You gangsters know y'all is arguing with an Aussie? They don't have rights anymore, so it's foreign to him
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter hollowoutadime
- Start date
You gangsters know y'all is arguing with an Aussie? They don't have rights anymore, so it's foreign to him
LOL the fallback excuse of the unarmed serfs.
Have you bent the knee and turned all your guns in yet? Maybe take them to a chop saw yourself just to prove you're a good little subject.
First off I wouldn't be caught dead at a protest. Second of all if God forbid I'm forced to use lethal force in a SD situation, I don't want it to be a fair fight. I want it to be as one sided as possible in my favor. If I wanna have a fair fight, I'll rent out a boxing ring at a gym. I really hope @GrumpyOleFart is just trolling us who carry either OC or CC and he's not serious.
The entire jury system must be a complete farce because you, one person on Sniper's Hide, think that some trial you didn't watch or examine any evidence, turned out wrong.
I think your beef is really with the jury system at all. You don't trust citizens to decide criminal cases.
well, I only wear my seatbelt when I know I'm going to get in an accident. You're weak if you even think about wearing it in a parking lot or heavy traffic. If you can't eat the dash, don't drive./s
she lied profusely on her juror form.
and yes, i don't trust retards like you to decide justice in america.
i don't trust corrupt prosecutors or politically biased judges either.
the fbi and doj are corrupt. it is all shit.
Last edited:
I only buy a fire extinguisher the day before I plan a fire.
you morons who have a fire extinguisher at your fingertips all the time are sick and week.
you morons who have a fire extinguisher at your fingertips all the time are sick and week.
A good friend of mine, who is a judge believes it is simple.
If you are innocent, ask for a bench trial.
If you are guilty, ask for a jury trial.
Juries do some fucked up shit.
Pretty sure one or more of the jurors was pictured in BLM attire or at a BLM protest or something similar. Can’t remember the exact details. Seems pretty compromised to me
Problem is hardly anyone is “innocent.”
If you’re “innocent” then you wouldn’t be on trial in a courtroom in the first place. Were you justified is another matter.
Assuming no bias and the judge is strictly by the book, if you did ANYTHING wrong, something a jury would understand given a circumstance, then you will be guilty if a prosecutor does a half decent job. Of course I’m being vague because all cases are different.
However, judges are biased. Most of them were, and know the current prosecutors. They all work for the same district court. Your buddy over simplifies the law, that alone is reason enough to roll the dice on a jury.
Criminal law is a lot of things, simple is not one.
Read The Innocent Man by John Grisham. It changed my opinion.
I think it is more that the existence of multiple discrete realities in the world today means that in the end, nothing is real. Without debating which view corresponds to actual reality, I don't know how we persist as a country in which each group gets to have its own facts, but each person in the group is forced to share the same opinion.
I'd agree if it wasn't for the fact that these Black Lives Matter/Antifa idiots burn shit down wherever they go. Hell they burned down parts of Sacramento old town, smashed up a deli where I used to go to get lunch, looted a wedding gown store etc. They're assholes.
First non-fiction he wrote. Lefty? Sure, but doesn't change the fact that every level of the system failed him...including his own attorney.
Well if you guessed mostly don'ts you'd be correct.
Handguns are restricted to sports shooting for almost everyone with my state requiring a certain amount of shoots per year.
At the start of covid they closed gunshops to non professional shooters and farmers, they also closed ranges and later said not shooting pistol matches because the ranges were closed due to covid was not an excuse for failing to shoot the correct number of matches.
A lot of states classify handguns only by length like under 65/75cm so in theory short ten shot semi-auto rifles can be owned as pistols but there is two catchalls, the "we don't like it special ban" and "military appearance" which can be randomly applied to fuck people.
Some states arbitrarily ban or restrict access to things like .338 Lapua, you can go bigger or smaller or even 8.6×70mm but put an application in for .338 Lapua and it's getting rejected.
Very few people have access to suppressors or semi-autos.
Anyone using a firearm for self defense would probably get fucked hard.
Hey I just dragged a canoe over kilometers of rocks only yesterday.
Many people that fish up north take guns because while it may be frowned upon legally, the appearance of a large saltwater crocodile can be quite uncomfortable.
If that clown had a CWP for 25 years, he must've applied for it as soon as it was legal here in FL. He completely violated the strongest argument for carry by stirring the pot while being armed. I've been to that store, nobody gives a shit about enforcing handicapped parking except that idiot who started screaming at the gf/driver. Then he had no situational awareness in his tunnel vision rant which is how he got blind-sided.
