Not guilty on all counts.

Yep. The fact that it took the jury several days to reach this verdict is a clear indicator it wasn't as cut and dry as some people on both sides claimed it was.

I'm interested in hearing what the jurors have to say.

Punk walks away with impunity. My guess is he’ll put himself in another situation where he’ll end up in trouble again. Now he feels emboldened.

I'm not unhappy with him getting off because I saw how badly botched the whole trial was... But I'm just sick over this pecident being set. It's open season on libs.

The mob now has to learn that they just can't chase and assault people without consequences.

If that side is going to walk around playing army surplus dress up it’s our job to stay armed against them. Apparently shooting people is becoming increasingly legal.

I know. The people like Eve haven't figured out that the left has as many guns as the right. BLM, Antifa, NFAC will now be armed to the hilt too... what could go wrong.

So you're going to go from chasing and assaulting to chasing and shooting? Libtards earned their name.

Yeah, it was definitely botched on multiple fronts. Not sure if there will be a refiling of some of the lesser charges that were dismissed early on. I think most of the rational people I've seen from multiple spectrums on this board agreed that it shouldn't be a murder conviction, but that it shouldn't be nothing.

I'm more interested in the aftermath regarding the judge.

I'm not going from anything to anything, unless going from concerned to sadly concerned is a big thing to you. Trumpian knuckle draggers got a win. Look at them gloat.

Which mob do you speak of.. proud Boys? or KKK or Oath Keepers.

As for this verdict, it's a shame.. I guess according to world of the right, you can walk through a protest with an rifle and if someone looks at you funny, just claim self defense and you can kill them...

Imagine being happy that an underaged kid travelled across state lines and shot someone and got away with it.
It’s a weird world Eve lives in.

Eve doesn't seem to understand that those "wanna be Rambo's" probably wouldn't even show up if those they are confronting were as well armed as they are. They would stay at home cowering in their basements instead.

Boohoo yall can cry giant tears. Justice was done.

On the flipside of that, more people have now learned that it's okay to do what Kyle did.

Yes, its legal to use lethal force when defending your life. That has always been the case.

Yep. This isn't going to end well, OR any time soon. So far, people on the left have stayed out of the 'gun violence' bit of our culture wars. That probably ended today. Let's see if they are celebrating when they realize this the hard way.

I guess you can now jump into the polar bear enclosure at the zoo, gun in hand, and shoot the bears in self defense.

Don't give them ideas.

Of course you would be deliberately obtuse about it.

Why not? Looting, burning vehicles, destruction of property was evidently made legal...

That would be you. How's that mirror look?

Nope. All illegal. Those that do the above should be prosecuted. Many have been.
Those that willingly walk into dangerous situations while armed are looking for trouble. Period. There’s no other reason for it. If they shoot someone they should be punished accordingly.

Yes, over 14k arrests over the summer made that perfectly clear.

Did someone loot, burn a vehicle, and/or destroy property and get acquitted of everything in court?

Listen, I know what you're saying, and there should be a much heavier crackdown on the looting, etc. That's an enforcement issue. However, one thing being wrong doesn't justify another being wrong, and we're talking about a case where the law was enforced, interpreted and the result - at least so far - is zero consequences.

Did the polar bear maul people the night before? Had he been mauling other people night after night for weeks? Had they shot people, including police officers?

I don't like what Rittenhouse did.. but let's stop acting like the rioters were as peaceful and harmless as a polar bear sitting in his enclosure at the zoo... they had been causing millions of dollars of damage and hurting people every single night in this city and around the country for a while and the authorities were just letting it happen.

The ol' "I know you are, but what am I." It's okay, Eve, I know you understand my point. I'll acquiesce and spare the board any more of your typical trolling attempts to get out of a weak argument.

The jury's decision supports my statement. If you have a problem with that, well, too bad for you.

As of June 8th they had already arrested over 10k. Many were for non violent offenses. But they don't want to talk about any of that. They pretend that with all of the arrests and convictions it was somehow....

That's just where we are now.

A lot of things were wrong. People have harped on Rittenhouse just being there as the actual cause of the problem because he shouldn't have been there,, which I wholeheartedly agree with... but he didn't just show up there in a vacuum... backing up, had the rioters not done millions of dollars of damage the night before with nobody being held accountable, he wouldn't have been there. And those who wish Rittenhouse was being hung right now only pay passing lip service to "Sure, looting is wrong, but.... "

As long as they remember their words here when this hits the fan for them, it's all good. Rittenhouse, the hero of the right, got away with murder or killing or whatever they want to label it on national TV and they think the left won't react... smh. People never learn. There will now be fully armed protests and nobody will be able to defuse that powder keg when it goes to blow...

That's on the murder charge. I actually have no issue with the acquittal for murder, as my earlier post said. The jury didn't make a decision on every charge as one in particular was dismissed that appeared to initially be a slam dunk. That's where my issue is. I don't think the jury really did anything wrong.

I don't really disagree with you. I don't want him to be hung. He should be held accountable, though, as should the looters. Right now, the whole thing looks like a big flipping disaster from whatever objective lens one can look through.

Ok then.

How many of them were ever actually charged with anything?

NO. We are now at killing people in the streets. Much, Much worse...

Nobody was being held accountable?

More than 250 arrests in Kenosha unrest; most have been from the surrounding area

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...t-have-been-surrounding-area/5701286002/

That's my bigger issue is people are currently living and reacting in the now, and not thinking of the ramifications.

Yeah, you want me to do that homework for you? That was just by June 8th. And I would hope since many of those that had been arrested were for non violent offenses quite a number of them wouldn't have been charged.

Most of them were arrested for violating curfew and promptly released.... got any stats on how many have actually been charged with anything?

Watching our democracy die the death of a thousand cuts from the right is getting really old. I don't think any of our leaders realize the hair triggers they are dealing with on either extreme side of the isle. None of this will end well for anybody. Rittenhouse is nothing but a symptom of the larger rot in this country. A tug of war between democracy and fascist autocracy. A tug of war between two ideas of what it is to be American. A tug of war between national cohesion and all that divides...

Anyone with whom a prosecutor has the evidence to file charges on gets charges filed on them. Those where there is a lack of evidence to file charges do not. Those who are found not guilty in court do not serve any additional time. They were all held to the same standard as the Rittenhouse kid. Or does the way our justice system works only apply to people like him? And BTW- How would Rittenhouse and those others there to "defend Kenosha" know who or how many people were being charged by the very next day? They didn't and trying to use some contrived notion they did is not viable.

Maybe, maybe not.

Maybe they wanted to carefully review the facts knowing a lot was at stake. A poor juror walks in to the jury room with their mind made up.

That's crazy man. It has nothing to do with libs and conservatives. It has to do with a persons right to defend themselves.

Give it a rest. Comments like that make no sense.

What should it be?

I hope it's not your contention that it took four days to review the evidence. We agree that no juror should go into a trial with their minds made up. But they all take notes during the trial and are quite aware of the testimony that's been given when going in to deliberate. I think it's less than genuine to insinuate it took four days to simply review the testimony.

My point is nobody knows what was reviewed or why it took this long....personally I don't think it was all that long.


Maybe a juror was saying guilty right off the bat and the others had to talk them down?

Maybe a juror or two liked the celebrity and wanted to be sequestered for a few days in a hotel before going back to work?

There are a lot of possible reasons why, so it is foolish to try to draw and conclusions.

The only conclusion we can draw is Rittenhouse is innocent of any crime.

Wisconsin leaders and the prosecutor are calling for calm reactions from the community. Hopefully they get it, we'll see.

We agree.

https://twitter.com/WISN12News/status/1461780345938927621?s=20

Kyle Rittenhouse trial was designed to protect white conservatives who kill

The shooter’s homicide acquittal coddles conservatives and may lead to even more violence.

Nov. 19, 2021, 1:19 PM EST / Updated Nov. 19, 2021, 2:00 PM EST
By Ja'han Jones


Kyle Rittenhouse, who fatally shot two protesters and wounded a third during anti-police brutality demonstrations in Wisconsin last year, has been found not guilty of homicide — an outrageous yet unsurprising verdict in a trial marred by controversy.

Rittenhouse, who is white, was 17 when he traveled from his hometown in northeast Illinois to the protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin, last year armed with his semi-automatic rifle. On the night of Aug. 25, 2020, as he carried his gun through the streets, Rittenhouse shot dead Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz, now 27.

Rittenhouse was found not guilty on all five charges he faced, which included first-degree intentional homicide, first-degree recklessly endangering safety and attempted first-degree intentional homicide.

The case had the makings of an acquittal before the trial even began. The outcome seemed clear even before an almost exclusively white jury pool was selected, even before Judge Bruce Schroeder created an uproar by ruling that the slain protesters could be referred to as “rioters” and “looters” but not “victims," even before Schroeder refused to punish Rittenhouse for what prosecutors said amounted to a violation of his bond conditions. Rittenhouse is a white teen who abides by white rules, and white people empathetic to those rules seemed poised to insulate him from repercussions.

The day he pleaded not guilty to felony homicide, Rittenhouse flashed a white supremacist symbol and was “loudly serenaded” by a group of men at a bar who belted out the anthem of the Proud Boys, a far-right extremist group, according to prosecutors.

On the night of the shooting, minutes before Rittenhouse opened fire, police in Kenosha thanked the rifle-toting teen and offered him water as he walked the streets. “We appreciate you guys, we really do,” one officer told him.

