Kyle Rittenhouse to go free!!!

[Oerdin]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The judge said he had to review the laws and case literature before making a ruling that is it. Also, the judge offered to measure it to see if the rifle complied with section "C" of the law and the prosecution just conceded and said they agreed the rifle was legally compliant with section "C".

So both the defense andbprosecution agreed the rifle was legal in open court but you want to pretend the judge was biased for going with the opinion bothvsides agreed with? Come on, man, think a little.

 

[Blurt]

Depends on how big the bear is really. A black bear, sure, but if it was a large grizzly than .223 is likely to only piss it off unless you got a lucky kill switch shot.

It was a lost cub rooting through Joe's purse by the fire pit.

 

[Joe]

Depends on how big the bear is really. A black bear, sure, but if it was a large grizzly than .223 is likely to only piss it off unless you got a lucky kill switch shot.

The judge seemed so determined to get Rittehnouse off that he was willing to twist the laws at the expense of public safety.

At any cost and at any price.

That's what turned my stomach.

Doesn't he care that people regardless of race or gender may get shot dead down in the streets?

I know in our country, New Zealand and Norway they banned or heavily restricted access to the MR15 and other assault weapons (and they are according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police) after dozens of unarmed civilians were gunned down needeessly in public.

and btw, these mass murders were done by White men.

2 of these mass shooters were nice looking wholesome Blonde Aryan types.

 

[Murdy]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The Rittenhouse verdict flies in the face of the legal standard of self-defense.

A legal scholar from Harvard pointed out that carrying a plastic bag and a skateboard do not constitute “looting” which the victims are referred to as “looters” in lieu of “victim” for purpose of this trial… despite the proof presented that they actually brought those items with them.

The trial was a shitshow nightmare circus of a perpetual racist agenda in crackervile by ALL accounts and standards.

 

[Blurt]

You accuse me of picking fights, but in reality you chase me around these forums like a little girl.

No. I don't think of you as a little girl.

A bloviating banshee, maybe.

 

[Joe]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The judge said he had to review the laws and case literature before making a ruling that is it. Also, the judge offered to measure it to see if the rifle complied with section "C" of the law and the prosecution just conceded and said they agreed the rifle was legally compliant with section "C".

So both the defense andbprosecution agreed the rifle was legal in open court but you want to pretend the judge was biased for going with the opinion bothvsides agreed with? Come on, man, think a little.

But the point being, that was not determined before the trial. It was still a gray area.

so the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin state law by allowing it.

It's not as cut and dry, black and white as you make it out to be.

 

[Murdy]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The judge said he had to review the laws and case literature before making a ruling that is it. Also, the judge offered to measure it to see if the rifle complied with section "C" of the law and the prosecution just conceded and said they agreed the rifle was legally compliant with section "C".

So both the defense andbprosecution agreed the rifle was legal in open court but you want to pretend the judge was biased for going with the opinion bothvsides agreed with? Come on, man, think a little.

But the point being, that was not determined before the trial. It was still a gray area.

so the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin state law by making that definition.

It's not as cut and dry, black and white as you make it out to be.

what I find most disturbing are their ignorant assertions that what Kyle did was LEGAL

so now we have a bunch of racist ass tards thinking it’s legal to shoot and kill protestors :facepalm:

 

[Joe]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The Rittenhouse verdict flies in the face of the legal standard of self-defense.

A legal scholar from Harvard pointed out that carrying a plastic bag and a skateboard do not constitute “looting” which the victims are referred to as “looters” in lieu of “victim” for purpose of this trial… despite the proof presented that they actually brought those items with them.

The trial was a shitshow nightmare circus of a perpetual racist agenda in crackervile by ALL accounts and standards.

Actually Murdoch, I kinda felt that at least some of those rioters had it coming.
I'm not sympathetic to them.
Get inta a street fight and be willing to pay the price.
I know this from personal experience.
You can easily die in these confrontaitons.
They took the risks and they paid the price.
Plus they broke the law that night.

But.....the point which you and others should fucking nag the lawmakers about is that admission of an MR 15 as a 'long rifle'.

Perhaps it's not the US - but in Canada here's what the RCMP website says and they're not slouches. They are highly trained policeman in the use of all kinds firearms:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AR-15 (M16) rifle

Prohibited

The receiver blank can be made into either an AR-15 rifle or an M16 assault rifle

...that's were I thought this trial fell down as being fair and honest.

you and others ought to be lobbying for gun reform.

I think in Florida Nicholas Cruz gunned down several people with an AR 15.

 

[Oerdin]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The Rittenhouse verdict flies in the face of the legal standard of self-defense.

A legal scholar from Harvard pointed out that carrying a plastic bag and a skateboard do not constitute “looting” which the victims are referred to as “looters” in lieu of “victim” for purpose of this trial… despite the proof presented that they actually brought those items with them.

The trial was a shitshow nightmare circus of a perpetual racist agenda in crackervile by ALL accounts and standards.

Looting had nothing to do with anything as it was a straight up self defense case. Also it is clear you didn't even listen to or understand the judge's pre-trail rulings on motions. You are going with the false left wing narrative instead of what the judge actually said in his ruling on pre-trial motions.

Again, please learn what you are talking about.

 

[LotusBud]

"Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance".

Boy how TRUE is that. These drooling fascist sociopaths think they can ignore all details and nuance and destroy our rights and politically weaponize the judicial system.

It's like they are either psycho level pathological liars or they are really THIS fucking braindead and dont understand the difference between assault and self defense. Which makes them so stupid they are a danger and threat to the country.

These establishment shills are trying to rile up their mindless base. They know their followers are dumb and easily led by the nose and will accept all kinds of disgusting anti American violence if its framed right. And they know their followers wont check shit. Theyll just go with what they are told.

This ain't even right/left. Its Americans against the corporate political establishment.

That quote explains a lot of their bullshit.

A very nuanced post, Dovey.

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The judge said he had to review the laws and case literature before making a ruling that is it. Also, the judge offered to measure it to see if the rifle complied with section "C" of the law and the prosecution just conceded and said they agreed the rifle was legally compliant with section "C".

So both the defense andbprosecution agreed the rifle was legal in open court but you want to pretend the judge was biased for going with the opinion bothvsides agreed with? Come on, man, think a little.

But the point being, that was not determined before the trial. It was still a gray area.

so the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin state law by making that definition.

It's not as cut and dry, black and white as you make it out to be.

what I find most disturbing are their ignorant assertions that what Kyle did was LEGAL

so now we have a bunch of racist ass tards thinking it’s legal to shoot and kill protestors :facepalm:

This is exactly the kind of blowback to be expected from the low IQ haters that idolize people like Rittenhouse. It's terrfiying.

 

[Oerdin]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The judge said he had to review the laws and case literature before making a ruling that is it. Also, the judge offered to measure it to see if the rifle complied with section "C" of the law and the prosecution just conceded and said they agreed the rifle was legally compliant with section "C".

So both the defense andbprosecution agreed the rifle was legal in open court but you want to pretend the judge was biased for going with the opinion bothvsides agreed with? Come on, man, think a little.

But the point being, that was not determined before the trial. It was still a gray area.

so the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin state law by making that definition.

It's not as cut and dry, black and white as you make it out to be.

what I find most disturbing are their ignorant assertions that what Kyle did was LEGAL

so now we have a bunch of racist ass tards thinking it’s legal to shoot and kill protestors :facepalm:

This is a dumb take even for you. They were illegal assailants who attacked him without provocation. That is what the verdict determined. For the love of God please actually look at the facts and evidence before you spew made up nonsense garbage.

 

[Murdy]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The Rittenhouse verdict flies in the face of the legal standard of self-defense.

A legal scholar from Harvard pointed out that carrying a plastic bag and a skateboard do not constitute “looting” which the victims are referred to as “looters” in lieu of “victim” for purpose of this trial… despite the proof presented that they actually brought those items with them.

The trial was a shitshow nightmare circus of a perpetual racist agenda in crackervile by ALL accounts and standards.

Actually Murdoch, I kinda felt that at least some of those rioters had it coming.
I'm not sympathetic to them.
Get inta a street fight and be willing to pay the price.
I know this from personal experience.
You can easily die in these confrontaitons.
They took the risks and they paid the price.
Plus they broke the law that night.

But.....the point which you and others should fucking nag the lawmakers about is that admission of an MR 15 as a 'long rifle'.

Perhaps it's not the US - but in Canada here's what the RCMP website says and they're not slouches. They are highly trained policeman in the use of all kinds firearms:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AR-15 (M16) rifle

Prohibited

The receiver blank can be made into either an AR-15 rifle or an M16 assault rifle

...that's were I thought this trial fell down as being fair and honest.

I’m not pro riot. My position is and remains that Kyle was not trained or mentally equipped to determine which of them “had it coming” and which of them didn’t.

 

[LotusBud]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The judge said he had to review the laws and case literature before making a ruling that is it. Also, the judge offered to measure it to see if the rifle complied with section "C" of the law and the prosecution just conceded and said they agreed the rifle was legally compliant with section "C".

