Eyewitness Account Shows Kyle Rittenhouse's First Shots Were In Self-Defense (retirement, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How can people so smug and superior be so stupid? They really believe this. It’s not like they are pushing this narrative and realize it’s just a narrative. They actually believe this nonsense.
Scary ain't it. Because they want things to be what their opinions are they convince themselves it's so. No matter how plumb out there past a deep seat and a faraway look the critter gets. If the jury does convict him on the charges the prosecution is seeking because of BLMs threats I'm going to follow up on my plan to sell everything I own buy an ornery mule packed with provisions a Hawken rifle buckskins and a three legged dog and heading for the mountains. Far away. All hope will be lost.
Scary ain't it. Because they want things to be what their opinions are they convince themselves it's so. No matter how plumb out there past a deep seat and a faraway look the critter gets. If the jury does convict him on the charges the prosecution is seeking because of BLMs threats I'm going to follow up on my plan to sell everything I own buy an ornery mule packed with provisions a Hawken rifle buckskins and a three legged dog and heading for the mountains. Far away. All hope will be lost.
Jury wants to see the videos again, probably not a good sign for Kyle. But the way things are going I'm not sure they'll reach a verdict either way. Judge is probably waiting to see if the jury reaches a decision before ruling on the motion to dismiss.
Well,...it may just be to try to convince that 1 or 2 other jury members to agree to a consensus.
If by not a good sign , you mean, they just can't come to an agreement and they'll have to hang it then yeah.
I don't know where the number came from that was floating around here but it was like 10-11 in favor of not guilty and 1-2 not. I get that it may just be internet rumor though.
Scary ain't it. Because they want things to be what their opinions are they convince themselves it's so. No matter how plumb out there past a deep seat and a faraway look the critter gets. If the jury does convict him on the charges the prosecution is seeking because of BLMs threats I'm going to follow up on my plan to sell everything I own buy an ornery mule packed with provisions a Hawken rifle buckskins and a three legged dog and heading for the mountains. Far away. All hope will be lost.
Sounds overblown to me judge hasn't said a word about anyone on the Jury being threated. If the jury convicts it's based on the evidence has nothing to do with politics.
Scary ain't it. Because they want things to be what their opinions are they convince themselves it's so. No matter how plumb out there past a deep seat and a faraway look the critter gets. If the jury does convict him on the charges the prosecution is seeking because of BLMs threats I'm going to follow up on my plan to sell everything I own buy an ornery mule packed with provisions a Hawken rifle buckskins and a three legged dog and heading for the mountains. Far away. All hope will be lost.
ok jeremiah...just dont cross indian burial land....it causes problems.
I ever said it would change any law.
I said it would set precedence.
Setting precedence is not changing a law.
It is defining interpretation.
I am not one of “you guys” I tend to stay independent.
I never mentioned how hard or easy it was to win a self defense trial.
When some one is getting beaten or having a weapon pointed at their head with threats you should have the right to defend yourself without a multi million dollar legal fee and not have the President of the United States call you slanderous terms.
I just want a non partisan prosecution of any law and not have your rights silenced due to the opposition stacking you with unobtainable legal fees.
Does anyone know what the video shows specifically that you can’t see on the defense copy?
I believe that video in question, the prosecution is using it to try to convince the Jury that Kyle provoked the initial confrontation with Rosenbaum.
Specifically pointing to a moment where , they argue, Rittenhouse lifts his weapon up and aims it at Rosenbaum.
Defense says the video is just too dark and blurry.
The current debate is that The prosecution had a clearer copy, which is contested too as being manipulated knowingly or unknowingly, but when they send it to the Defense it ended up even more blurry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