Law enforcement — including a department known to cover up its own lawless acts of violence — seemed to give cover to Rittenhouse from the get-go.

With these endorsements, white conservatives felt all the more comfortable swaddling Rittenhouse in the protection they often give to police and vigilantes serving white conservative interests — from George Zimmerman to Mark and Patricia McCloskey. Rittenhouse is just their latest darling, pitifully seeing heroism in an armed teen who set out to patrol pro-Black protests as though he were police.

Pitiful as they are, we can’t dismiss his supporters as conservatives merely taking sides in a political squabble. Last year, then-President Donald Trump’s administration issued talking points to Homeland Security officials claiming Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to “defend small business owners.” Conservative media figures have eagerly repeated those claims. Their support for Rittenhouse isn’t a counterweight to progressive social policies like equitable policing — their support is a physical threat to people supporting those policies.

Conservatives are encouraging white vigilantes like Rittenhouse to police progressive spaces by all means. As one Slate article put it last year, “'Own the Libs' Is Gradually Morphing Into 'Kill the Libs.'”

The jury’s decision was a dangerous endorsement of that vision.

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-homicide-rcna5748

I do feel badly for parents and family. Not just in this case, but most others as well. Parents and family are innocent victims in all cases where either someone is killed or harmed, or if their loved one goes to jail.

First, we actually know that the jury asked to and was permitted to take home the 36-pages of jury instructions as they ended their third day of deliberations. If that isn't a clear indication that it was a much more complicated decision than you are trying to claim a possible denial of that doesn't seem very plausible.

Secondly a jury doesn't find anyone innocent of anything. They find that the prosecution did not find or present enough evidence to find them guilty of a crime by a reasonable doubt.

Those aren't the same. He was certainly found not guilty on all charges.

MSNBC is just butthurt that they got kicked out of the courtroom for attempting to intimidate the jury. Their radical left agenda is transparent.

OCD....LOL to the link to the MSN garbage you posted.

Yeah, just like it's wrong to allow black pastors in a courthouse.

I'll give this thread a rest for a while to all some steam to blow off.

Rittenhouse walked in to the courtroom a innocent man, and he walked out the same.

Possession. We've been over this, but...

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news...ropped-gun-possession-charge/8640342002/

Judge botched it. Big time.

Edit ~ I suppose you could also point blame at the legislature because the wording does not add up to the likely intent.

He was found not guilty. Nobody is ever found innocent.

I just posted it so y'all living in your bubbles could see what just got kicked off. Don't fool yourselves into thinking it's only the radical 'Reidout' Joy Reid show blog out there talking that crap right now. I don't necessarily agree with the words in that article, but I do agree there will be fallout and it won't be pretty.

Just to be clear for the folks that don't know that happened in a different trial, and was said by a defense attorney who was rebuked by that judge.

And it's no less ridiculous than trying to claim a network news camera would be an attempt to intimidate a jury.

Stalking the jury bus is jury intimidation. It illegal, and they will face consequences.

Sure they will.

#snowflake

Biden just called on Americans to respect the jury's verdict, reminding that he ran on a platform to unite and bring us back together, and asked those angry over the verdict to keep their protests peaceful. Just a normal day in postTrumpia.

Well the network freelancer (network called him that) was following the bus carrying the jury. In fact he ran a red light while doing so. It isn't be out of the realm of possibility that he was trying to get video of the jurors. Why else would he follow them? That is intimidation.

You are probably in a better position to know the answer to this than most of us.

I'm surprised that the charges were so specific and rigid. Is it not true that juries can request permission to level guilty verdicts on lesser charges?
2nd-degree?
Manslaughter?
Criminally negligent homicide?

Here's why I ask: In a fluid situation such as the night this happened I could easily see a different set of charges for each shooting, depending upon circumstance.

Perhaps you could bang out a short tutorial for those of us who are less interested in fighting and more interested in discussing?
Only if you feel so inclined.

He certainly deserves a ticket for running a red light. I mean it's not like he shot and killed anyone, right?

I am glad he was found guilty. This case never should have been brought to trail. The video clearly shows self defense. Now, I hope he sues the media and wins big!!! They told lie after lie about this case trying to convict this kid. The mob should have been stopped long before this kid put himself in a bad place. His mother should have been smart enough to keep him far away from the trash that was rioting.

It was so clear it took a jury four days to make a decision.

The video was clear. The noise surrounding the case complicates things. The video was all the kid needed to be found innocent. That was the smoking gun in this case.

I'll repeat, it took the jury four days to come to a verdict. That's not what happens in an open and shut case. That's not what happens when everything is "clear".

In the end, given the evidence that the judge allowed them to see they most likely made the right choice. I can't say 100% because I didn't see the entire trial.

I dont think they can do that. Because the whole trial strategy by both sides was geared towards the existing charges. The jury cant just change the charges. Because it would require a new defense.

Just thinking logically.

I believe the judge did allow for a lesser charge. If the jury decides it was self defense a lesser charge won't change the fact that he defending himself. That's why I'm interested in hearing from the jury. I want to hear what they were thinking.

Yeah, there are such things as lesser included offenses, which are typically covered in the jury instructions. I'm going to oversimplify it, but I'll use robbery as an example. Robbery is larceny with the use or threat of use of force. Larceny is also its own crime. But in that instance, someone who is charged with robbery cannot also be charged with larceny, because larceny is already a subset. However, if someone is charged with robbery, and the jury finds that he stole something, but didn't actually use force, they can return a conviction for the lesser included offense of larceny.

I believe you're right, though, that in this case, self defense would apply as an affirmative defense across the gamut.

That's pretty good right there. I'll give you that. After the Rittenhouse verdict I can see a group pf them buying a bus and going riot hunting just like old women who go out hunting for garage sales. They can call it the Vigilante Vehicle. Maybe paint that on the side.

white supremacists
celebrate their new hero
Rittenhouse is trash

There’s one now.
Enjoy your party.

Libtards think anyone who disagrees with them is a white supremacist or a trump supporter.

This is why libtards are a national joke.

And why the Red Wave is coming.

Anyone that celebrates white supremacists are as equally trashy.

Still too early...no doubt it is difficult for some

And had he been found not guilt in 1 day, the same people would be pissing and moaning that the jury didn't spend enough time. Let's face it, somehow this became a political trial in some minds. And a racist trial as well.

We already know he was guilty and written off as such way before the trial by some.

Because the protest (that turned into a riot after dark) was promoted by the death of Jacob Blake, yet another unarmed Black male slain by law enforcement officers.

It's why so many 'Stormfront types' are partying tonight... like it's 1899.

Yep. Most forget he went there to 'protect' businesses from BLM 'rioters'...

I guess I'm not a stormfrom person. I'm not partying.

I know you aren't like that. My answer was TO you, not ABOUT you.

Actually he was armed with a knife. I don't know if he was a threat to anyone but the Justice Department declined to press charges against the officer. I do not know how high the standard is to charge a cop for violating civil rights, I assume it is high.

Lesser included offenses were presented as options if the jury were to go for a compromised verdict. The jury can't request them, but there is a process for that. The day before the the jury began to deliberate was spent entirely on 2 things: 1) hearing arguments for and against adding lesser included charges (the prosecution was successful on some, the defense on others and 2) the judge heard arguments on the instructions that were to be given to the jury in terms of how they were to make their verdict. If anyone was watching, the huge issue with the last minute video being allowed in as evidence (the one that allegedly showed him aiming his rifle at someone) was that it allowed the State to have added the Provocation consideration. This is important because in order to have a valid claim to self defense, the defendant can't have provoked the incident to begin with. If that video had not been allowed, then the State arguable had not provided any argument or evidence that Kyle provoked the incident. What that would have meant for the jury is that essentially the State stipulated in their case that he had not provoked anyone (i.e. he was being assaulted) and that they would then have had to consider the case in terms of whether or not the level of force he used was reasonable and necessary.

And there were separate charges for each person that for lack of a better term was on the receiving end of rounds fired by Kyle that night. It was strange because on one hand they were to decide each charge independent of the others, but at the same time they were all part of a cascading sequence of events.

The fact that Kyle shot and killed that night was never in dispute by the defense. The issue was whether he had a valid claim to self defense and THAT is always viewed from the perspective of the person making the claim. The cynics and here will try to act like its as easy as simply saying you were acting in self defense, but that's not true. Yes, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not act lawfully, but there are multiple standards that all have to be met for a successful claim. The State only has to disprove one facet for the claim to fall apart. Almost every witness the State put on ended up being a win for the defense:

-The detectives were caught (at best) cutting corners in collecting evidence
-The forensic examiner testimony actually favored the defense claim that Rosenbaum (the first guy shot)was grabbing the rifle from him
-Richie McGinnis, the reporter who was right there and the named victim for a careless and reckless charge a) provided testimony that Kyle was being assaulted and b) he had stepped out of harms way of the shots Kyle fired
-One witness who had provided video for the State flat out said in court the state attorney tried to pressure him in to changing his statement
-The family who ran the car lots and claimed they had given no one permission to be at their lot were caught lying about that very fact
-The State presented plenty of video of Kyle doing things like cleaning grafitti, asking people if they needed medical attention, walking away from people who were being hostile toward him instead of arguing, putting fires out
-Probably the biggest shocker came when one of the 'victims' admitted that Kyle had not shot him until he aimed his pistol at him (this after getting caught lying about whether or not he had a gun that night). This VERY same person said that he was concerned for Kyle's safety when he saw him getting kicked in the face and hit in the head with a skateboard

The defense was not perfect in this case but the State attorneys had several moments of misconduct and came very close to having the judge declare a mistrial with prejudice which means they would not have been able to try him again. Don't be surprised if you hear that they will be reported to the BAR Association and face sanctions.