So both the defense andbprosecution agreed the rifle was legal in open court but you want to pretend the judge was biased for going with the opinion bothvsides agreed with? Come on, man, think a little.

But the point being, that was not determined before the trial. It was still a gray area.

so the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin state law by making that definition.

It's not as cut and dry, black and white as you make it out to be.

what I find most disturbing are their ignorant assertions that what Kyle did was LEGAL

so now we have a bunch of racist ass tards thinking it’s legal to shoot and kill protestors :facepalm:

This is a dumb take even for you. They were illegal assailants who attacked him without provocation. That is what the verdict determined. For the love of God please actually look at the facts and evidence before you spew made up nonsense garbage.

You can stand down, Odorous. This has already been covered by other intrepid BF invesitgative journalists who have done a better job than you.

 

[Joe]

Christ.

Lemme know when you guys are done.

In the meantime, I'm gonna go build a house.

The scariest part about racism will always be how hard they fight to protect it.

Yeah I thought this trial revealed the racial divide in the United States & preferential treatment based upon skin color.

But the worst aspect of this trial is how the judge bent over backwards to accommodate the defense.

Namely he appeared to deliberately misinterpret a statute equating a long gun with a semiautomatic rifle. I read an article about the Wisconsin and the legislators who drafted that legislation.

And it was never intended to include assault weapons like the AR 15.

I think Schroeder knew that. But he allowed that exception. In so doing he revealed his bias towards the defence.

And I think based upon that aspect it should be declared a mistrial or at very least there should be legal challenges to that statute and the judge's ruling.

Jesus Christ, that is a stupid take. The law doesn't care if it is semi-automatic, bolt action, or a muzzle loader. It specifically says to be counted as a long rifle the barrel must be 16" in length and 25" long from butt to muzzle tip. That is it.

Why not try reading the law in question, like I and many others actually did, so you can learn what you are talking about.

No, actually that determination of the MR 15 as a long rifle was not set in stone prior to the trial. Do you remember that?

The defense asked the judge for a ruling as whether the MR 15 could be including in the classification as a 'long rifle'.

It was a vague point in the law and the judge set a precedent under Wisconsin Law at that point in the trial by determining the MR15 as a 'long rifle'.

so he in fact ruled in favor of the defense.

And that's the point at which legal scholars and layman like myself saw the obvious.

That's a clear case of judicial bias/preference.

So that was a clear case of subjective bias

The Rittenhouse verdict flies in the face of the legal standard of self-defense.

A legal scholar from Harvard pointed out that carrying a plastic bag and a skateboard do not constitute “looting” which the victims are referred to as “looters” in lieu of “victim” for purpose of this trial… despite the proof presented that they actually brought those items with them.

The trial was a shitshow nightmare circus of a perpetual racist agenda in crackervile by ALL accounts and standards.

Actually Murdoch, I kinda felt that at least some of those rioters had it coming.
I'm not sympathetic to them.
Get inta a street fight and be willing to pay the price.
I know this from personal experience.
You can easily die in these confrontaitons.
They took the risks and they paid the price.
Plus they broke the law that night.

But.....the point which you and others should fucking nag the lawmakers about is that admission of an MR 15 as a 'long rifle'.

Perhaps it's not the US - but in Canada here's what the RCMP website says and they're not slouches. They are highly trained policeman in the use of all kinds firearms:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

AR-15 (M16) rifle

Prohibited

The receiver blank can be made into either an AR-15 rifle or an M16 assault rifle

...that's were I thought this trial fell down as being fair and honest.

I’m not pro riot. My position is and remains that Kyle was not trained or mentally equipped to determine which of them “had it coming” and which of them didn’t.

You should actually be focussing your attention on a flawed gun law than the actions of the protesters.

That's where I think where it looked like the judge was colluding with the defense.

 

[Oerdin]

He only defended himself against the people who attacked him and no one else. "Having it coming" had nothing to do with anything. 14 months later and after the trial you still don't know the basic facts. Yes, that is willful ignorance on your part.

 

[Joe]

He only defended himself against the people who attacked him and no one else. "Having it coming" had nothing to do with anything. 14 months later and after the trial you still don't know the basic facts. Yes, that is willful ignorance on your part.

And yet, if case law had not determined prior to this trial that the AR 15 was a long rifle then there was a clear bias on the part of the judge.

That's the point of contention I'm making.