He's another Zimmerman. You get into a verbal confrontation needlessly and then when you're getting your ass whipped after it gets physical you decide to escalate. I don't need idiots like this representing me. Pick another hill.
All good points. But dude should have never attacked him.
Its not a hill I am going to die on, its the hill Marquis died on when he attacked a man with a .40. Thats why you dont fuck with people you dont know.
Wait one other afterthought.
Had Michael not shot Marquice hundred percent he would’ve been charged with assault. The only reason he didn’t catch a charge is because he got shot dead
Maybe if the stupid self important asshole had not decided to go screaming and yelling at some woman and her child because he was upset about something that had nothing to do with him, he wouldn't have gotten thrown in jail like he so richly deserved.
There used to be a time when men understood it was manly to go fisticuffs when some asshole was disrespecting your wife and everybody else knew it too.
This was back in the day when life actually meant something and people weren't so whimpy that the only thing they could do is pull a gun.
Then there was all the idiots who were saying how they would meekly sit by and let some man scream and yell at their wife because????
Then they complain about society going to hell & nobody having any respect anymore? Well idiots this is what you get.
Back when there was "respect" in society, you start screaming and berating someone's wife, you were sure as hell about to get into a fist fight and if you went and played coward and shot the guy because you were a pussy who's fists couldn't back up the shit coming out of your mouth, the rest of the town was rounding you up and taking you to the gallows.
The shooter was an arrogant blight on society and deserves to live out his days in jail.
I guess the modern moral of the story is if someone starts yelling at your wife & kids, just shoot them first.
If our worst case scenario comes true and we have to put the work in, do the patriot shit, to save our republic from the left, that effort would be greatly hampered by the over-sensitivity of being offended that some convict is dead after assaulting someone. Dead because he assaulted a guy who was having an uncomfortable convo with the thug's GF in the car- a simple exercising of his first amendment rights.
Under no circumstances is assault a legit reaction to that awkward convo at the handicapped parking space. The now dead convict should've shown the same restraint and self control the offended observers expected the shooter to exhibit.
The only reason the shooter was convicted is EMOTION on the part of the jurors, and it's a travesty of justice that taxpayers are saddled with the costs of that wrong conviction.
In the George Zimmerman case an eyewitness affirmed in testimony Zimmerman's story that he was returning to his vehicle as the dispatcher instructed when he was attacked by the now dead aggressor who had GZ on his back screaming for help as he sustained head and face injuries. In both of these cases it appears the over-sensitive observers of the cases seem to think the assault victims should've waited until they were near death before shooting in self defense.
We need many more thinkers like the founding fathers and vastly fewer country club repubs, and in my mind the ROEs for lethal force are too strict for civilians to help resolve the cancer destroying our republic.
Under no circumstances is assault a legit reaction to that awkward convo at the handicapped parking space. The now dead convict should've shown the same restraint and self control the offended observers expected the shooter to exhibit.
The only reason the shooter was convicted is EMOTION on the part of the jurors, and it's a travesty of justice that taxpayers are saddled with the costs of that wrong conviction.
In the George Zimmerman case an eyewitness affirmed in testimony Zimmerman's story that he was returning to his vehicle as the dispatcher instructed when he was attacked by the now dead aggressor who had GZ on his back screaming for help as he sustained head and face injuries. In both of these cases it appears the over-sensitive observers of the cases seem to think the assault victims should've waited until they were near death before shooting in self defense.
We need many more thinkers like the founding fathers and vastly fewer country club repubs, and in my mind the ROEs for lethal force are too strict for civilians to help resolve the cancer destroying our republic.
NOT offensive: exercising one's first amendment freedom to have an awkward discussion with a stranger, especially if that person is in the wrong. We need to get back to calling out the dems on their poor behavior.
Extremely offensive: physically assaulting someone because you don't like that they're speaking.
When did we get so emotional as to have more concern for the now dead aggressor (and convicted criminal) than the assault victim (who was wrongly convicted because of emotional jurors)?
Extremely offensive: physically assaulting someone because you don't like that they're speaking.
When did we get so emotional as to have more concern for the now dead aggressor (and convicted criminal) than the assault victim (who was wrongly convicted because of emotional jurors)?
calling somebody by the wrong pronoun is considered "violence" by the left.
if you do, they can call you a nazi bigot that should be killed, and that is ok to them.
i don't know how we got here, but we need to go back.
Last edited:
And now the Race Card has been trotted out, along with extreme embellishment of the demeanor of the wrongly convicted.