Its obvious that most people didn't watch much of the trial. At best they caught a minute or two of edited or chosen clips, framed or biased by whatever headline was attached. For my part I watched almost ever minute to include several hours of pre-, during, and post analysis by a panel of lawyers who picked it all apart and were critical of both sides.

Some are going to try to argue that Kyle shouldn't have been there that night and because he shouldn't have been there he has no right to defend himself. Whether or not he should have been there is irrelevant. Being out past a curfew doesn't mean he now is obligated to become a victim when attacked. For anyone who thinks this should be the case, its the equivalent of saying a 17yr old girl who sneaks out to go to a college frat party has no right to defend herself from being sexually assaulted because "she shouldn't have been there in the first place wearing such a short skirt".

Let's not forget to add the other important facts that he had an active warrant for sexual battery and that he had not right to resist/escape.

Jacob Blake was definitely not unarmed, and he was not killed.

This just proves my point about how irresponsible media coverage (along with the false statements by Jacob Blake's family) and a rush to judgement from the Left played a huge role in this whole situation that needs addressed.

There are people who only found out last week that Kyle didn't shoot anyone who was black...

And that he was trying to take 3 kids that were not supposed to be in his custody at the time in a car that wasn't his while holding a knife.

I just hope the kid's relief reaction and crying at the verdict reading were sincere, because he just got away with killing two people and shooting a third... I hope he doesn't turn out to be a racist piece of crap and this 15 minutes of fame for infamous acts cures his desire to be famous. Hopefully he will be law abiding and scared straight, but somehow I doubt the alt-right will allow that even if he tries.

Thank God I'm not a liberal/leftist.

Open & Shut. Justice was done!

2nd Amendment intact for now.

[social:tweet]https://twitter.com/TheQuartering/status/1461833893905154057/photo/1[/social]

Until he changed his mind and decided he had to make up an excuse why he was not at the business he claimed he was there to protect. Then the story changed to claim he was there to give those who needed it medical attention. Although he had zero training in giving medical attention. And if someone is wondering why this had anything to do with race, maybe they should ask Rittenhouse....

Rittenhouse judge bars evidence connecting teen to Proud Boys during trial

KENOSHA — Kyle Rittenhouse’s jury will not hear about his alleged ties to a far-right group or be shown a photo of him flashing a hand sign appropriated by some white supremacist groups when his murder case goes to trial later this year, a Kenosha County judge ruled Friday.

Circuit Judge Bruce Schroeder also barred prosecutors from playing a video in which Rittenhouse punched a girl and another in which the Antioch teen said he wished he had his assault rifle with him so he could shoot at people he believed were shoplifting from a drugstore.

Both videos were taken in the weeks before Rittenhouse, then 17, killed two men and wounded a third with an AR-15-style rifle. Despite not being old enough to openly carry a gun, Rittenhouse took it upon himself to patrol the southeastern Wisconsin town amid the turmoil surrounding the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white police officer in August 2020.

The rulings dealt a setback to prosecutors’ efforts to portray Rittenhouse as a “chaos tourist” who came to Kenosha to impose his own sense of justice.

“This is not a political trial,” Schroeder said. “This is not going to be a political trial.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...17-pu6l3fktbjb73monnpagczdesi-story.html

There's much more of the article at the link.

Somehow it appears the judge felt showing evidence that Rittenhouse is a racist is political. Yeah, it's sort of hard for a jury to understand who a person is and what motivates them when they aren't allowed to see it.

I guess I'm a bad person for not being upset a couple of scumbags got killed while beating an armed American.

I guess you may be a bad person because you believe one person deserves a trial before being judged but judging others without one seems perfectly fine.

Let's break this down for a minute, shall we?

Can you explain to me which one of these is not a logical conclusion?

If a jury only takes a few hours to reach a verdict, would it not be logical to say they didn't take enough time to review all of the evidence?

Yet as a stark contrast, would it not be logical to conclude that if it took them over 25 hours of deliberation AND had to ask the judge to take home the jury instructions after the third day of deliberations, that it was far more complicated case in which to reach a verdict?

Can you explain to me what's political about that? Can you explain the fact that Rittenhouse was witnessed hanging out in a bar being serenaded by a group of people singing the Proud Boy anthem and him displaying white power signs isn't racial? I mean I understand how you seem eager to point the race card in one direction, but have you decided to ignore that it wasn't a one way street?

Kyle Rittenhouse, out on bail, flashed white power signs at a bar, prosecutors say

In his 90-minute visit to the bar, Kyle Rittenhouse, 18, was seen consuming alcohol while being serenaded by a group of adult men who sang the Proud Boys’ anthem, according to the motion.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ite-power-signs-bar-prosecutors-n1254250

Is it true that Rittenhouse is Hispanic?

yes, let's do that. No. It would be logical to say the case had no merit to begin with.
Yes, I think that would be logical. And, here you go, jumping to conclusions. He was not on trial for being racist, if he is. He was on trial for the charges he faced. he was found not guilty of those charges. By a jury. You know, like, that's how the law works. Now, if you want to try him for being racist, go ahead.
While I don't like that, and don't agree with it, he wasn't on trial for any race crime. He was seen consuming alcohol, at age 18, which is illegal in Illinois. he wasn't in Illinois though. he was in Wisconsin, at a bar, with his mom. In Wisconsin, apparently according to the reporter in the link you cited, that is legal. Nothing he did at that time was in violation of any court order, again, according the the link you provided.
Is he racist? I have no idea. I don't know him.

He was found not guilty. I know you wanted him found guilty. The problem is, the only way race comes into this is that the violent protestors were out due to a previous race related issue. Looting and vandalizing. The political side of it? You don't like him since he apparently isn't a liberal.

It's fairly simple. You, and others, had him convicted before the trial started. Without knowing the laws. And you now continue with 'he's a racist, and flashed white power signs, at a BAR, where he was DRINKING, so, he must be guilty. Right? C'mon man, I know you argue just for the sake of arguing, but even YOUR link said he broke no laws.

You, pit, might find this article interesting. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-didnt-illegally-bring-043226324.html

That article, not written by me, pretty much debunks every argument you've made in this thread.

I still maintain you can't draw any conclusions drawn from how long it took for the jury to decided on a verdict.

Hey, how about this....maybe they felt he was innocent of all charges inside of 30 minutes, but to look good decided to take several days to make their announcement?

In all seriousness, none of us know why, so it is foolish to try to speculate. Maybe at some point some juror will come forward and explain.

I also see it is useless being a part of the conversation, so maybe it's best for me at least to take a break from the thread.

Carry on

Seems like there might need to be more charges filed in this case. Death threats against the attorney. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouses-lawyer-says-hes-150859128.html

Well, okay then…

Here comes the crazy aftermath.

No.


He defended himself. That is all.

Had he had an ounce of brains, he wouldn't have put himself in that position. I maintain he went there to kill someone.. It was his INTENT...That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. He's a foolish little man..

You, and others, have proven you have no clue how the law works. https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-defended-himself-using-185923036.html


he broke no laws, as a previous post of mine shows.

Had the others had an ounce of brains, they wouldn't have chased an armed person, and they wouldn't have kicked him in the head, and they would'nt have pointed a gun at him.And they wouldn't have tried to beat him with a skateboard.....He was retreating. They came after him. I'll ask you point blank: If I come after you, pointing a weapon, or kicking you in the head, or attempting to beat you with a skateboard, and you are armed, what could I expect?

Oh, by the way, the jury found him not guilty.

Libtards throwing a tanty because things dont go their way. Not surprising.

#GiantLibtardTears

Classic troll. If those are the only comments you have for my posts, keep it to yourself. When you find some intelligence, come back by and we'll talk. It's so sad seeing what 4 years of simpleton sauce has done to what was once a perfectly average southern brain.

Typical libtard post. Anyone who doesnt agree with you is automatically a troll, white supremacist, or trumpian.

Well Cindereally, when you lay with dogs you sometimes get fleas... Best way to stop being called those things is to stop being those things. I know, I know... BRILLIANT!

I dont get fleas because I dont sleep with libtards. Yall can keep your diseases to your own kind.

Pretty interesting to see your reaction to this compared to your reaction of the guy who shot Ashli Babbitt…

I think Arch was just answering the disturbing question posed by Gosar. I think him getting off completely scot-free segued into it blowing up into a major crap fest of celebration. I actually commend his attorneys for lambasting a lot of the extremist republicans for doing such. There’s a link out there I saw on Yahoo, but apparently his attorneys had to throw out Tucker Carlson’s crew several times during the course of the trial.

In other news, here’s this guy:

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...-tucker-carlsons-filming-crew-out-of?amp

Link I mentioned.

You don't seem flea-less.

You know- I've been reasonably politically aware since the 1970's, and I've never seen such rampant lunacy on a daily basis.

These people have learned the grift: say the most outrageous crap you can, grab some headlines, and use those headlines to raise funds. They've monetized trolling , and are using it to maintain their political careers.

It's cynical in the extreme, and it's causing us to see more and more trash on capitol hill with every election cycle.

That’s a really good way to put it. You’ve put into words what I’ve been feeling for months - years actually - and I’ve struggled to express it in that way. That’s perfect.

I notice you didn't address the actual point of what happened at that bar. It really has nothing to do with the drinking part. It has to do with him hanging out with either proud boys or proud boy sympathizers. You didn't address that he thought shooting shoplifters was a perfectly fine way of addressing shoplifting. You didn't address his assaulting two girls which shows his ability for and actions of violence. You see, the prosecutor was trying to make the argument that Rittenhouse wasn't some innocent child like the portrayal of his sniveling act on the stand. He was trying to show intent as to why Rittenhouse was at the scene in the first place. His intent for going there. That his previous statements and actions show that his reason for going there was to incite and lead to the very thing we saw happen.

Now I have no idea if that would have influenced the jury or not. But then neither do you. Intent does hold a lot of value in a criminal case. But none of that was allowed to be entered into evidence. I wonder how the jurors will feel when they find out all of this evidence was held from them?

And here's the thing about bringing race into things like this. I don't disagree that often times you see the left bringing race into things where it really shouldn't be. That was your accusation to begin with. It actually dilutes the times where race is an issue. Much like The Boy Who Cried Wolf. But then let's look at what happens when the shoe is put on the other foot. You show someone hanging out with Proud Boy sympathizer and signaling racist hand gestures and your reply was "If he is a racist". I can see the two way street here while you seem to be traveling down a one way street.

Yeah Peen, they weren't having any difficulty coming to a verdict. That's why they asked to take home the jury instructions after three days of deliberations. They were all sitting around playing poker and playing a cat and mouse game with the public. Do you even hear yourself?

I didn't address that directly because it has absolutely zero to do with what he was on trial for. The end.

I guess you didn't follow it. The motivation and thought process to why he was there and and his intention for going there was a key part of the case. a part the jury was never allowed to see. As I said, neither you nor I have any idea how that may or may not have influenced the jury despite your seeming assertion to the contrary. It seems you think intent has nothing to do with the outcome of a trial. That's totally not true.

The judge agreed. The PA didn't object. He was not on trial for being a racist. The people in the bar he didn't know weren't on trial. He killed no people of color.

The only place race has anything to do with this is people were protesting a death from prior, and ..........eh, never mind.

Got anymore movies with idiots?

Only you would take the comment as serious over the intent of the comment. To spell it out, any guess as to why it took 3 days is as good as any other since none of us know.

If you want a serious guess, the delay was probably over the lesser charges. I don't think the murder charge was ever going to stick. I think a few on the jury agreed, but just felt he had to be guilty of something, but in the end couldn't go with that either.

Rittenhouse lawyer rips CNN, MSNBC for false reporting, botching 'basic facts'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rittenhouse-lawyer-cnn-msnbc-false-reporting-coverage-wrong

Jc

The self defense angle was inevitable.

Here’s my issue: found not guilty on all charges?

So a minor in possession of an illegal firearm isn’t a criminal felony?

A minor in possession of an illegal firearm crossing state lines isn’t a felony?

If that’s the case, then the standard has been set. There’s a bunch for minors in juvenile detention who need to be release and have their records expunged IMMEDIATELY, because clearly the jury of our peers just set the precedent that it’s legal.

So imma need the government to start releasing minors and adults out of prison right now. Cause clearly they have unwarranted felony charges on their records.

That's why I'm looking for some follow-up regarding the judge and/or the prosecutor. Given what I saw, I don't think a murder charge was within reach. But for KR to walk with nothing, which essentially says he has zero accountability for the people he killed (yes, I know that's not what the law actually says), is wrong IMO. Someone cosplaying as Rambo who ends up shooting someone... and then ends up with zilch speaks to this being fumbled at some point.

Minor in Wisconsin is legal; since 1991, the state law only applies to minors armed with rifles or shotguns with short barrels. Lawmakers across the country were trying to find ways to curb gang violence. The subsection was likely intended to prevent youths from carrying sawed-off shotguns, instead, it basically nullified the entire law. Bottom line, today in Wisconsin , a youth is legal so long as his barrel is a certain length.

He didn't cross state lines with a weapon, no matter how many times the media states it. His friend purchased the firearm in Wisconsin prior to his arrival.

And yes, the state of Wisconsin should be analyzing 30 years of court records to review, release, expunge and compensate. But we all know that will never happen...

I agree with you and Swish. Especially in a case where jurors were given the option to convict on lesser charges... and you described the result perfectly. I know we're not "supposed to" judge anyone apart from their actual charges, but courts and jurors do it all the time when the precedent is important... the precedent here is terrible.

After the shooting and his arrest, many people questioned whether the then-minor had transported the illegal gun across state lines.

Black testified he had previously purchased an AR-15 firearm for Rittenhouse in Wisconsin.

Rittenhouse was too young to purchase and possess a gun, but he agreed to pay Black for the firearm, Black told jurors.

Black testified that he also had his own firearm, and they had fired the weapons in target practice in a rural area.

Black has been charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18 causing death, according to court records. He has pleaded not guilty. He testified that he hoped taking the stand would lead to leniency in his case.

n Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor weapons charge against Rittenhouse, now 18.

The charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 was punishable by up to nine months in prison. The count was thrown out due to the odd wording of Wisconsin's gun laws.

Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor charge, noting that the weapon was longer than the measurements required for it to be an illegal "short-barreled rifle" under state law.

Wisconsin law states, "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."

A subsection of the statute adds, in part, "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28."

The 941.28 subsections state the illegality would only apply to those armed with a "short-barreled rifle," which is also defined as "a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches" and "a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches."


https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/us/kyle-rittenhouse-what-we-learned-from-trial/index.html

And just a reminder, KR is a resident of Illinois, not Wisconsin. His dad might live there, but he lives with his mom in Illinois.

So I’m seriously just confused and disappointed.

I never bought the racist angle cause he shot 3 white dudes. But the reason why POCs are ticked is because we got black kids locked up right now for a hell of a lot less than this all over the country.

Nobody should be celebrating this verdict.

It was a win for those that agree with self defense in this Country. A win for gun rights. And a win for those that saw an angry mob trample on citizens rights.

Just want to put on record that I fall in line with the three of you here as well.

CBS' 'Face the Nation' corrects claim Rittenhouse crossed state lines while armed: 'Oversight in language'

The rifle Rittenhouse used was already in Kenosha when he drove there from Illinois

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cbs-corrects-claim-rittenhouse-state-lines-armed

That actually makes sense.

Yes. there are lots of them available for your viewing pleasure on FOX News, Newmax and OAN.

It's obvious we're never going to come to any sort of agreement on this so much as it appears you have decided, it's probably best if we drop it.

No agreements are possible when you keep spreading false information and lies on every subject.

Collusion
Quid Pro Quo
Kid crossing state lines with a rifle
and more

SHAME!

If you think it being legal for a minor walking around on the street with a loaded AR-15 is a "win for gun rights", that shows the distinction between people who uphold gun rights and gun nuts. You think it's a win. But the repercussions from this will end up being a net loss. You're the type of person those of us who stand up for our gun rights understand are the ones who hurt our cause the most.

Question -

As I have mentioned before I have not followed this case closely, or the thread or the media spin. Apologies if my question is covered somewhere in these 16 pages.... My only previous comment was regard to his intent and state of mind regards inserting himself, armed and ready to kill, into a volatile/confrontational situation. We agreed that it's (almost) impossible to convict based on intent or cracking what a person thinks and what's going on in their head.

On a segment today on the radio - NPR - they had a retired judge on to discuss the trial and verdict. And while serious questions were raised on how the judge at the trial conducted himself and lead the jury .... something she said was new to me. She incicated that the State of WI is one of only 2 or 3 states where the burden of proof to prove the killing wasn't in self defense is different/harder that all the other states. Apologies for possibly screwing the interpretation of the law up - but it sounded like in other states if you kill someone in self defense the burden of proof is to prove you didn't murder the individual and that you DID act in self defense. In WI and in this trial the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove it was not self defense. Subtle but huge difference.

Has this been discussed and covered here? Regardless of common sense and what our instincts tell us about this individual who has a past and track record that was not shared with the jury ... and the end of the day, just like Tom Cruise said, it doesn't matter what one thinks or knows ... it matters what you can prove (according to the law).

The laws have been changing of late, last few years.

In Ohio, you USED to have to prove, even in your own house, that you could not flee the home without fear of death or bodily injury. Castle Law changed that.

Also, stand your ground became law, meaning, basically, out in public in a situation that presented danger to you, you did not have to first attempt to flee. Obviously, I don't know Wisconsins laws. However, apparently (especially with the videos), WI law protects the shooter, at least in these 3 cases Rittenhouse was facing.

Agree with it or not in Wisconsin, it's legal.

A person in Florida was acquitted of murder the same day as Rittenhouse. Here's the link: https://news.yahoo.com/jury-acquits-gifford-man-claimed-195415308.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Granted, he's now facing charges of being a felon in possession of a gun, and will be tried or sentenced on Jan. 13. He could be facing 30 years in prison for that crime. If he gets the max sentence. But, he was cleared of murder, attempted murder, etc, which would've resulted in mandatory life in prison.

Originally Posted by 40YEARSWAITING

Rittenhouse lawyer rips CNN, MSNBC for false reporting, botching 'basic facts'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rittenhouse-lawyer-cnn-msnbc-false-reporting-coverage-wrong

Here is TODAY'S FOX NEWS PROPAGANDA! ... fixed it for ya.

