OT Kyle Rittenhouse found NOT GUILTY!...

[Phil Allison]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:54:46 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:

On 11/19/2021 9:46 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
===================

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.


** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.


The same prosecutor\'s office who had refused to file charges against
officer the defense was talking about - lol!

** Cos it was a justified shooting - you stupid, lying ass.

> It wasn\'t a fair comment (relevance?)

** FFS read my post. It was very relevant.

what the fuck were they going to
say in their objection anyway. \"Your honor we object on the grounds that
it was us who said that was ok in the first place\"

** Now you are contradicting you own case - you fucking IDIOT.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:54:46 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:

On 11/19/2021 9:46 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
===================

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.


** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.


The same prosecutor\'s office who had refused to file charges against
officer the defense was talking about - lol!

** Cos it was a justified shooting - you stupid, lying ass.

> It wasn\'t a fair comment (relevance?)

** FFS read my post. It was very relevant.

what the fuck were they going to
say in their objection anyway. \"Your honor we object on the grounds that
it was us who said that was ok in the first place\"

** Now you are contradicting you own case - you fucking IDIOT.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:54:46 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:

On 11/19/2021 9:46 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
===================

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.


** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.


The same prosecutor\'s office who had refused to file charges against
officer the defense was talking about - lol!

** Cos it was a justified shooting - you stupid, lying ass.

> It wasn\'t a fair comment (relevance?)

** FFS read my post. It was very relevant.

what the fuck were they going to
say in their objection anyway. \"Your honor we object on the grounds that
it was us who said that was ok in the first place\"

** Now you are contradicting you own case - you fucking IDIOT.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 1:54:46 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:

On 11/19/2021 9:46 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fucktard wrote:
===================

Kyle Rittenhouse’s lawyer during closing arguments: “Other people in
this community have shot somebody seven times and it’s been found to be
ok. My client did it four times…”

An invested prosecution would\'ve jumped on that one with an objection
immediately.


** Utter bullshit, it was entirely fair comment.
The public have no idea about why police fire many times.


Symptomatic of the whole case, the prosecution wasn\'t deeply invested.

** LOL - like HELL it wasn\'t !!!!

You lying ass.


The same prosecutor\'s office who had refused to file charges against
officer the defense was talking about - lol!

** Cos it was a justified shooting - you stupid, lying ass.

> It wasn\'t a fair comment (relevance?)

** FFS read my post. It was very relevant.

what the fuck were they going to
say in their objection anyway. \"Your honor we object on the grounds that
it was us who said that was ok in the first place\"

** Now you are contradicting you own case - you fucking IDIOT.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

Know Nothing Lying Fuckhead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

How would you expect them to behave?

** ROTFL wot a hoot !

Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

It might have been \"honorable\"

** It was just that - fuckhead

It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace

** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking insane !!!

He might disturb a RIOT !!!!
======================

Exactly. Some riots are lot more violent and destructive than others.

** Bill is a real fucking hoot - a total MORON & complete ASSHOLE all in one !!

There may not be any law against being stupid,

** Or rabid fuckwits like you would be in jail right now.

Probably not.

** YOU are as stupid as it is possible get.

Totally FUCKING WRONG about every single thing.
======================================

Drop dead ASAP.

 

[Phil Allison]

Know Nothing Lying Fuckhead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

How would you expect them to behave?

** ROTFL wot a hoot !

Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

It might have been \"honorable\"

** It was just that - fuckhead

It\'s definitely an action likely to disturb the peace

** ROTFLMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!
How fucking insane !!!

He might disturb a RIOT !!!!
======================

Exactly. Some riots are lot more violent and destructive than others.

** Bill is a real fucking hoot - a total MORON & complete ASSHOLE all in one !!

There may not be any law against being stupid,

** Or rabid fuckwits like you would be in jail right now.

Probably not.

** YOU are as stupid as it is possible get.

Totally FUCKING WRONG about every single thing.
======================================

Drop dead ASAP.

 

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

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.
** 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.

What makes you think that?
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn the original purpose.

The outcome should have been expected.

** Total garbage.

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.




...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

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.
** 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.

What makes you think that?
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn the original purpose.

The outcome should have been expected.

** Total garbage.

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.




...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

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.
** 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.

What makes you think that?
** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.
Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn the original purpose.

The outcome should have been expected.

** Total garbage.

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.




...... Phil

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:36:03 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

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.
** 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.

What makes you think that?

** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.

Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.

It might be, if he were defending a specific bit of property. In reality he was just looking for trouble, and found it.
The ass here is you - you can\'t think clearly enough to realise that you are lying, anymore than Flyguy can, but you are positing nonsense.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn the original purpose.

The outcome should have been expected.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Total garbage.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

There are lot more armed police around when they try it, and they have a habit of arresting anybody who catches their attention, and taking them away - not an option open to Rittenhouse. You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

> FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.

Strange that you should mention that. You are starting to vie with Flyguy and John Doe for the role the leading waste of bandwidth.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:36:03 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

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.
** 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.

What makes you think that?

** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.

Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.

It might be, if he were defending a specific bit of property. In reality he was just looking for trouble, and found it.
The ass here is you - you can\'t think clearly enough to realise that you are lying, anymore than Flyguy can, but you are positing nonsense.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn the original purpose.

The outcome should have been expected.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Total garbage.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

There are lot more armed police around when they try it, and they have a habit of arresting anybody who catches their attention, and taking them away - not an option open to Rittenhouse. You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

> FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.

