Jump to content

Kyle Rittenhouse Trial


PhatMack19

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Hagar said:

Biden claimed he was angry at the verdict.  The same Joe Biden that called the kid a White Supremist.  The same Joe Biden that has a son who’s guilty of drug use.  Guilty of lying on a gun application.  Probably guilty of treason, and Joe wants this kid to go to jail.  That’s our President.  What a jerk.

This is the hidden content, please

Rittenhouse should sue the 💩out of braindead biden!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Didnt he take a pic with a member of the Proud Boys

According to this article by the NY Post, It is all a hoax, like most of the accusations about Rittenhouse.

If somebody says something and then a second person repeats it, it becomes fact to many people. 

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, InMAGAWeTrust said:

Not surprised to see you still defending loser George, and baddog (the Jan 6th traitor) “thanking” your post 

SETX in a nutshell 

I was not speaking of George, rather Kyle who (while not innocent of poor decisions) was innocent of murder. 
 

I can’t help who likes my posts. Hell, I think everyone likes my posts. Even you. I’m just that kinda guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hagar said:

Who Biden?  Might have…. There are pictures of Biden with the Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. Perhaps that’s what you’re referring too.

True enough, lol. What Big Girl doesn’t seem to understand is that the Grand Dragon of the KKK has the “right” to defend himself also. Even if she hates him, which I’m sure she does, she can’t just walk up and shoot him without consequences. At least he’s a “legal” American.

Why would Big Girl be upset that Rittenhouse killed two white guys? She never makes sense, just hits and runs with her one liners that have no bearing on the case at all. Did “Proud Boys” come up in the trial? Would having one’s picture taken with Proud Boys sway jurors towards a guilty verdict? Should BG go on trial for supporting BLM, a group led by Marxists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tvc184 said:

According to this article by the NY Post, It is all a hoax, like most of the accusations about Rittenhouse.

If somebody says something and then a second person repeats it, it becomes fact to many people. 

This is the hidden content, please

I found the CNN issue of claiming Zimmerman made a racial slur on 911 call and then (like ABC and NBC) recanted. 
 

This is the hidden content, please

 Since this was brought up about Trayvon Martin and Rittenhouse, can we see (or even agree) that the media reports outright lies? People repeat such false media statements as facts and it is self perpetuating. We see it still today with Rittenhouse.

There are still people that believe lies put out intentionally by the media about Zimmerman.  I have shown ABC, NBC and CNN putting out unquestionably false information. After they were caught, every one of them recanted their “news”. I can guarantee that there are people today that will claim Zimmerman called in on a black kid, had no injuries and made racial slurs on the 911 call, all of which are false by the three major news outlets’ on admissions. 

CNN and others ran wild with the story of Nicholas Sandmann taunting Native Americans along with other white male  Catholic students…. until it was (again) found out to be false. I think CNN and the Washington Post have settled out of court for up to $250 Million for their false statements.

And yet, here we are at the Rittenhouse protests, with a repeat of the same false information that is again put out by the national media.

There is free enterprise money to be made by the media. It depends on viewership and clicks on Internet sites. To get more money or for political agendas or both, much of the media routinely puts out false information. We can watch it case after case. It would not be that big of a deal if people saw the false news stories and realize them for what they are. The problem lies when people believe the original reports that fit their own opinions (likely gained by other false rhetoric) and then ignore when the truth is revealed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Big Girl. Look up Joseph D. Rosenbaum’s rap sheet (no, he is not a rapper). Heck, I’m glad he is dead. Rittenhouse unknowingly rid the world of a sex pervert. You really kill me as to who you have their back.

Heck, I’ll do it for you. Here is the rap sheets of those Rittenhouse killed and wounded….enjoy reading about your buddies….

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everybody seems to agree that a underage kid has the right to take guns across state lines to defend businesses that don’t belong to him or his family after curfew hours. Ok cool but I have another question. Do adults have the right to defend themselves against people breaking in their homes? Even if it unknowingly happens to be the cops breaking in their home? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

Everybody seems to agree that a underage kid has the right to take guns across state lines to defend businesses that don’t belong to him or his family after curfew hours. Ok cool but I have another question. Do adults have the right to defend themselves against people breaking in their homes? Even if it unknowingly happens to be the cops breaking in their home? 

He stood trial as an adult, so there goes your underage. The gun did not cross state lines. 
 

When cops have a search warrant for your house, they kick the door down screaming “police” at the top of their lungs. They are not cat burglars. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, baddog said:

1. He stood trial as an adult, so there goes your underage. The gun did not cross state lines. 
 

2. When cops have a search warrant for your house, they kick the door down screaming “police” at the top of their lungs. They are not cat burglars. 

1. He stood trial as an adult and was found not guilty on ALL CHARGES. They even found some type of loophole to get around the the fact that he was an UNDERAGED kid who illegally possessed a firearm. He crossed state lines to go tend to someone else’s business rather the gun crossed with him or not. He illegally possessed a firearm at the time when he ended up shooting people in “self defense”. 
 

