DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Rittenhouse Trial

100%.... I haven't followed any of the Arbery trial yet, but watching the video I feel like every one of those guys deserves jail time... just despicable...

Drugs? I'm not on any at the moment, thank you very much... But once again, you must be at the bar, because a sober person doesn't think like that. Rittenhouse was filmed being chased by witnesses to his crime, who were trying to stop him from shooting somebody else and they got shot while during a heroic act. Stop trying to lay the blame on the victims. Time to drop the goofy BS and call it what it is, murder/manslaughter/dumbassery.

You win this one. My timeline and events during this trial are off because I haven't had time to watch and only getting tidbits when I watch the news or read GOPer teras for a murderer in here.

The violent protesters were not "heros", they were thugs who assaulted him while he was trying to get to the police. He repeatedly told them that he was a friendly. Don't want to be shot? Don't assault people. It's really simple. They are responsible for their own deaths.

Some people think the little jackass is guilty of murder from the jump and have seen NOTHING that changes their mind. But you should at least give me credit for saying it might be a lesser charge. smh. And please don't act like you weren't talking about me.

You should re-read my entire trump era history in here, maybe you'll see enough to stop talking to me.

In the words of the infamous orange blob, WRONG.

He really does live in your head.

I totally agree that I don't think Rittenhouse should have been there... I get why he went... and frankly if he went to help then more power to him... but I don't think he had any business getting a gun unless he was trained with it....

with that said... from what I've seen... he was chased by a mob before shooting anyone... the first guy lunged at him and tried to take the gun away from him and got shot for it... Kyle then tried to run away and was chased by others.... the next guy attacked him with a skateboard and got shot for it.... unless the prosecution can prove he went there with the intention of shooting people beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would be surprised if he doesn't get off on the murder charges...

Ahhh... now I'm a Nazi?

You're despicable, and that ish is totally uncalled for.

No, I never called you a Nazi. You don't like being lumped in with the Trumpian right, so stop acting like the Trumpian right... simple fix and nobody hurts your feelings. You know, just like everyone in here, that I think Trump and company, as well as most of his hardcore supporters are fascist. Yet, you get in the way when I'm taking shots at them then wonder why you got hit. I usually say NOTHING to you about your politics, but when we are both in the deep end and you take the side of my enemy, well you know the rest.

And I'll wear that despicable as a badge of honor. Every time I make a Trumpian angry or emotional, I win. I like winning.

And BTW, YOU started this back and fourth between us tonight by immediately saying this as soon as I came in and posted responses. I wasn't remotely thinking of you until then. smh

100% B.S. Cry me a river. I've done nothing but post FACTS in this thread. Well, that and reply to LWL's endless "he had a gun, therefor he's guilty of murder" rhetoric. You and your ilk don't like facts so you change the narrative or cry "Trump!". Thread after thread.

"Angry or emotional" from the resident crybaby.

And if that is what you consider winning, you lead a sad, sad, life.

Funny, but I'm much more like this:



And I don't see all that the Jay sees the same. I see good people trying to stop an active shooter. And the story about the first guy is unclear at best with conflicting witness statements. Initially, it was Rittenhouse killed a homeless guy that was half nuts and HARMLESS. All I'm saying is this right-wing take doesn't mesh with the things I've heard. Nor my preconceived notion that his ass is guilty as hell. Guess it's good for him that I'm not the judge or jury. But we'll see what the do. I fully expect him to walk.

YOU live in a world of make believe. Not one word of what you just said is true. Nothing really new there though.

Liar! You posted this and we both know who you were directing it to...


Like I said above, I wasn't ewven thinking about you before I saw that. You get what you got because you came for it. Boo-Bleeping-Who.

That's because you jump in here with your Trump b.s. STARTING with your response to me and the stupid "I'm sure the Trumpian jury will get your boy off". Not that I expect you to remember your comments from a whole hour ago.

Isn't it past your bedtime??

lol, man you really are butt hurt over this huh? My Trump BS is necessary, especially around here, without the diehard lefties this place would read like little 4chan or notes from a Qanon meeting.

No sweetie. I'm not butt hurt about anything. I know you're a little colicky right now, but the incessant comments from you and your cronies like "rent free", "butt hurt"and calling everyone whiners is just a reflection of your own shortcomings and lack of actual substance in your comments. If you want an example, just read your latest absurd, childish post.

You seem butt hurt.

I know a couple guys in Georgia that would agree with that statement.

Kinda puts this case in perspective doesn't it!!!

And that right there is the rub, isn't it? The judge didn't allow any of that material to be admitted as evidence (the social media videos where KR is talking about what he wants to do to the rioters).

Yup,, Turns out you were right,, The difference here is that I will admit a mistake..

How do you feel about allowing Trump to lie to you for 5 years and you got nothing to say about it and still support the fool?

This is probably just semantics to many, but the burden is beyond a "reasonable" doubt. Just saying that because I used to say "shadow" and my first Crim Law professor outed me in front of the whole class. That was fun.

This whole thing - from a collective perspective - seems to be a joint botching among judge, prosecutor and procedure (jury selection process). I wouldn't be surprised to see some major overhauls, both amongst the code and procedure after all this wraps up.

Is there any sort of "dude...wtf"/ or eject button someone can hit when things get so ridiculous (like when a judge "just can't" over a key video because of pinch-to-zoom)? I'm waiting for some sort of little-known procedure to come out when a trial goes so far off the rails.

That's the thing though - based on the info we have now, the shooting (not killing) of Jacob Blake makes 100% sense; it was not a senseless shooting.

I never said this was on the protesters; I said it was on those who wished to rush to judgement and fan the flames of racial discord, mainly the media and people like you on the Left.

If you didn't have the media and the Left pushing the false and at the time unproven narrative that this was a "senseless" shooting, none of this happens - no violent riots, no shootings, nothing. That seems like the best scenario out of all possible outcomes.

Sing along to the tune of "Mother in Law": "What about Trump........Trump Trump Trump Trump"

Actually, being in the field of law as long as you have been, you know that's not true. The fact this charge never reached the jury means he was never tried for this crime. Which means a prosecutor could once again file charges and try this as a crime. Never getting to the jury simply means he was never tried for the crime. If he had been found not guilty of the crime by a jury of his piers, you would be correct. He could not be tried in the future due to double jeopardy. The entire answer revolves around if the charge was dismissed without prejudice or not. I have no idea whether the judge dismissed the charge with our without prejudice. But if it was without prejudice he can be charged with the gun offense again. I had no idea you wouldn't know that.

Who are "these people"?


Yet you don't understand the law either. If the judge dismissed the charges without prejudice it doesn't mean he can't be tried on those charges. It simply means they're dropped for now and the prosecutor can refile the charges later.


I wonder what someone would do if a person was walking down the street with an AK-47 and felt threatened by that person? If that person had traveled 40 miles to interject himself into a scene which made him carrying around an AK-47 appear to be threatening? You certainly are leaving out a lot of details to paint a different reality.


Which is what most everyone has said with possibly the way they've set the stage. Just like you did.


Yet your tail has been wagging during your entire post.

Only in this juvenile delinquent rant of yours you have once again resorted to name calling, drug me into it and lied claiming I said something I have never said. You now have shown yourself to be exactly what I've claimed. Sometimes you try to have a rational discussion. Sometimes you act like an idiot and lie your ass off.


Who is "your ilk"? Who else has brought trump's name into this other than OCD and possibly Damon? Or was Damon responding to comments about orange man bad" lol ( I know you'll appreciate that one ) Just as I thought. Nobody. Composure is not your strong suit. Commenting about others being unhinged isn't something that appears to be a good look when you can't even control yourself.


I see you think acting the way you claim others act must make you feel justified. If "angry and emotional" is your gauge of success, you just failed miserably.

Of an unarmed man? You're far too smart to be serious about this comment.

You seem butt hurt.

Ha, most of that proverbially happens for the defendants when the judge seems arbitrary, which I do get since it's a constitutional premise.

The number one responsibility for a judge is to make sure the constitution (state and federal) is upheld. The number two job in trial that are high profile such as this one, is to make sure that it doesn't turn into a circus. This judge failed on that front in spectacular fashion, without even speaking to the merits. You could argue the prosecutor enabled that, too.

It would take far more than the likes of you to ever accomplish that. I've actually taken on contenders and not pretenders. You have a long way to go.....

Not all internet heroes wear capes.

You're right. I don't.

Has anyone else considered this could all end with a Hung Jury?

I have. But if you look at the things that were not allowed to be presented into evidence, it certainly leans towards acquittal on at least the most serious charges.

You talking about those things deemed by a Judge to not be admissible by law but you think they should be admissible? ok,