Strange that you should mention that. You are starting to vie with Flyguy and John Doe for the role the leading waste of bandwidth.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:36:03 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

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.
** 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.

What makes you think that?

** He did exactly that job for many hours before the incident.

Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.

It might be, if he were defending a specific bit of property. In reality he was just looking for trouble, and found it.
The ass here is you - you can\'t think clearly enough to realise that you are lying, anymore than Flyguy can, but you are positing nonsense.

Which bit is actually false?

** The fallacy of false expectations.

An unexpected bad outcome does not condemn the original purpose.

The outcome should have been expected.
Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Total garbage.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

There are lot more armed police around when they try it, and they have a habit of arresting anybody who catches their attention, and taking them away - not an option open to Rittenhouse. You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

> FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.

Strange that you should mention that. You are starting to vie with Flyguy and John Doe for the role the leading waste of bandwidth.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:18:42 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

Know Nothing Lying Fuckhead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

How would you expect them to behave?
** ROTFL wot a hoot !
Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

** It was just that - fuckhead

I had put back the words you snipped, without marking the snip, so your grasp of what might be \"honourable\" does seem to be defective. You\'d have to be brain-damaged to imagine that it wouldn\'t be noticed.

<snipped the rest - Phil doesn\'t really understand how much of an idiot he can be>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:18:42 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

Know Nothing Lying Fuckhead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

How would you expect them to behave?
** ROTFL wot a hoot !
Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

** It was just that - fuckhead

I had put back the words you snipped, without marking the snip, so your grasp of what might be \"honourable\" does seem to be defective. You\'d have to be brain-damaged to imagine that it wouldn\'t be noticed.

<snipped the rest - Phil doesn\'t really understand how much of an idiot he can be>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:18:42 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

Know Nothing Lying Fuckhead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

How would you expect them to behave?
** ROTFL wot a hoot !
Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

** It was just that - fuckhead

I had put back the words you snipped, without marking the snip, so your grasp of what might be \"honourable\" does seem to be defective. You\'d have to be brain-damaged to imagine that it wouldn\'t be noticed.

<snipped the rest - Phil doesn\'t really understand how much of an idiot he can be>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, November 20, 2021 at 3:18:42 PM UTC+11, palli...@gmail.com wrote:

Know Nothing Lying Fuckhead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

How would you expect them to behave?
** ROTFL wot a hoot !
Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

** It was just that - fuckhead

I had put back the words you snipped, without marking the snip, so your grasp of what might be \"honourable\" does seem to be defective. You\'d have to be brain-damaged to imagine that it wouldn\'t be noticed.

<snipped the rest - Phil doesn\'t really understand how much of an idiot he can be>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.
It might be, if he were defending a specific bit of property.

** He was - you know nothing idio .
A couple of local car dealerships.

> In reality..

** Not a places you ever visit.

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Total garbage.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

There are lot more armed police around when they try it,

** More false analogies.

> they have a habit of arresting anybody who catches their attention,

** Irrelevant, Kyle and others there just wanted to keep the rabid idiots at bay.
Perfectly legal and sensible.
Even the POLICE supported him.

> You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

** The opposite is true.

FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.

Strange that you should mention that.

** LOL- it is not one bit strange .

 

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.
It might be, if he were defending a specific bit of property.

** He was - you know nothing idio .
A couple of local car dealerships.

> In reality..

** Not a places you ever visit.

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Total garbage.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

There are lot more armed police around when they try it,

** More false analogies.

> they have a habit of arresting anybody who catches their attention,

** Irrelevant, Kyle and others there just wanted to keep the rabid idiots at bay.
Perfectly legal and sensible.
Even the POLICE supported him.

> You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

** The opposite is true.

FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.

Strange that you should mention that.

** LOL- it is not one bit strange .

 

[Phil Allison]

bill....@ieee.org wrote:
==================

Wandering around carrying a rifle is \"defending property\"?

** LOL - it is the VERY best way you lying ass.
It might be, if he were defending a specific bit of property.

** He was - you know nothing idio .
A couple of local car dealerships.

> In reality..

** Not a places you ever visit.

Rittenhouse wouldn\'t have bothered wandering around in the middle of riot carrying a rifle if he didn\'t expect to provoke a reaction.

** Total garbage.

** Yes - it provokes less rioting.

Armed police use the same idea over and over.

There are lot more armed police around when they try it,

** More false analogies.

> they have a habit of arresting anybody who catches their attention,

** Irrelevant, Kyle and others there just wanted to keep the rabid idiots at bay.
Perfectly legal and sensible.
Even the POLICE supported him.

> You really don\'t know what you are talking about.

** The opposite is true.

FOAD you ridiculous, demented waste of space.

Strange that you should mention that.

** LOL- it is not one bit strange .

 

[Phil Allison]

Know Nothing Lying Fuckhead bill....@ieee.org wrote:
============================================

** Die a slow an painful death, you vile prick

Wandering around carrying a rifle in the middle of a riot is much more provocative,
** Of what exactly ?
Getting criminal rioters to to behave ?

How would you expect them to behave?
** ROTFL wot a hoot !
Rittenhouse shouldn\'t have done it.

** Bullshit. He had every right to and it was a honorable thing.

It might have been \"honorable\" from his half-witted point of view, but it was never going to do anything remotely useful, and it was not a good idea.

** It was just that - fuckhead

I had put back the words you snipped, without marking the snip, so your grasp of what might be \"honourable\" does seem to be defective. You\'d have to be brain-damaged to imagine that it wouldn\'t be noticed.

snipped the rest - Phil doesn\'t really understand how much of an idiot he can be

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney