BLM was not there when this happened.
Rittenhouse
- Thread starter Al-O-Meter
- Start date
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
[DELETED]
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
LOL. He did. Rittenhouse would have had a 9mm hole in him if he hadn't. I do admire how quickly you switched gears from thinking Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse was a lie to now thinking Grosskreutz pointed a gun faster than Rittenhouse.
JazzyFresh
Banned
Logical thinking and flat out evidence is not OB strong suits.
He just pointed his gun at Rittenhouse for fun. He even admits Rittenhouse didn't pull the trigger until he was in danger but OB just doesn't have the common sense.
JazzyFresh
Banned
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
It would seem based on testimony, neither of them are murderers.
In the larger context of things, I just have to believe there are funding operations and other high-level support for all the riots in "protected" zones where huge outside political contributions installed very very extreme political hacks in as prosecutors, where there was no or ineffective law enforcement that was applied to curtail the riots.
This means, considering the political funding or directions of various groups coming from the same or allied sources, really makes the specific about which group "was there" pretty irrelevant. The same people involved in our media perhaps aiding the political cause really means we do not have objective news and lacking other sources of information, we should be skeptical of what we are being "told"
Rittenhouse got huge negative reports in the "news" that has since been almost totally debunked by basically local fact-finders and people close to the facts who have made the effort to speak out.
He should not have even been prosecuted on the police or prosecuting attorney evidence.
Rioters were given aj pass to do everything they did, and there is still no will in the government to prosecute those lawbreakers. They are the real cause, the real guilty perps, responsible for everything..
This means, considering the political funding or directions of various groups coming from the same or allied sources, really makes the specific about which group "was there" pretty irrelevant. The same people involved in our media perhaps aiding the political cause really means we do not have objective news and lacking other sources of information, we should be skeptical of what we are being "told"
Rittenhouse got huge negative reports in the "news" that has since been almost totally debunked by basically local fact-finders and people close to the facts who have made the effort to speak out.
He should not have even been prosecuted on the police or prosecuting attorney evidence.
Rioters were given aj pass to do everything they did, and there is still no will in the government to prosecute those lawbreakers. They are the real cause, the real guilty perps, responsible for everything..
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
There were over 14,000 rioters arrested last summer though
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Avery
Well-Known Member
Like many 'stand your ground' and self-defense laws, I expect that the prosecution will not be able to definitively improve intent. That's not an easy thing to do in legal circles. Rittenhouse will likely be found not guilty based on that alone.
What he is guilty of his interjecting himself into a situation in which he had no formal training nor need to interject. That's not a criminal charge, but one of common sense. I have no doubt that he saw himself as trying to act as some protector, but that's not his place and he helped instigate further unrest where plenty of it could already be found.
For most of us, if you don't go looking for trouble, you're unlikely to stumble into it. Rittenhouse, much like the rioters that night, did not subscribe to that theory.
What he is guilty of his interjecting himself into a situation in which he had no formal training nor need to interject. That's not a criminal charge, but one of common sense. I have no doubt that he saw himself as trying to act as some protector, but that's not his place and he helped instigate further unrest where plenty of it could already be found.
For most of us, if you don't go looking for trouble, you're unlikely to stumble into it. Rittenhouse, much like the rioters that night, did not subscribe to that theory.
Except, as the testimony clearly says, Grosskreutz was already pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Grosskreutz.
Except, I never called it a lie. I said, "That picture doesn't show Grosskreutz's gun point toward Rittenhouse" and "sounds like a fantasy from a spaghetti Western". The very same testimony from Grosskreutz that establishes the gun being pointed also establishes that Rittenhouse pointed second.
That is Grosskreutz's testimony. If you don't believe him, than you have nothing left that clearly shows Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse at all.
Reading ordinary English is obviously out of your wheelhouse.
Evidence it was for fun?
Actually, you're currently agreeing with me against Al-O-Meter, who is saying Rittenhouse succeeded in aiming his gun first. Is that an example of your logical thinking?