Not going to speak to all the drivel above. Viewers are savvy enough to know that in no way did I "admit" to anything that Professor Kool Aid said I did. "We can also establish he anticipated conflict because he was armed with an assault rifle meaning he did not intend to act watch but anticipated a need to engage with deadly force." Nope. Having a gun in case it is needed does not establish intent to go out and kill or engage someone. Same with concealed carry. It is there if you need or want protection it is not legal evidence that you want to kill or pursue or engage someone that day. I take a life preserver with me when out in the boat. You would argue that I went out expecting to drown that day. No. You see me at Walmart buying a smoke alarm. Your binary mind concludes that I am expecting my house to burn down that day. No. You talk about liability. Heh. Although the scum he shot have no assets, that type of scum seldom does, and it would be a futile effort, they are the ones who should be sued for liability. Rittenhouse is the victim here, not them. All three of them pursued Rittenhouse or prevented him from trying to leave - at least while they were alive. All they had to do was retreat. And all Rittenhouse tried to do was to retreat but they tried to kill him so that he could not. If any of those scumbags or their estates had assets there would be some serious legal action. Obviously, even though it would be a civil suit, if Rittenhouse is convicted of anything serious that would work against him. But acquittal would leave him free to sue for damages and wrongful infliction of emotional distressed. And the prosecutor has immunity. So it is a waste of time. But if you want to talk liability, that is where it is. RITTENHOUSE WAS THE VICTIM.
Not necessarily but I do agree with your post #90 by and large. So I don’t see the point in arguing when there is no need to flush it out further. You accused me of being disingenuous in my concern for how rittenhouse ended up in such an ugly place at such a young age but I’m not being so. I can’t help but look at this kid with pity. He’s a stupid ass kid that was a victim in a certain way you’ll never admit to or see.
Yeh, the other one I hear a lot that I do not see mentioned there is: "One of the victims in the case confirmed to the prosecutor under oath and upon examination that he stuck his handgun in the defendant's face right before the accused raised his rifle and shot him ." Raising that kind of objection is clearly right out the KKK playbook because the New Progressive Equity Constitution requires you to be killed first before exercising your right to defend yourself.
Wisconsin governor authorizes dispatch of National Guard ahead of Rittenhouse verdict Can someone explain to me. If he is found guilty, is the Guard being called out because they expect the right wing / conservatives / Republicans will riot , loot and burn buildings
Like it makes them slow down and have time to think, possibly change their opinion on the situation? Oh you mean your "facts", got it.