That is the problem we do not get any real news in this Country anymore. It is all propaganda. From the right and from the left just depends what side you believe. Fox, Newsmax, and OAN are just as one sided as CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC. They are no real journalist left no real news organizations left.

Actually the entire posts you are replying to is about whether one thinks it is right or not. It really has nothing to do with this trial or the legality. One person seemed to be celebrating that such a law exists and myself says it makes no sense. You can choose either opinion you decide. But for some reason I think even you would agree that having any minor walking our city streets with a loaded AK-47 is not a smart thing to be legal. When the law claims a person isn't responsible enough to buy a beer or vote it just doesn't seem to make sense to say but he's responsible enough to walk around where ever he wants with a loaded rifle that can go through 30 rounds in a few seconds.

Absolutely. I agree. However, the law in WI doesn't. My opinion doesn't matter. Your opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the law. Just as I said he wasn't on trial for being racist, he was on trial for what the PA charged him with. Opinion doesn't matter. The LAW matters. Talk to the law makers in WI.

No, it wasn't fumbled... It wasn't botched... It's just white privilege and systemic racism on display. If KR was black, he would never have made it home that night after killing people. If KR were a lefty antifa type instead of a right-wing militia type, he would be dead or in jail. The right and the 'white' card were both in play in this decision. And this judge is a trumpkin bumpkin that should be run pout on a rail.

I'm not really all that upset about this because I knew it would go this way the night he did it. We watched him walk past the police with his hands up, only to be ignored or offered water and thanked for being there. Then was reminded again when we saw the barroom pics with the proud boys and KR flashing white supremacy hand gestures/signals. I'm mad as hell that the NAZI right (not all right-wingers) got a win. KR was probably just taken advantage of in that bar that night. The whole world seemed against him and the klan boys propped him up and made him feel important... Dumbass kid is just like 90% of Trump supporters. Misinformed idiots, doing reactionary dumb stuff, and spreading fascism out of loyalty to lies... and that's just the fools who don't realize what they are doing. Those that spread this propaganda willingly, and/or rejoice in freeing a murderer, and/or who believe or just spread the big lie ARE WILLINGLY FASCIST.

Dear god man, what part of "our opinions aren't about the trial or what the law is" can't you comprehend? And even after we both agreed that the entire "racist thing" was something we mutually agreed to drop, you still can't let it go. Okay, as you wish.....

The motivation and mind set of why he went there in the first place does matter. The intent as to why he was there matters. Racism, if it is part of the cause of going there does matter. And the best BS people can come up with is, "yeah, but he didn't shoot any black people". Those Einsteins can't seem to figure out was the reason he was there was because it was a BLM protest. Duh!

And just think, we had this entire back and forth settled as to "we just agree to disagree" until you just couldn't stop yourself. Now go ahead and blame me for that.

I do blame you, since you can't, and won't stop, without having the last word.

Rittenhouse was tried on the LAW, not opinion, as it should be.

Argue with that.

Technically, all law is opinion.

so,, I think I'll go to a protest or a gathering of many people,, Or maybe I'll go a Church or ball game.. Take my legally obtained rifle and start to piss people off so they attack me,, Then I'll kill them cause I know I'll be able to walk away unscathed..

Now that you now have that on record, no, you would be found guilty

Incorrect. (I thought you had me on ignore?) Law is law. Period. Until the law changes, law is law. And opinions don't matter.

Lol. That's what I was thinking.

I think there are enough key words in there that we'll have some new crawlers indexing data and creeping the site tonight. He definitely won't go unscathed.

Isn't Rittenhouse Hispanic?

SO what your saying is that I showed intent.... Right?

If that's the case, what the hell did Rittenhouse do when he showed up a charged environment with a loaded weapon

Thank you for proving my point.. He went there with intent to do harm.. Otherwise, why carry a loaded weapon.

Interpretation

While it does no good to try and explain this to you, you're not the only one who reads the board so I'll explain it anyway. Often times what a prosecutor does is paint the picture of what leads up to the event being tried. What a defendant says and does before something like this happens helps tell the story of why it happened. Of how his mind and thought process works. None of the things I listed were "opinions". The only opinions involved would be the conclusions a jury draws based on the facts presented. Which is how it works with much of the factual evidence.

Rittenhouse did hit two girls in a fight. So that clearly shows he isn't beyond committing a violent act when he had no cause to.

He was in a bar hanging out with either Proud Boys or at the very least Proud Boy sympathizers. If that is something one finds repugnant they would leave, not embrace it. He also made white supremacist hand gestures. Once again, not an opinion.

He did say he would shoot shoplifters. This clearly shows he thinks the first actions that should be taken against anyone that commits any crime is to shoot them.

Claiming those are opinions doesn't change the fact that all of those words and actions from him are facts.

This is how many court cases work. Denying that truth is your opinion and certainly not fact. Sometimes prosecutors are allowed to enter things like that into evidence and sometimes they are not. In this case they were not. But trying to pretend that factual evidence such as this never sways a jury because they can see how the defendant actually is, is simply false.

I've never said that Rittenhouse wasn't found not guilty based on the evidence. I've never said that the prosecutor would have gotten a guilty verdict had he been allowed to include this evidence.

What I did say, and still say is the jury would have gotten to see that Rittenhouse wasn't some innocent kid going there out of the goodness of his heart. It would show them in his own actions and words to be more of a wannabe Rambo than the only side of him that the defense put on the stand. They would have gotten to see how the real Rittenhouse felt, acted and what he believed.

That's what I've said all along and it's true.

Fair enough. So, in reading your post, it seems you want things that don't apply, legally, in the case, to apply and taint the jury. Got it. (and good job in the picks this week, by the way)

Sorry Bubba....it doesn't work that way. Just saying

From written judicial opinions, interpretations of the constitution and codified laws, deciding if precedent applies, to what anyone in congress 'thinks' we need as a law; all are examples of opinions based on what they believe the law to mean. Or interpretations as you say, except interpretations are just opinions of what they believe something to mean... same difference?

So, if you show intent, which is what I did and you commented that i would be convicted (or something like that) but Rittenhouse goes to another state and has a rifle doesn't show intent?

Exactly. And not to go too off-track, but you want to leave room for common sense application of laws. Poorly written laws can lead to what we saw here with the possession charge being dropped.

In some cases they allow such things and in some cases they don't. In this one they didn't. As it stands it seems it depends on the judge as to whether they're allowed or not. If giving a picture of who a person is and showing the mind set of that person is what you call "tainting the jury" then we simply disagree. My guess is if this were a trial of someone else under different circumstances you would agree with me.

And it's not so much that I wanted it allowed as it is I'm wondering how it may have changed things if it were allowed and I wonder what the jurors will think when they find out these facts and feel about it not being allowed.

Thanks.

I know its late but I'll address your confusion.

-The gun charge was dismissed because he wasn't in violation of the statute. Yes, the TITLE of the Statute says "under 18"... but the title is just that, it is NOT part of the actual language or element of the law. The Judge didn't drop that charge out of hand. The defense filed a pre-trial motion to have it dismissed along with the curfew charge. The judge did not rule on the gun charge until the very morning of the day the jury was given jury instructions which was a Monday. The previous Friday the defense again tried to get the charge dropped, pointing out why the charge was not applicable in this case. The ONLY thing that statute could get Kyle hung up on was the barrel length. Anything under 16" would have been bad. The judge gave the prosecution the ENTIRE weekend to measure the barrel and present their argument to him. Come Monday morning they still hadn't and even though they were given the opportunity to do it that morning they did not because they already knew the length was fine.

Now as far as travelling the 20min across state lines to turn himself in... the prosecution never argued or tried to show that he was the actual person who possessed it in transit.

As for the other charges and some comments about not being able to infer based on the amount of time it took to get a verdict...

When the jury came to a consensus verdict on each charge, they filled out a form for that charge with the verdict AND the date in which they reached that verdict. Everything was then turned in to the Court collectively once a verdict was reached on all charges.

On Day 2, the jury found him not guilty on the counts involving "jump kick man" and Anthony Huber, the skateboard guy.
On Day 3, the jury found him not guilty on the count involving Gage Kreuzquitz (Sp?), the guy who rolled up on him with the Glock
On Day 4 is when they found him not guilty for killing the pedophile and the reckless endangerment charge for a shot allegedly going it he direction of a report, Richie Mcginnest (sp?)

Odd thing is, many people including myself thought that the killing of the pedo would have been the lynch pin, how they decided on that would determine how they decided about everything after. This was the opposite. It could mean that the jury bought very little of what they prosecutors were saying. Maybe they didn't by the story that they were being heroes?

This thread is actually a really good example of the problem with "social justice". A lot of information and facts came out in this trial. About 90% of what the prosecution presented in terms of evidence and witnesses actually favored the defense. In fact, many who followed the trial were critical of how much the defense dropped the ball and it was the evidence that cleared Kyle more than anything his lawyers did. What I've seen rampant through this thread is posters wanting him convicted based not on facts, but on a narrative. It doesn't matter to them that the facts don't line up with the narrative. It doesn't matter that the actual laws and legal standards don't line up with the narrative. It doesn't even mater that the jury who had more information than they did and arrived at the verdict they did because again, it doesn't line up with their narrative. There is ZERO evidence he was there in opposition to BLM. As if that were a crime even if true. The prosecutors dumped his entire phone and still found ZERO evidence to being part of a militia or white supremacy groups. That's what lynch mobs were: 'prosecutions' based on a narrative, with no regard for facts, evidence or law, justified by their own view of "social justice".