Not about the incident nor who was the good buy bad guy you are rooting for

 

[Oerdin]

We will never reach the zombies as they don't care about facts and are unable to think critically or honestly. The good news is a lot of regular folks are finally waking up and seeing that the media is lying to them, pushing political narratives, and ignoring all facts and evidence.

 

[Oerdin]

He only defended himself against the people who attacked him and no one else. "Having it coming" had nothing to do with anything. 14 months later and after the trial you still don't know the basic facts. Yes, that is willful ignorance on your part.

And yet, if case law had not determined prior to this trial that the mr 15 was a long rifle then there was a clear bias on the part of the judge.

That's the point of contention I'm making.

Not about the incident nor who was the good buy bad guy you are rooting for

1) It is AR-15 not a MR-15.

2) The judge said he had to review the laws and case law before making andecision and that he would revisit the issue after he had done so. That is exactly what he did then both sides agreed on his reading. Yet you wrong claim that is a sign of bias with both sides agreed that was the proper reading.

 

[LotusBud]

He only defended himself against the people who attacked him and no one else. "Having it coming" had nothing to do with anything. 14 months later and after the trial you still don't know the basic facts. Yes, that is willful ignorance on your part.

And yet, if case law had not determined prior to this trial that the mr 15 was a long rifle then there was a clear bias on the part of the judge.

That's the point of contention I'm making.

Not about the incident nor who was the good buy bad guy you are rooting for

1) It is AR-15 not a MR-15.

2) The judge said he had to review the laws and case law before making andecision and that he would revisit the issue after he had done so. That is exactly what he did then both sides agreed on his reading. Yet you wrong claim that is a sign of bias with both sides agreed that was the proper reading.

Corrupt, patisan hack of a judge.

 

[LotusBud]

14 months later and after the trial and I, Odorous, still don't know the basic facts. Yes, that is willful ignorance on my part.

FAYW ^^^^^^

 

[Admin.]

He only defended himself against the people who attacked him and no one else. "Having it coming" had nothing to do with anything. 14 months later and after the trial you still don't know the basic facts. Yes, that is willful ignorance on your part.

How come none of the gun fondlers out playing Rambo that night were forced to shoot anyone?

 

[Admin.]

Cue Dovid for her non sequitur response.

 

[Admin.]

What Say you Judge 'Turn 'em loose, Bruce?"

 

[Biggie Smiles]

:facepalm:

 

[Joe]

I have a feeling Joe is going to completely ignore every single point and fact that interrupts what he wants to think.

Actually Dovey, I didn't ignore all your points.

Nor did I judge Kyle as harshly as others in this forum or demand that he be sent to prison.

But I didn't think it was a clear cut case of innocence or guilt on either side.

Kyle and his attackers both broke the law.

Given that reality, I don't think it was appropriate to give Kyle Rittenhouse a blank cheque of total acquittal. I thought parole would have been a better sentence so he could go through a process of reform, but not outright punishment as prison would have rendered on to him.

It was quite evident throughout the trial that the judge was not impartial and played favorites to Rittenhouse, hence the reference that he was Schroeder's 'son'.

I think your problem is that you and others are so partisan that when anyone does not agree 100% with your positions ,you feel that they are invalidating your pov.

Actually I'm probably the most moderate of the dettractors here as I have no affiliation with the political parties in the United States, no stake in the outcome and chose to judge the case on its facts, not out of political sympathies for the participants.

I could even see some points going in Rittenhouse's favor, but I don't endorse him 100%

 

[Dove]

I have a feeling Joe is going to completely ignore every single point and fact that interrupts what he wants to think.

Actually Dovey, I didn't ignore all your points.

Nor did I judge Kyle as harshly as others in this forum or demand that he be sent to prison.

But I didn't think it was a clear cut case of innocence of guilt on either side.

Kyle and his attackers both broke the law.

Given that reality, I don't think it was appropriate to give Kyle Rittenhouse a blank cheque of total acquittal. I thought parole would have been a better sentence so he could go through a process of reform, but not outright punishment as prison would have rendered on to him.

It was quite evident throughout the trial that the judge was not impartial and played favorites to Rittenhouse, hence the reference that he was Schroeder's 'son'.

I think your problem is that you and others are so partisan that when anyone does not agree 100% with your positions ,you feel that they are invalidating your pov.

Actually I'm probably the most moderate of the dettractors here as I have no affiliation with the political parties in the United States, no stake in the outcome and chose to judge the case on its facts, not out of political sympathies for the participants.

So you are saying that the judge was partial based on the fact he didnt convict Kyle with anything even though Kyle didnt break a single law.

And that makes no sense.