We lawful CC'ers are expected to not react physically unless and until we fear for our lives, and that expectation similarly covers NOT physically assaulting someone simply because you don't like their words. Words aren't violence. It's schizophrenic and hypocritical to think otherwise. The now dead assaulter had every right to use words against the wrongly convicted guy- but that's it.
I'm out because this is getting surreal.
We lawful CC'ers are expected to not react physically unless and until we fear for our lives, and that expectation similarly covers NOT physically assaulting someone simply because you don't like their words. Words aren't violence. It's schizophrenic and hypocritical to think otherwise. The now dead assaulter had every right to use words against the wrongly convicted guy- but that's it.
I'm out because this is getting surreal.
Last edited:
Respect?? You mean like a couple of shit bags high on amphetamines parking in a handicapped spot. Parked in the space for disabled people.
And in your ride down history lane. He never threatened her, He just informed her that she was being trashy, she said her man would come handle it... he did. He’s dead. The shooter is in jail. So the picture you paint of past exports seems to still be valid today. Or are you trying to tell me back in your day nobody ever shot each other?
And if that’s the moral that you pull out of this I question your reasoning
Thank you, my point exactly.
Have you seen the video of the wuss letting his wife/gf get punched in the face on the subway? THAT'S when you step in.
As far as the now deceased catching an assault charge, WTF would you do if some psycho was screaming at your girl as soon as you come out of a convenience store?
I didn't know that civilians can write tickets for parking in handicapped spots. I worked with an idiot like him. He had a CWP lickety split, then butted into some altercation out on a sidewalk somewhere near his home, drew down, then pretended he was an LEO and caught charges for impersonating. I'm pretty sure he ended up strung out on something like oxy, not sure what happened to him once he got fired.
I wouldn't have blind-sided him either but I'd have cursed him out and popped him in the face if he didn't back the fuck off. I'm tired of the state of the "rights" available to me being based upon two assholes met each other and then one shot the other one.
Wow, WTF.
Discussion right from the horse's mouth:
Kinda sounds like this guys butt hurt because they don't want him involved.
Throwing threats and already out being vocal... grandstanding about his departure
There's absolutely nothing wrong with being against the idea of the jury. It may not be our tradition, but tradition doesn't make an idea better, just persistent.
Everyone talks about juries doing crazy things, but our founders decided that was better than the alternative.
Even after all this time in front of them, I don't even know what to think. This is one of those areas a where I ought to be able to find some guidance, but ultimately, support for or against the jury as an institution is just a judgment call--one the majority of the world disagrees with us on, but I never took cues from them as to how to live anyway.
Oh, I am fine with jury trials, I meant it is the problem with our country as a whole.
Two reasons I guess. First, and I don't know what your point of view on all of the things floating around are so excuse me, I don't necessarily think that somebody holding insane conspiracies about elections or Russian spies, somethings that clearly are deeply personal to them, necessarily translates to outcomes in most jury trials which are based mostly in mundane facts and laws, and second, I think that insanity is so widely and evenly spread these days that you have reasonable countervailing forces each time you get twelve people together.
Also, I don't necessarily have an idea for a better way.
Judge lamented to the prospective jurors during the jury selection phase about "irresponsible" news reports, including some that are "deliberately biased."
www.foxnews.com
WOW!
Rittenhouse judge warns prospective jury of 'deliberately biased' media coverage
The Wisconsin judge presiding over the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse lamented to the prospective jurors during the jury selection phase about "irresponsible" news reports, including some that are "deliberately biased."
www.foxnews.com
WOW!
What did ol gringo Juan do to finally get banned? Lasted longer than I thought.
WS watching the court live, didn’t know they had IR drone footage
WS watching the court live, didn’t know they had IR drone footage
And remember the judge in the Floyd case said that the certain Senators like Maxine crying out for a specific verdict could cause problems....ASGH...Judge lamented to the prospective jurors during the jury selection phase about "irresponsible" news reports, including some that are "deliberately biased."
Rittenhouse judge warns prospective jury of 'deliberately biased' media coverage
The Wisconsin judge presiding over the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse lamented to the prospective jurors during the jury selection phase about "irresponsible" news reports, including some that are "deliberately biased."
WOW!
Is there a link to the drone video?
This is the first I've heard of that, I'd sure like to see it if that's possible without watching live.
Looks to me like there's no doubt he tried to retreat from his assailants after he was trying to render aid.
Should never make to the jury. Just should dismiss all charges with prejudice.
Should never make to the jury. Just should dismiss all charges with prejudice.