BTW, look up Andrew Coffee's case... he's a black dude that won his self defense claim the same day Kyle was acquitted after shooting at a bunch of cops.

Most everything you brought up was discussed in the thread. But let's go to the points I was making towards the end. Much of Rittenhouses activities and words that happened before the incident were not allowed in court. His attack of two girls in that fight. The fact he was hanging with either white supemacists or white supremacist sympothizers in a bar. The fact he said that he wish he had a gun and would shoot shoplifters.

And as far as juries go, it certainly didn't take but a fraction of time for the jury to come to a verdict in the Arbury case and they had multiple charges on three different defendants. So my point all along is that the jury didn't see this as an open and shut case as some suggested.

I certainly do not doubt the jury came to the right conclusion based on the evidence that was allowed in court.

The point is...

The Right to self defense is still alive and well in America.

Since when is going to another state, carrying a loaded military style rifle into a crowd self defense.

I know he said he went there to save lives,, I know of two that would have been saved had he just stayed home playing his nintendo game

Let's not forget his Father lives in that city and he worked in that city. He did not just pick up and cross state lines. He was well connected to that city.

Now he'll be connected to that city forever.

The right celebrates Rittenhouse's infamy. Scarlet letters are their thing.

GOP interest in offering Rittenhouse an internship gets weirder

One House Republican said he'd arm-wrestle a colleague over a Kyle Rittenhouse internship. Lauren Boebert challenged Madison Cawthorn to a sprint.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...enhouse-internship-gets-weirder-n1284516

Let me see here, Ritty has zero criminal record while you guys are guilty of slander.

If you actually believed that you would sue us. Your orange God has taught you that's what you should do. Even when you know there are no grounds to do so.

Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, but he will always be infamous for his acts. You just can't wash the stink off a turd and try to pawn it off as a tater.

A lot of that stuff was not allowed in court because it was not factually relevant to the events that happened that night. And his actions and associations weren't the only one's not allowed in. The fact that Rosenbaum was a convicted child rapist was not allowed to be brought in front of the jury. What's funny is that the Defense wanted to bring it that he had just gotten out of the mental hospital and the judge denied it because the State had not opened the door to that. Then the State screwed up and mentioned he was on medications which then allowed the Defense to explore that. The criminal conduct that led to invalidation of the concealed handgun permit held by Gage (the guy who got his bicep blown out) was not allowed in either.

This judge was known for wanting to put as much factual evidence in front of juries to allow them to make the decisions in cases brought before him. If his defense lawyers were more aggressive they could have successfully gotten the judge to declare a mistrial with prejudice due to the prosecutions blatant Civil Rights violation during the trial.

But on to the next!

Some people don't understand. It is what it is.

They would much rather believe what they are spoon feed by the media. Sheep to the slaughter!

Sadly, that's the majority of posters here.....but just concentrated to a handful of clowns that repeat it over and over again. I suggest making a game out of it..... copy and paste a comment made here to a google search for a headline of an article. You won't believe how much it works.

I missed the part where the State opened the door. That's interesting from a procedural perspective. I was wondering how the defense was able to bring that up.

Another great post. Glad to read facts from people that actually watched the entire case and not those who simply regurgitated a headline or comment from the media. The idea that the judge is the main problem in this case is simply laughable. The fact people keep trying to frame it that way time and time again is nothing but agenda-vomit, either from themselves or the talking head(s) they choose to bend over to.

Punk goes to another state to supposedly save lives... Carries a loaded weapon into a charged environment, gets some of the crowd riled up, Shoots 3 killing 2. Yeah, he was found Not guilty.. But he is guilty of the worst possible judgement on the planet.. He's an idiot and republicans are fighting over who should hire him as an intern...

Piss poor elected officials....

I'll have to admit, I thought the judge was more of a problem at first, but that was just from my own review of the timeline of the case, the ruling, and how the events of the "possession" charge went down, because from a policy perspective, it seemed like that was the slam dunk element. I never really thought murder/homicide was going to stick, and rightfully so, IMO. To me, it seems like he weaved - coincidentally mind you - around all of the technicalities of the various laws. I would have to think there will be some statutory amendments - or at least proposed legislation to amend the statute(s) - coming soon.

Pot meet kettle. Claiming you're not being spoon fed by the media you follow from reading your posts is laughable. Same with that other gentleman, or maybe not, from southwest Tennessee.

I've highlighted "at first" to assume this means that as more info presented itself, you changed your opinion? Unfortunately, this isn't the case for many.

I did not get my talking points from the media. I watched the video. The video was plain and simple. They attacked him and he acted in self defense. People keep saying he crossed State lines. That is laughable. His Father lives in that city and he works in that city. I think his judgment to be on the streets while idiots were rioting was not smart. But, just because someone made a bad decision does not give another person the right to assault them. As citizens of this Country we should be able to be anywhere at anytime in public without fear of assault. Just because someone was somewhere else other than where they live it does not give others the right to assault them. Bad judgment is not criminal and it is not a free pass for criminals to attack. So if a female at a frat house that gets sloppy drunk and raped. Acted in bad judgement but her attackers still had no rights to attack. If she had a weapon and shot her attackers she would be justified just as this kid.

HE doesn't live in that city. That's simply a fact. His legal residence is in a different state. So in your opinion anyone should be able to walk down the public street with a loaded AR-15? I'm not saying it's illegal. I'm asking you if you think that's right?

I'm not one of the people who have claimed that Rittenhouse was guilty. So I think you're addressing the wrong poster here. What I'm saying, and have said all along is the jury was forbidden from seeing who Rittenhouse was. Things he had said and done that would give the jury a glimpse into his thought process and who he was associating with leading up to these events. I've also been clear in saying I have no idea how or whether it would have changed the verdict.

I didn't get my talking points from the media either. What I did get from the media were things that Rittenhouse said and did which may or may not have impacted the jury that weren't allowed in court.

Yeah, that's the case, as more information came out regarding the timing of the ruling and the ability to get the barrel measured and whatnot, that caused me to adjust for sure. I typically try to ignore all the hyperbole that comes along with just about every slant in the media and I looked at just the shear timeline and the words the judge actually said during the course of his rulings. As more information came out, it became more clear that what was initially mentioned was just a subset of the judge's rationale, which initially made him look like a buffoon.

The right saying things like this about the left is just hilarious.

Yeah, it's pretty funny. You can read their post and compare them to the FOX News, OAN and Newsmax headlines and they are often times almost identical. They play rinse and repeat as much as anyone.

And reading the posts from you guys is like following the liars on CNN who are losing their jobs for being corrupt.

It's not my fault that comprehension is not your strong suit.

On that note...


Fox News Channel thumps CNN, MSNBC during jam-packed November

Fox News had 71 of the 100 most-watched cable telecasts of the month, compared to zero for CNN and MSNBC

https://www.foxnews.com/media/fox-news-november-ratings

People know where to tune for Truth!

The right saying things like this about the left is just hilarious.[/quote\ My comment about "people' wasn't slanted towards any political group. It was pointed at people who don't understand court procedure and why things transpire as they do.

Again, my comment wasn't about the right or left. I just wanted to clear that up.

Thanks.

Fox and "Truth" should only be in the same sentence when the word "Not" is also present. The idea that you want to tout a propaganda machine like Fox as "Truth" - says absolutely everything. And if you ever catch me promoting MSNBC or some left leaning media outlet as "Truth" you can say the same thing back to be - but I don't, so you won't.

As for bragging about the popularity and audience size for your Faux News channel - next week you'll be playing victim and crying about liberal media bias. Then the week after that you'll be echoing Trump's latest call to boycott a company - while also crying victim about cancel culture. You guys are predictable if nothing else.

We have watched for years now as you and others post things from CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, and others
that are later retracted because they were politically motivated lies or poorly sourced.

FOX was on the other side of those stories and was proved right in the end,

Personally, I follow FOX and ABC to get a better picture of the actual News of the world around me.

Oh please. They're all garbage. We've discussed this before, but this actually came from the opinion of a federal judge:

Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "

She wrote: "Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes."

...but they don't.

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/9177...ker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

And I know I'm targeting you, but they're all trash. Maddow, Fox and Friends, whoever. It's all bloviating garbage where they try to rile you up and for some reason, people can't avoid the fear porn for the facts.

I honestly can’t figure out why anyone would watch any of those types of opinion news shows. Left or right. There’s nothing informative or entertaining to them. But I guess The Bachelor has ratings… so…

Trash tv with trash tv viewers.

Idiocracy.

What is possibly more idiotic than coming on here and spewing untruths that are later retracted and proven false?

Collusion
Dossier
Russian Traitor President
Quid Pro Quo
Ritty is guilty of murder
Smollett was attacked by White supremacists'

on and on...

Because all they know is what they are told by the media. The left does not think for themselves. The are sheep being led to the slaughter. Please give us a hand out!!! Please make everything fair!!! Come on government help us. We don't have the gumption to help ourselves!!!

What I have noticed is their brains shut down as they get sucked into the emotions of every story.

Very emotional and hateful people sometimes.

Their bellies must burn a lot.

Sad.

Always seem to have the hair on fire about everything. I would hate to be as miserable as most of them seem to be. Hates the Country they live in. The greatest Country in the history of the World!

