F
Flyguy
Guest
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 20:31:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
wrote:
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 20:31:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
wrote:
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
C
Cursitor Doom
Guest
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 20:31:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
wrote:
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 10:27:47 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
> And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
US gun laws are remarkably stupid. which is why they have many more guns deaths per million than more advanced industrial countries.
> And, of course, Rittenhouse was found NOT GUILTY on ALL charges left after the gun charge was dismissed. Like DecayedBrainMatter the prosecution failed to present a SINGLE piece of evidence to support their claims, but did present a lot of evidence supporting Rittenhouse\'s self-defense claim.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have had any need to defend himself if he hadn\'t been wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot. It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless. He didn\'t end up defending any property at all, and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:26:59 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
People, of course, can peacefully protest anything they want. It is riots, including destruction of property, that are not permitted. It appears that the governor of WI learned his lesson and has National Guard troops standing by.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 20:31:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@nowhere.com
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty
This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges. On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to do the opposite.
Great news indeed. Just two things: why was the case brought at all (I
think I can guess) - and why did it take the jury the best part of 3
days to finally do the right thing??
Thank God the men he shot were white or America would be up in flames
again this weekend.
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
People, of course, can peacefully protest anything they want. It is riots, including destruction of property, that are not permitted. It appears that the governor of WI learned his lesson and has National Guard troops standing by.
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:26:59 PM UTC-8, Cursitor Doom wrote:
People, of course, can peacefully protest anything they want. It is riots, including destruction of property, that are not permitted. It appears that the governor of WI learned his lesson and has National Guard troops standing by.
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 20:31:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@nowhere.com
wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:12:46 -0800 (PST), Flyguy
soar2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 10:56:34 AM UTC-8, Flyguy wrote:
https://www.foxnews.com/us/verdict-kyle-rittenhouse-not-guilty
This was a political persecution from the get-go - the prosecution presented absolutely NO evidence to support ANY of their charges. On the contrary, the evidence they did present EXONERATED Rittenhouse. Kudos to the jury for having the common sense to acquit Rittenhouse in the face of very intense public pressure to do the opposite.
Great news indeed. Just two things: why was the case brought at all (I
think I can guess) - and why did it take the jury the best part of 3
days to finally do the right thing??
Thank God the men he shot were white or America would be up in flames
again this weekend.
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
--
\"In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.\"
- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels.
People, of course, can peacefully protest anything they want. It is riots, including destruction of property, that are not permitted. It appears that the governor of WI learned his lesson and has National Guard troops standing by.
P
Phil Allison
Guest
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================
** Totally false argument and false logic.
> It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
> He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,
** He certainly did.
> and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
It is the broadest, most powerful right a person has - overriding other rights and obligations .
It includes the right to protect not just oneself but any other person and property
( one\'s own or others) from impending or actual illegal harm.
Lethal force is not ruled out.
It\'s a persons right because it is a GOOD thing to do.
...... Phil
==================
** Totally false argument and false logic.
> It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
> He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,
** He certainly did.
> and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
It is the broadest, most powerful right a person has - overriding other rights and obligations .
It includes the right to protect not just oneself but any other person and property
( one\'s own or others) from impending or actual illegal harm.
Lethal force is not ruled out.
It\'s a persons right because it is a GOOD thing to do.
...... Phil
P
Phil Allison
Guest
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================
** Totally false argument and false logic.
> It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
> He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,
** He certainly did.
> and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
It is the broadest, most powerful right a person has - overriding other rights and obligations .
It includes the right to protect not just oneself but any other person and property
( one\'s own or others) from impending or actual illegal harm.
Lethal force is not ruled out.
It\'s a persons right because it is a GOOD thing to do.
...... Phil
==================
** Totally false argument and false logic.
> It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
> He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,
** He certainly did.
> and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
It is the broadest, most powerful right a person has - overriding other rights and obligations .
It includes the right to protect not just oneself but any other person and property
( one\'s own or others) from impending or actual illegal harm.
Lethal force is not ruled out.
It\'s a persons right because it is a GOOD thing to do.