2. Cops don’t legally have to anounce themselves when they have a no-knock warrant and sometimes they don’t. Now answer my question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

1. He stood trial as an adult and was found not guilty on ALL CHARGES. They even found some type of loophole to get around the the fact that he was an UNDERAGED kid who illegally possessed a firearm. He crossed state lines to go tend to someone else’s business rather the gun crossed with him or not. He illegally possessed a firearm at the time when he ended up shooting people in “self defense”. 
 

2. Cops don’t legally have to anounce themselves when they have a no-knock warrant and sometimes they don’t. Now answer my question. 

Funny how he is illegal in your eyes, but he can carry a weapon and die for his country at 17 years of age. What is so important about this trial that you want to see this guy hung? Please don’t use the word justice because I know that is not what you seek. (see paragraph below)
 

You’ll have to ask tvc about the police question because I really am not schooled on no-knock warrants. I do know where you are going with this and it comes as no surprise. It’s where every topic eventually leads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, baddog said:

1. Funny how he is illegal in your eyes, but he can carry a weapon and die for his country at 17 years of age. What is so important about this trial that you want to see this guy hung? Please don’t use the word justice because I know that is not what you seek. (see paragraph below)
 

2. You’ll have to ask tvc about the police question because I really am not schooled on no-knock warrants. I do know where you are going with this and it comes as no surprise. It’s where every topic eventually leads.

1. His case doesn’t make much of a difference to me. I just assumed he would face some type of charges for illegal possession. Is it legal for kids under 18 to have guns? I assumed not but maybe I’m wrong

2. My question is not really a “legal” question although I would like to hear tvc and whoever else’s opinion. I’m just asking what you think about the situation in your own moral opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

1. His case doesn’t make much of a difference to me. I just assumed he would face some type of charges for illegal possession. Is it legal for kids under 18 to have guns? I assumed not but maybe I’m wrong

2. My question is not really a “legal” question although I would like to hear tvc and whoever else’s opinion. I’m just asking what you think about the situation in your own moral opinion. 

Here’s a question. Do you consider yourself a liberal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

No, but what does that have to do with anything? LOL I guess your just not going to answer my question 

Since you are not a liberal, then my next question would have no grounds. To answer your question best I can…..someone breaks into my house while I am in bed gets a Judge fired at them several times. Depending on the time of the break-in and what room I would be in, it could be my .327 federal magnum or my TRR8, whichever is closest. All of my guns are loaded and very deadly, plus I am good with them all.

I think all American kids should have gun knowledge at early ages, even 6 years old. Introduced to guns, taught how deadly they are, taught simple gun safety….etc. I have no problem with “underaged” people carrying a gun. My neighbors shoot guns all the time. It’s legal to shoot out here. As long as they don’t shoot my way, I love it.

Rittenhouse had every right to do what he did, even the killing of two people. Why are there riots after this not guilty verdict, but after the O.J. Simpson verdict there were no riots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, baddog said:

Since you are not a liberal, then my next question would have no grounds. 1. To answer your question best I can…..someone breaks into my house while I am in bed gets a Judge fired at them several times. Depending on the time of the break-in and what room I would be in, it could be my .327 federal magnum or my TRR8, whichever is closest. All of my guns are loaded and very deadly, plus I am good with them all.

I think all American kids should have gun knowledge at early ages, even 6 years old. Introduced to guns, taught how deadly they are, taught simple gun safety….etc. I have no problem with “underaged” people carrying a gun. My neighbors shoot guns all the time. It’s legal to shoot out here. As long as they don’t shoot my way, I love it.

2. Rittenhouse had every right to do what he did, even the killing of two people. Why are there riots after this not guilty verdict, but after the O.J. Simpson verdict there were no riots?

1. LOL Thanx for your honesty. So after you hit em with the magnum or the TRR8 and you find out the guys breaking in your house were actually cops what do you think should happen next? 
 

2. There’s been riots since the Rittenhouse verdict? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

1. LOL Thanx for your honesty. So after you hit em with the magnum or the TRR8 and you find out the guys breaking in your house were actually cops what do you think should happen next? 
 

2. There’s been riots since the Rittenhouse verdict? 

I would hate it if it were cops, but it would have to be a mistake on their part because I don’t do anything that would warrant a warrant. Surely the law and justice would figure that one out.

There were riots in Portland and I believe in NYC after this verdict. I think they just like tearing crap up. What else is new with Portland?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, baddog said:

1. I would hate it if it were cops, but it would have to be a mistake on their part because I don’t do anything that would warrant a warrant. Surely the law and justice would figure that one out.

2. There were riots in Portland after this verdict. I think they just like tearing crap up. What else is new with Portland?

1. Do you think you should be punished for their mistake.

2. Wasn’t aware of the riots but people are just rioting for anything these days 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Setx fan said:

1. Do you think you should be punished for their mistake.

2. Wasn’t aware of the riots but people are just rioting for anything these days 

1. I believe in the justice system and I would be cleared of all charges.

2. 

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please

Portland is run by antifa so this is the norm for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, baddog said:

1. I believe in the justice system and I would be cleared of all charges.

2. 

This is the hidden content, please

This is the hidden content, please

Portland is run by antifa so this is the norm for them.

Marvin Guy has been in jail 7 years for a situation like that. He claims he didn’t know they were cops. I don’t know if he’s telling the truth or not but I dont think it’s right that he’s done 7 years and hasnt even received a trial yet. That type of stuff happens more than you think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...