Fox Settled a Lawsuit Over Its Lies. But It Insisted on One Unusual Condition.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/17/business/media/fox-news-seth-rich-settlement.html

Fox News Finally Admits It’s Not News

https://www.theroot.com/fox-news-finally-admits-it-s-not-news-1830256880

Fox News won a court case by 'persuasively' arguing that no 'reasonable viewer' takes Tucker Carlson seriously

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9

Fox News sued by Dominion Voting Systems over election fraud claims
It is the fifth billion-dollar lawsuit filed by an election company over false claims that the 2020 election was rigged.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/fox-news-hit-16-billion-lawsuit-election-fraud-claims-rcna520

It appears you are confused about the difference between truth and truthiness. For your future reference.....

Definition of truthiness
: a truthful or seemingly truthful quality that is claimed for something not because of supporting facts or evidence but because of a feeling that it is true or a desire for it to be true.

You were saying?

You're welcome.

40, you are so full of BS... Geez.. The only reason you think FOX is right is because it's what you want to believe.. And that's because you are a Trump Humper.

That's a nice echo chamber you two have going.

Idiocracy works both ways, 40. How many times have we discussed Alex Jones and the Big Lie on here, among other things? Do Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity introduce hard facts, or is it possible that they play off that emotion and hatred that you bring up?

It's interesting that Portland, who is left leaning on most topics, and whom often disagree with, but respect, offered a critique of both sides of the media, while the two of you - among others - have become so riled up that you would rather work yourselves into a like-minded frenzy vs trying to be objective.

Carry on.

Truthiness in action.

Please show me one liberal-minded person on this board who "hates this country" and is "miserable"?

I've been thorough in my critique of where the Democrats are currently, Biden, and several left-leaning policies, but never in any one of my disagreements with people who are liberal leaning on this board have I ever thought either of those about them.

You can use childish pejoratives, like Demoncrats, and whatever you desire, because you have to. You have to demonize them, because there is a certain amount of fear and loathing required, because under all that, there is a deep fear that maybe, just maybe they might be rational in their thoughts and have valid points.

.

Thanks.

What's so great about it? Please elaborate. What you might think is great, might be horrible for somebody else… That's a right-wing trait, after all.

Typical trolling and baiting from you. No fact. Lot's of dog whistles and parroting of the Alt Right propaganda machine. You are like a parody. It'd be better if you WERE a Russian Bot here to spew this sort of hate - but instead it's pretty sad that there is a grown man spamming this chit and smirking behind his keyboard.

No Country ever in existence since the world began has allowed their citizens more freedom. That is why we can come on here and have differing opinions. More people have been freed from slavery, oppression, fascism, communism, and you can go on from this Country than any other around the globe. There is a reason why people have flocked to this Country to seek asylum.

A person can be whoever they want to be in this Country. It all depends on how hard they are willing to work for it. No other Country produces rags to riches like this Country has.

You can worship in whatever religion you want. No state run religion.

There has never been as free a people as the citizens of the United States of America. In quite a few Countries homosexuals are put to death yet. In quite a few Countries women do not have the same rights as men. People are born equals in this Country. Same rights no matter race, age, color, etc...

I could go on and on!!!

Yes you could. Though not quite accurately even to this point.

What was not accurate? We live in the freest Country in the World.

Freedom is one of the most important factors influencing a person's everyday quality of life. In addition to making it easier to live one's life, human freedom recognizes individuals' dignity and is inherently valuable, playing a vital role in human progress.

Despite this importance, determining which countries' citizens have the most freedom can be challenging to do so objectively. Fortunately, individual indices can be used to determine which countries have the highest level of human freedom.
Introducing the Human Freedom Index

The Cato Institute in Washington DC and the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, Canada co-published the annual Human Freedom Index Report for 2020, which helps observe relationships between freedom and other social and economic phenomena.

The Human Freedom Index Report for 2020 ranked 162 countries in two distinct categories: Personal Freedom and Economic Freedom, which are then combined to form the final Human Freedom score. This score is then compared to that of other nations to determine which countries are the freest in the world.

Top 10 Freest Countries in the World - 2020 Human Freedom Index

New Zealand - 8.87
Switzerland - 8.82
Hong Kong (China) - 8.74
Denmark - 8.73
Australia - 8.68
Canada - 8.64
Ireland - 8.62
Estonia - 8.54
Germany - 8.52 (tie)
Sweden - 8.52 (tie)

Types of Freedom

Personal freedom is defined as an individual's freedom of opinion and expression, equality before the courts, security of private property, and freedom to come and go. For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution lists several personal freedoms that are guaranteed to all U.S. citizens.

Economic freedom, also known as economic liberty, consists of personal choice, voluntary exchange, freedom to compete in markets, and protection of person and property. Economic freedom enables people to prosper in a country without intervention from the government or economic authority. Economic freedom can be seen in capitalism or "laissez-faire" economies, where the means of production (manufacturers or suppliers) are privately owned and the government has little to no control over businesses.

On the human freedom scale at the link you will see we rank 17th in the human freedom category.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries

Just the simple fact that a city in China is listed makes this study almost laughable. China is well known for oppression of it's people.

Once again it seems you know not of what you speak.....

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China and is an "inalienable part" of the country. Due to its special status, Hong Kong is able to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative, and independent judicial power.

Only for those who refuse to believe facts over rhetoric. Brother, we've ALL been indoctrinated into the “America is GREAT” and “America is BEST” our entire lives. BUT when you actually start looking into the facts, it doesn't add up. Now, I'm not saying that America is not great or somehow lesser than other countries, I'm saying those ingrained beliefs and claims of greatness are based more on rhetoric than fact.

I don't know much about Hong Kong to be honest, but China actually trying to infringe on some of those freedoms is why Hong Kong was up in arms the way it was last year, so it's definitely not your standard Chinese city.

That being said, I definitely enjoy my country, enjoy its diversity, enjoy its foundation of giving power to the people, enjoy the cultures and variances among cities. I think the greater overall point is that you can love your country and want to improve upon it. I think most people take that stance, but are labeled as hating the country.

That's always been my stance. Then you have the "love it or leave it" crowd. This is as much my country as it is anyone elses. As with anything that's ran by humans, it has its flaws. So I have one of two choices. Abandon it because it's not perfect, or do everything within my power to make it better. If the "love it or leave it" crowd had been listened to throughout our nations history, we would still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, there would still be Jim Crow laws in the south and Civl rights would never have been.

It's those who stood up to help change this country that's made it what it is today. Which gives me hope it can be even better tomorrow.

Home Kong is a separate sovereign community, formerly under British colonial rule. It's official designation is Special Administrative Region.

From Wikipedia:

DotD: China is trying to assert dominance, but for the past century, Hong Kong has been a slappin', forward-thinking cosmopolitan district at the front edge of modern civilization.

So in other words, you have done nothing. Right?

I really don't mean that as a jab. I don't really understand comments like that. People say that, but what have they actually done to make it better?

Three specific claims - all false. The narrative that America is the Land of Opportunity was once true. But in today's tech world, the opportunities are global.

Talk about indoctrinated.

Oh....my comment can apply to me as well. I know of things I do or have done that may have helped some people, but I don't know that those would qualify as making the country better.

..maybe it is just all the small things we do that add up.

I disagree. Why do people still flock to this country? The land of opportunity doesn't just mean starting a google...it includes the pizza shop down at the corner

Exactly. President Reagan was correct when he said this Country is a "City on a hill". A shining light to the rest of the World.

We're the only country with an open border policy

I'm sorry you don't feel that you "do everything within your power to make it better". The first thing we can all do is vote. I'm quite sure you do that. People can work for campaigns to help try and elect politicians who support the changes they believe in. They can engage in peaceful protests to display their support for the causes and political beliefs they want to see come to fruition. I admit that I'm beyond the point in my life where I continue to do that but I certainly have done that in the past. You can contribute to political campaigns of those who support the changes you believe in.

History has taught us that everything from the women's suffrage movement to civil rights was brought about by the will of the people. Through protests, marches and electing those who supported these changes. They didn't just happen. So while you may or may not find these actions trivial, they are the very backbone of many of the changes we have seen come to fruition in our nation today.

You make it sound as though this is the only country people flock to. Looking at things through a microscope makes it much harder to see the big picture. One thing that does make people want to come here is that they're spoon fed the exact same thing you're posting.

That is funny;)

I couldn't name a single country in the world I would rather live. I will admit I haven't been in all of them, maybe 25 or a few less, and to be honest, I have no desire to go to the others. Maybe Pakistan and India are great places, but I don't imagine so.

This is my country too and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else either. I'm rather surprised you didn't throw Venezuela in there on the list for good measure. I'm talking about nations like Finland, Denmark,
Switzerland, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg, Australia and Germany. Trying to claim this is the only nation people flock to because of "freedom and opportunity" is simply false. In case you missed it, we weren't talking about countries in the world where "you would rather live".

I mean, we do have free refills. That is actually something I missed big time while I was in Spain. Also, getting ice in your drink is an assumption here.

Eh, the average beer ABV is too low in those places

Big Breweries, Small Brews

Why are American beers so weak?

https://slate.com/technology/2013/02/budweiser-lawsuit-why-do-americans-drink-weak-beer.html



That'll be enough of that Mr.!

But do they really 'flock' here?

5 facts about the U.S. rank in worldwide migration

Excerpt:

More at this link:
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/05/18/5-facts-about-the-u-s-rank-in-worldwide-migration/

And GOPers hate that the immigrants are not in large part white Europeans.

US Immigration by Country

Immigration is the international movement of people from their country of origin (where they were born or where they have citizenship) to a different destination country.