...... Phil
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:26:59 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
It took them a while to realise that American law was defective enough that Rittenhouse hadn\'t been charged with anything they could convict him for.
An idiot kids who is silly enough to wander into a riot carrying a rifle end ends up killing two and maiming a third is clearly responsible for the deaths and damage his action provoked. It is unfortunate that the prosecution couldn\'t find a charge that would stick - maybe they didn\'t want to.
Trust Zero Hedge to miss the point.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
It took them a while to realise that American law was defective enough that Rittenhouse hadn\'t been charged with anything they could convict him for.
An idiot kids who is silly enough to wander into a riot carrying a rifle end ends up killing two and maiming a third is clearly responsible for the deaths and damage his action provoked. It is unfortunate that the prosecution couldn\'t find a charge that would stick - maybe they didn\'t want to.
Thank God the men he shot were white or America would be up in flames again this weekend.
Oh dear. Looks like I spoke too soon.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges
Trust Zero Hedge to miss the point.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
P
Phil Allison
Guest
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================
** Totally false argument and false logic.
> It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
> He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,
** He certainly did.
> and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
It is the broadest, most powerful right a person has - overriding other rights and obligations .
It includes the right to protect not just oneself but any other person and property
( one\'s own or others) from impending or actual illegal harm.
Lethal force is not ruled out.
It\'s a persons right because it is a GOOD thing to do.
...... Phil
==================
** Totally false argument and false logic.
> It was a particularly silly piece of provocation, and entirely pointless.
** I was neither you bullshitting ass.
> He didn\'t end up defending any property at all,
** He certainly did.
> and killed two people and badly damaged a third to no advantage to anybody.
** Totally false argument and false logic.
Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
It is the broadest, most powerful right a person has - overriding other rights and obligations .
It includes the right to protect not just oneself but any other person and property
( one\'s own or others) from impending or actual illegal harm.
Lethal force is not ruled out.
It\'s a persons right because it is a GOOD thing to do.
...... Phil
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Friday, November 19, 2021 at 4:32:44 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
Hey SNIPPERMAN, this falls into the category of \"So what?\" Rittenhouse wasn\'t charged with stupidity (most people would agree he was stupid to do what he did and there is no law against that); he was charged with two counts of first degree murder, among other lesser charges. These charges were totally without merit, which is why he was found to be NOT GUILTY. What you are saying is the equivalent of accusing a woman of inviting rape by dressing provocatively.
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:40:23 AM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
What makes you think that?
Which bit is actually false? How did he change the outcome of the riot (except by killing two pople and badly damaging a third.)
> Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
He was defending himself, but he shouldn\'t have been there - with his gun - in the first place.
Except that he didn\'t, and didn\'t have any actual property in mind to defend. He may have had a fantasy about backing up some store-owner, but any store-owner seeing a strange kid show up with a gun wouldn\'t see him as a likely ally.
Less good if you provoke the reaction you end up defending yourself against. That\'s called picking a fight, and it is frowned on.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
What makes you think that?
Which bit is actually false? How did he change the outcome of the riot (except by killing two pople and badly damaging a third.)
> Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
He was defending himself, but he shouldn\'t have been there - with his gun - in the first place.
Except that he didn\'t, and didn\'t have any actual property in mind to defend. He may have had a fantasy about backing up some store-owner, but any store-owner seeing a strange kid show up with a gun wouldn\'t see him as a likely ally.
Less good if you provoke the reaction you end up defending yourself against. That\'s called picking a fight, and it is frowned on.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:40:23 AM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:
What makes you think that?
Which bit is actually false? How did he change the outcome of the riot (except by killing two pople and badly damaging a third.)
> Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
He was defending himself, but he shouldn\'t have been there - with his gun - in the first place.
Except that he didn\'t, and didn\'t have any actual property in mind to defend. He may have had a fantasy about backing up some store-owner, but any store-owner seeing a strange kid show up with a gun wouldn\'t see him as a likely ally.
Less good if you provoke the reaction you end up defending yourself against. That\'s called picking a fight, and it is frowned on.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
What makes you think that?