You seem to want this to be "sides" instead of seeing objectively. And you think the JUDGE is bias because he upheld the law and didnt give legal consequences to an innocent person who didnt break any laws.

 

[X]

 

[Joe]

I have a feeling Joe is going to completely ignore every single point and fact that interrupts what he wants to think.

Actually Dovey, I didn't ignore all your points.

Nor did I judge Kyle as harshly as others in this forum or demand that he be sent to prison.

But I didn't think it was a clear cut case of innocence of guilt on either side.

Kyle and his attackers both broke the law.

Given that reality, I don't think it was appropriate to give Kyle Rittenhouse a blank cheque of total acquittal. I thought parole would have been a better sentence so he could go through a process of reform, but not outright punishment as prison would have rendered on to him.

It was quite evident throughout the trial that the judge was not impartial and played favorites to Rittenhouse, hence the reference that he was Schroeder's 'son'.

I think your problem is that you and others are so partisan that when anyone does not agree 100% with your positions ,you feel that they are invalidating your pov.

Actually I'm probably the most moderate of the dettractors here as I have no affiliation with the political parties in the United States, no stake in the outcome and chose to judge the case on its facts, not out of political sympathies for the participants.

So you are saying that the judge was partial based on the fact he didnt convict Kyle with anything even though Kyle didnt break a single law.

And that makes no sense.

You seem to want this to be "sides" instead of seeing objectively. And you think the JUDGE is bias because he upheld the law and didnt give legal consequences to an innocent person who didnt break any laws.

Well I notice Conservatives in the US often criticize American liberals and Court Justices as being 'too activist' in their rulings and POV.

But that's exactly what Judge Schroeder was when he constantly intervened and ruled in favor of Rittenhouse and reinterprted statutes for his own convenience.

He actually set a precedent on the definition of a long rifle when many legal scholars disagreed with his ruling.

And he demanded that the rioters/protesters not be referred to as 'victims'

It's pretty obvious that he was not an impartial judge and he was determine to eliminate all the obstacles which would lead to Kyle Rittenhouse's complete acquittal.

I think there is something to be said for fair and balanced conservativism, but not judicial absolutism.

And I thought Schroeder seems more like a partisan hack.

 

[Dove]

I have a feeling Joe is going to completely ignore every single point and fact that interrupts what he wants to think.

Actually Dovey, I didn't ignore all your points.

Nor did I judge Kyle as harshly as others in this forum or demand that he be sent to prison.

But I didn't think it was a clear cut case of innocence of guilt on either side.

Kyle and his attackers both broke the law.

Given that reality, I don't think it was appropriate to give Kyle Rittenhouse a blank cheque of total acquittal. I thought parole would have been a better sentence so he could go through a process of reform, but not outright punishment as prison would have rendered on to him.

It was quite evident throughout the trial that the judge was not impartial and played favorites to Rittenhouse, hence the reference that he was Schroeder's 'son'.

I think your problem is that you and others are so partisan that when anyone does not agree 100% with your positions ,you feel that they are invalidating your pov.

Actually I'm probably the most moderate of the dettractors here as I have no affiliation with the political parties in the United States, no stake in the outcome and chose to judge the case on its facts, not out of political sympathies for the participants.

So you are saying that the judge was partial based on the fact he didnt convict Kyle with anything even though Kyle didnt break a single law.

And that makes no sense.

You seem to want this to be "sides" instead of seeing objectively. And you think the JUDGE is bias because he upheld the law and didnt give legal consequences to an innocent person who didnt break any laws.

Well I notice Conservatives in the US often criticize American liberals and Court Justices as being 'too activist' in their rulings and POV.

But that's exactly what Judge Schroeder was when he constantly intervened and ruled in favor of Rittenhouse and reinterprted statutes for his own convenience.

He actually set a precedent on the definition of a long rifle when many legal scholars disagreed with his ruling.

And he demanded that the rioters/protesters not be referred to as 'victims'

It's pretty obvious that he was not an impartial judge and he was determine to eliminate all the obstacles which would lead to Kyle Rittenhouse's complete acquittal.

I think there is something to be said for fair and balanced conservativism, but not judicial absolutism.

And I thought Schroeder seems more like a partisan hack.

Schroeder wasnt even close to an activist. He upheld the law and honored Kyle's rights and didnt tolerate politics.

I don't believe you guys know what objective looks like and you are so used to seeing activists that seeing a fair judge looks bias when it isnt.

Again Joe .. .you are running on your feelings and you feel like Kyle was wrong and should have consequences when the fact is he broke no laws. And this prosecution was politically motivated.

 

[Joe]

.