Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
Same question, but with the OJ murder trial.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
The fallout from this case is disturbing. The left with their conspiracy theories. The right holding up this kid like he’s some sort of hero. The protestors protesting….. I don’t even know. A hypothetical? That if he was a POC he’s be guilty? It’s amazing how people cannot view this case without their political bias shining through.
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Always a conspiracy.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Not allowing the jury to consider the least serious charge that he could have been convicted upon, under age possession of a firearm, and allowing the merits and intent of the law to be heard on appeal.
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Always a conspiracy.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
Not allowing the jury to consider the least serious charge that he could have been convicted upon, under age possession of a firearm, and allowing the merits and intent of the law to be heard on appeal.
Really? You're upset about the weapons charge? Sorry, that's a nothing charge here. He would not have received a moments jail time.
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
Same question, but with the OJ murder trial.
You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. He was found culpable in civil court based on the preponderance of the evidence. The families can always file a civil suit here as well.
Do I think OJ killed them? Yes. But that's not the legal standard.
Do I think Kyle went spoiling for a firefight? Yes.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,732
These are conspiracy theories. You guys sound like Trumpers when it comes to voting machines and that type of bullshit.
You have to decide if you trust our legal system or not. Do you trust our voting machines or not. Do you trust our representative democracy or not. If you say no, you can live in your Q-oriented world. But you're no different than the people you laugh at on the other side.
These are conspiracy theories. You guys sound like Trumpers when it comes to voting machines and that type of bullshit.
You have to decide if you trust our legal system or not. Do you trust our voting machines or not. Do you trust our representative democracy or not. If you say no, you can live in your Q-oriented world. But you're no different than the people you laugh at on the other side.
Thank you.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,732
This is too over the top for me. Me a Trumper?
Have a good day all, I'm outa here!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
You're willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying. Surely you don't think people on the left aren't capable of the mindset of those on the right. They are, even if their values are different.
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Exactly, thank you!
I’m actually very curious. What specifically do you, or anyone else, did the judge not allow that would have changed the verdict? They viewed lots of video and many witnesses. I can’t think of anything withdrawn by the judge hat would have made a difference.
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
Same question, but with the OJ murder trial.
You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. He was found culpable in civil court based on the preponderance of the evidence. The families can always file a civil suit here as well.
Do I think OJ killed them? Yes. But that's not the legal standard.
Do I think Kyle went spoiling for a firefight? Yes.
one thing that bothers me is that so many people seem to think just because the answer to your last question is "yes", that somehow defaults to him being guilty. just because he went there looking to cause trouble doesn't mean he didn't act in self defense once he found that trouble.
I honestly don't know what to believe at this point. I obviously haven't seen/heard all the evidence; from a few of the details posted here it certainly seems like he acted in self defense.
I honestly think we're focusing on the wrong thing: this one particular case. the bigger problem, in my mind, is that it is perfectly legal for anyone, regardless of age, for someone to walk around with that type of weapon like they are in some dystopian war zone. it's absurd.
Flight Risk out NOW!
www.headstonesband.com
0
Options
mickeyrat
up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 35,801
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Always a conspiracy.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Always a conspiracy.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Always a conspiracy.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?
I posted the Wisconsin information about mistrials, acquittals, etc and like an ass I read most of it. Also you all seemed to miss the following:
“Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.”
Found that while reading below and their gun laws.
the entire thing is messed up but time to move on everyone. Based on the evidence presented to them and the laws in Wisconsin the jury came to the correct conclusion.
I don’t like not knowing what I’m talking or writing about so I tend to spend an inordinate amount of time reading so I limit my incorrect information.
He will be judged some day based on most religions and if that’s a bunch of bull then it’s not gonna matter anyway.
Trust our legal system? The same one that allows the killers of Arbery to walk free for months prior to being charged but for a video? The same justice system that has a cult member and a sex offender sitting on the Supreme Court where one seat was stolen from the Obama Administration? The same justice system that the POOTWH Administration appointed wholly unqualified people to? The one that is color blind and the proportion of justice is dependent on your ability to pay? Yea, I trust that justice system.
As a white male I have more faith than some but I would in no fucking way want to be before a jury of my peers accused of a serious crime.
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Always a conspiracy.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?
Could the same argument be made for calling them 'victims', implying a pre-judgement on what happened?
I can't believe there are people on this site who appear to be defending this killer. Jeez Louise, where am I?
The question is do you believe your preferred media source or the 12 jurors who actually heard what happened?
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Always a conspiracy.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
I'm not suggesting anything other than thats how trials work. Not having followed the day to day of the trial, what motions were brought, evidence presented etc, I wont comment on specifics. The judge determines what the jury hears. so in actual fact, its not always what "actually" happened.
Right, that's our legal system. Lots of Trumpers were furious because election cases never even were heard on the merits because the plaintiffs lacked standing. And what did we all say? Sorry idiots, that's the law. This is the same thing.
Because Tejas doesn’t have standing in Wisconsin or whatever state it was. Bad analogy because in addition to the lack of standing, evidence of fraud was never presented.
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?
That wasn't the only case where that happened. It's a perfect analogy. Courts have rules of procedures. Following rules, precedent and the like is part of the social compact.
I don't know the details of your argument, but considering the point of the trial was to determine if they were in fact, victims, it could be prejudicial. Do I think that it could make literally 12 people to go from not guilty to guilty? Seems like a real stretch
Comments
or the 12 jurors who heard what the judge allowed them to hear , you mean.....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Then we can get into all the shit the prosecutors tried. And media mob. And jury intimidation.
What evidence was not allowed in court that you think was so damning?
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Do I think OJ killed them? Yes. But that's not the legal standard.
Do I think Kyle went spoiling for a firefight? Yes.
Exactly, thank you!
You have to decide if you trust our legal system or not. Do you trust our voting machines or not. Do you trust our representative democracy or not. If you say no, you can live in your Q-oriented world. But you're no different than the people you laugh at on the other side.
Because Trump didn't win, it must have been rigged
Same mindset.
They viewed lots of video and many witnesses. I can’t think of anything withdrawn by the judge hat would have made a difference.
www.headstonesband.com
I honestly don't know what to believe at this point. I obviously haven't seen/heard all the evidence; from a few of the details posted here it certainly seems like he acted in self defense.
I honestly think we're focusing on the wrong thing: this one particular case. the bigger problem, in my mind, is that it is perfectly legal for anyone, regardless of age, for someone to walk around with that type of weapon like they are in some dystopian war zone. it's absurd.
www.headstonesband.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Do you believe the judge not allowing the prosecution to refer to the killed and injured as “victims” influenced the jury? Perhaps biased them to some degree?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
“Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.”
Found that while reading below and their gun laws.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031
As a white male I have more faith than some but I would in no fucking way want to be before a jury of my peers accused of a serious crime.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/sep/11/sheldon-whitehouse/its-true-millions-dark-money-has-been-spent-tilt-c/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I don't know the details of your argument, but considering the point of the trial was to determine if they were in fact, victims, it could be prejudicial. Do I think that it could make literally 12 people to go from not guilty to guilty? Seems like a real stretch