Which bit is actually false? How did he change the outcome of the riot (except by killing two pople and badly damaging a third.)
> Bill the lying fuckwit FAILS to understand the right of self defense in law.
He was defending himself, but he shouldn\'t have been there - with his gun - in the first place.
Except that he didn\'t, and didn\'t have any actual property in mind to defend. He may have had a fantasy about backing up some store-owner, but any store-owner seeing a strange kid show up with a gun wouldn\'t see him as a likely ally.
Less good if you provoke the reaction you end up defending yourself against. That\'s called picking a fight, and it is frowned on.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:42:50 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
<snip>
Far from it. A woman is entitled to dress any way she likes, and that never gives anybody the right to rape her.
Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative, and Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.
It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace - not that there\'s a whole lot of peace around in the middle of a riot - and likely to lead to the lethal confrontations that it did. It is unfortunate that the prosecution didn\'t charge Rittenhouse under a law where they could get ac onviction.
There may not be any law against being stupid, but there are lots of laws about not being stupid in ways that lead to people ending up dead. Flying an aircraft when you\'ve got advanced senile dementia would be one of them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
Far from it. A woman is entitled to dress any way she likes, and that never gives anybody the right to rape her.
Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative, and Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.
It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace - not that there\'s a whole lot of peace around in the middle of a riot - and likely to lead to the lethal confrontations that it did. It is unfortunate that the prosecution didn\'t charge Rittenhouse under a law where they could get ac onviction.
There may not be any law against being stupid, but there are lots of laws about not being stupid in ways that lead to people ending up dead. Flying an aircraft when you\'ve got advanced senile dementia would be one of them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 11:42:50 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
<snip>
Far from it. A woman is entitled to dress any way she likes, and that never gives anybody the right to rape her.
Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative, and Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.
It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace - not that there\'s a whole lot of peace around in the middle of a riot - and likely to lead to the lethal confrontations that it did. It is unfortunate that the prosecution didn\'t charge Rittenhouse under a law where they could get ac onviction.
There may not be any law against being stupid, but there are lots of laws about not being stupid in ways that lead to people ending up dead. Flying an aircraft when you\'ve got advanced senile dementia would be one of them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
<snip>
Far from it. A woman is entitled to dress any way she likes, and that never gives anybody the right to rape her.
Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative, and Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.
It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace - not that there\'s a whole lot of peace around in the middle of a riot - and likely to lead to the lethal confrontations that it did. It is unfortunate that the prosecution didn\'t charge Rittenhouse under a law where they could get ac onviction.
There may not be any law against being stupid, but there are lots of laws about not being stupid in ways that lead to people ending up dead. Flying an aircraft when you\'ve got advanced senile dementia would be one of them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
P
Phil Allison
Guest
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
** The fallacy of false expectations.
An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn to original purpose.
** He had EVERY right to be there - you lying ASS.
** What fucking STUPID bullshit, he was there to defend local property from rioters.
** BY INVITATION ** of the owners !!!!
** Not at all what happened here.
FOAD you mad old cunt.
....... Phil
==================
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
** The fallacy of false expectations.
An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn to original purpose.
** He had EVERY right to be there - you lying ASS.
** What fucking STUPID bullshit, he was there to defend local property from rioters.
** BY INVITATION ** of the owners !!!!
** Not at all what happened here.
FOAD you mad old cunt.
....... Phil
P
Phil Allison
Guest
bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
** The fallacy of false expectations.
An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn to original purpose.
** He had EVERY right to be there - you lying ASS.
** What fucking STUPID bullshit, he was there to defend local property from rioters.
** BY INVITATION ** of the owners !!!!
** Not at all what happened here.
FOAD you mad old cunt.
....... Phil
==================
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
** The fallacy of false expectations.
An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn to original purpose.
** He had EVERY right to be there - you lying ASS.
** What fucking STUPID bullshit, he was there to defend local property from rioters.
** BY INVITATION ** of the owners !!!!
** Not at all what happened here.
FOAD you mad old cunt.
....... Phil