Immigrants leave their home countries for several reasons, including searching for economic opportunities, family reunification, retirement, and better access to resources.

The United States has had a long history of significant population growth and cultural changes thanks to immigration. Because the U.S. is a settler-colonial society, all Americans can trace their ancestry to immigrants from other nations, with the exception of those who are Native American.

Immigrants who have been granted the right to reside permanently in the United States are referred to as lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or green card holders. To become a LPR/green card holder, one must first be admitted to the country as a refugee and have been physically present as an admitted refugee for at least one year. Refugees admitted to the U.S. are required to apply for a green card after one year.

Not all LPRs choose to become U.S. citizens. Those looking to apply for citizenship must meet specific requirements, including having lived in the U.S. for five years.

All immigration matters are handled through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The United States has the highest immigrant population in the world of 48.2 million. This is over 14.6% of the total U.S. population and about 20% of international immigrants worldwide. The number of immigrants in the U.S. has quadrupled since 1965. The U.S. immigrant population is incredibly diverse, with just about every country in the world being represented.

In 2018, the United States saw 1,096,611 people obtaining lawful permanent resident status, 528,727 of whom were new arrivals to the United States and 567,884 that had an adjustment of status. The states with the largest immigrant populations are California, New York, Florida, and Texas.

The ten countries of origin that sent the most immigrants to the U.S. in 2018 were:

Mexico - 161,858
Cuba - 76,486
China - 65,214
India - 59,821
Dominican Republic - 57,413
Philippines - 47,238
Vietnam - 33,834
El Salvador - 28,326
Haiti - 21,360
Jamaica - 20,347
Mexico is the top origin country of the U.S. immigrant population. In 2017, 11.2 million immigrants living in the United States were from Mexico, about one-quarter of the total immigrant population. This is likely because of the U.S.-Mexico border that runs along the southern United States.

Countries in South and East Asia comprised about 27% of all immigrants, such as India and China, which had a combined 125,035 immigrants in 2018. This is just 2% more than the total amount of immigrants from Mexico alone.

Here are the 10 countries with the most immigrants to the United States:

Mexico (11,171,893)
India (2,652,853)
China (2,221,943)
Philippines (2,013,756)
El Salvador (1,419,330)
Vietnam (1,345,753)
Cuba (1,343,960)
Dominican Republic (1,177,864)
South Korea (1,039,099)
Guatemala (1,006,987)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/us-immigration-by-country

And as for opportunity:

The 'American Dream' of upward mobility is broken. Look at the numbers

The US has long prided itself as being an exceptionally fluid society with respect to social class and economic mobility. The American Dream holds that anyone who works hard can achieve economic success – perhaps even rise from rags to riches.

Underlying this belief is the assumption of abundant opportunity and meritocracy. Arriving immigrants often believe they have come to a land of opportunity, with a level playing field allowing for advancement and success. Those who fail to do so tend to blame themselves.

To reverse inequality, we need to expose the myth of the ‘free market’
Robert Reich
Robert Reich
Read more
Yet according to recent research, the United States has far less mobility and equality of opportunity today than the European Union or other OECD countries.

First, the amount of economic advantage passed down from one generation to the next is much higher in the US. Approximately 50% of a father’s income position is inherited by his son. In contrast, the amount in Norway or Canada is less than 20%.

What about rising from rags to riches? In the US, 8% of children raised in the bottom 20% of the income distribution are able to climb to the top 20% as adults, while the figure in Denmark is nearly double at 15%.

Equality of opportunity is also much less viable in the US than in other OECD countries. American life expectancy varies by up to 20 years depending on the zip code of residence. Quality of education also differs widely depending on the wealth of the neighborhood that families reside in. And the chances of being victimized by a crime, exposed to environmental toxins or having unmet healthcare needs is far greater for America’s poor than those impoverished in all other OECD countries.

One of the reasons for lower US mobility is that the ladder of opportunity has become much harder to climb – because the rungs of the ladder have grown further apart. This is evidenced by the rising levels of income and wealth inequality. Currently, those in the top 20% of the income distribution earn nearly nine times more than those in the bottom 20%. This difference is far greater than in the European Union or the United Kingdom. Wealth inequality is even more skewed. In the United States, the top 5% of the population own three-quarters of the entire financial wealth of the country, while the bottom 60% possess less than 1%.

We discuss one explanation for these trends in our book, Poorly Understood: What America Gets Wrong about Poverty. The United States has traditionally viewed economic success and failure as the result of individual effort. Rugged individualism and self-reliance have been defining qualities of the American character. On the other hand, our European neighbors are much more likely to attribute poverty to structural factors such as social class or the lack of jobs. As a result, other OECD countries are much more willing to invest in a robust social welfare state designed to help ameliorate some of these structural inequities.

In addition, the United States has frequently viewed poverty and inequities through the lens of race and ethnicity. Poverty is often seen as a “black problem” rather than as an “American problem”. Race has been used to divide poor blacks and whites from seeing their common economic interests. As President Lyndon Johnson once explained to an aide in 1960, “I’ll tell you what’s at the bottom of it. If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

Research has shown that more racially heterogeneous societies tend to be less generous in their economic redistribution policies to address structural inequities. The reason for this may be that we tend to be less concerned about the needs of others when they look different from us. On the other hand, countries that are racially homogeneous tend to have much more robust social safety nets.

With a new president in the White House, let us hope that more progressive policies will begin to restore the viability of the American Dream and reverse the trends towards less mobility and opportunity. The American Dream should reflect a reality where every child has the opportunity to pursue their passion in order to reach their full potential. Such a dream is well worth investing in.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/13/american-dream-broken-upward-mobility-us

I'm only responding because your post made me curious as to the numbers. Facts are our friends.

I haven't been down under, Iceland, or maybe Luxembourgh...may have just been on a train through. All nice to visit, but I sure wouldn't want to live in any. My wifes mother was born in Switzerland, so we could use that as a base of sorts on 6 trips over to visit all over eastern and western Europe, so I had a bit of an advantage in that part of the world. I have been to Sweden and Norway, but not long...Finland, we took a Reindeer sled above the Arctic Circle....cool trip.

Why do you think they are or would be good places to live?

The 10 Happiest Countries in the World

https://www.cntraveler.com/gallery/the-10-happiest-countries-in-the-world

Top 10 Freest Countries in the World - 2020 Human Freedom Index

New Zealand - 8.87
Switzerland - 8.82
Hong Kong (China) - 8.74
Denmark - 8.73
Australia - 8.68
Canada - 8.64
Ireland - 8.62
Estonia - 8.54
Germany - 8.52 (tie)
Sweden - 8.52 (tie)

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries

I mean - it's OPINION - but #factsdontmatter.

MURICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What exactly do you mean by MURICA? Is it just a redneck insult or is there more there?

nothing to do with rednecks. what or why would you think that in a Political thread?

Is it to mock southern conservatives? Gun totin', bible thumpin' rednecks? People that aren't as enlightened or intelligent as you? That kind of elitist attitude is what gets people like Trump elected.

Eh, it is what it is. They can hide behind feigned indifference, but even I have been backhandedly labeled a red neck. I believe in God, I live in the country, I own guns, I hunt. Have an 8 pt. hanging in my barn right now. For the 'cultured elite', that means redneck. From people that don't know jack about me.

Dummies are why Trump's get elected. lol.

And 'Murica' was started by the right, then adopted by the left to symbolize the complete idiocy of the Trump era. But dictionary.com describes it your way:


https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/murica/

So maybe that's what the right meant when they coined it.

Funny. I mean if you have only just noticed the the word "Murica" in my post - something that's been widespread the last 5 years, you probably need to pay more attention and get enlightened.

Funny you want to try and squabble over my use of the word Murica as if you are - or a section of society at larger is offended ... trying to discuss it and look at it as if in a neutral and objective light - yet for 4+ years we've had posters using much more inflammatory expressions like "Libtard" - constantly.... and not once has your neutral objectivity been raised. Funny that. If I didn't know better I might think you were trolling and just trying to be a jerk. But I doubt that's it - right?

I don't know you from Adam - I don't think of you as Redneck. The use of the word "Murica" isn't redneck to my mind. And if you live in the country, hunt and have an 8 point hanging in a barn ... you may or may not be a redneck. I don't know or care. I do know a lot of real and self proclaimed rednecks - they all wear that label with pride and it doesn't matter to me one way or another.

Not sure if you are labeling me a cultured elite. I don't know if you know of any ... and I don't know if those you know wear that name as a badge of pride? But I doubt it.

Yeah, but libtard is an expression of love, right? Just like labeling anyone who promotes that the American people be afforded a better way of life are labeled communists and socialists. We should all just sit back and take it while #snowflakes seem offended by Murica.

That’s a fair point.

So some list you found on the internet is how you form your opinions...OK...I base mine on experience...looks like I don't need to waste my time here any longer.

What does free mean to you?

Oppressing and exploiting those with less fortunate circumstances, so he can save a buck on lunch while playing big shot on a junior management budget… just a guess. I really have no clue, but wanted the free jab, just like he would have; if somebody teed him up like this.

List is probably a little outdated when you have Hong Kong (who almost a year ago had city-wide protests against the Chinese extraditing people for prosecution).

It could be somewhat outdated. But actually I think those in Hong Kong are happy about the way things are and are fighting because of the way they see things will become.

Peen doesn't think polling actual citizens of these and other nations of the world holds any value. He calls those things "opinions". While he provides nothing but his opinion. Facts are often not his friend.