" so the rittenhouse discussion had to move somewhere

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,146]

8 minutes ago, Gidnik said:

 

Since you only put that part.

 

 

[Gidnik 3,285]

It doesn’t matter if they got pictures or not they’re attempting to intimidate the jury

[fattyflattie 4,638]

Oh sweet, 8 new negs.  Wonder whos cunt is bleeding again?

[Gidnik 3,285]

MSNBC banned from the courthouse for the duration of the remainder of the trial 

 

 

[elfenix 34,336]

[wildcat09 29,416]

This feels like a dumb Veritas frame job.

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

4 hours ago, Gidnik said:

It doesn’t matter if they got pictures or not they’re attempting to intimidate the jury

 

so all I have to do to get a mistrial is attempt to intimidate a jury?

[DanRydell 799]

It doesn’t matter if they got pictures or not they’re attempting to intimidate the jury

Even accepting your read or intent as true, do you have a case cite for your assertion that a non state actor attempting to intimidate a jury entitles a defendant to a mistrial with prejudice?

[DanRydell 799]

And that's fair.  Like I've said, KR has a horseshoe and clover shoved up his ass.  A million tiny things could have happened that would change this verdict (potentially) to actually committing crimes.  How he potentially threaded the needle, I don't know.  But every single person here should be thinking if they really are guaranteed a fair trial in this day and age.  It's a scary thought that some activist can spout off on twitter and now your life is over, even while staying within the lanes of the law.  

In this day and age? When exactly do you think the criminal justice system better guaranteed a fair trial than the present?

[RomaVicta 30,030]

21 hours ago, Gidnik said:

It doesn’t matter if they got pictures or not they’re attempting to intimidate the jury

Who provided you with this unfounded conclusion? Radio or TV? Both?

Why would MSNBC attempt to intimidate the jury? Do you imagine them to be part of the massive lib conspiracy of hidden agendas who are determined to use do-gooder Rittenhouse as propaganda once they terrify the jury into convicting him? Or maybe you suppose they are trying to intimidate the jury into acquitting Saint Kyle?

Either way, it doesn't really make sense outside of your loop. 

It's more likely that MSNBC was trying to get an inside track to interviewing one of the jurors post-trial. If their agent broke the law, all responsible should face consequences. 

Your fantasy about jury intimidation fits in with right-wing (not to be confused with conservative) paranoia carefully cultivated by the GOP. Keep your guns handy and trust in God, and the ebil lib menace just might be turned back.

Kyle is out there on the front line keeping us all safe. All is well.

Edited November 19, 2021 by RomaVicta

[Dahobbs 17,686]

21 hours ago, Gidnik said:

It doesn’t matter if they got pictures or not they’re attempting to intimidate the jury

You have no idea what you're talking about. 

[Gidnik 3,285]

i honestly dont know how anyone that watched the trial could think this was a bad jury decision.  

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

On 11/20/2021 at 3:04 PM, Gidnik said:

i honestly dont know how anyone that watched the trial could think this was a bad jury decision.  

It was correct. Three left wing domestic terrorists attacked a kid with a gun. Kid shoots them.  It’s all on video.  He never should have been charged.