(11-19-2021, 06:59 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Nadler is off his rocker.......
Alert: Rittenhouse 'Not Guilty' Verdict to Be Overturned? Jerry Nadler Sets Stage
Jerry Nadler, Representative for New York’s 10th congressional district and acting chairman of the House Judiciary Democrats, has signaled a possible Department of Justice investigation into Kyle Rittenhouse.
https://www.westernjournal.com/alert-rit...Q6RwTvKaG4
Jerry Nadler is a nobody. He gains headlines by leveling empty threats and being the lead purveyor of democrat lies attacking Trump. The sooner that sack of worthless excrement is gone, the better.
(11-19-2021, 06:59 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Nadler is off his rocker.......
Alert: Rittenhouse 'Not Guilty' Verdict to Be Overturned? Jerry Nadler Sets Stage
Jerry Nadler, Representative for New York’s 10th congressional district and acting chairman of the House Judiciary Democrats, has signaled a possible Department of Justice investigation into Kyle Rittenhouse.
https://www.westernjournal.com/alert-rit...Q6RwTvKaG4
He should be suing Biden as statements where made as a private citizen, so that will look good
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(11-19-2021, 07:08 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2021, 06:59 PM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ]Nadler is off his rocker.......
Alert: Rittenhouse 'Not Guilty' Verdict to Be Overturned? Jerry Nadler Sets Stage
Jerry Nadler, Representative for New York’s 10th congressional district and acting chairman of the House Judiciary Democrats, has signaled a possible Department of Justice investigation into Kyle Rittenhouse.
https://www.westernjournal.com/alert-rit...Q6RwTvKaG4
Jerry Nadler is a nobody. He gains headlines by leveling empty threats and being the lead purveyor of democrat lies attacking Trump. The sooner that sack of worthless excrement is gone, the better.
His heart is prolly holdin on for dear life, just like his belt..
You can only claim self defense if you are not committing a crime, that is, if you have a legal right to be where you are doing what you're doing.
Which is to say, all of the charges hinged on the weapons charge. If the prosecution could have proven that he was too young to be carrying that weapon in that place, they could have proven all the other charges.
With the weapons charge thrown out, it was not possible to convict him of anything.
(11-19-2021, 08:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can only claim self defense if you are not committing a crime, that is, if you have a legal right to be where you are doing what you're doing.
Which is to say, all of the charges hinged on the weapons charge. If the prosecution could have proven that he was too young to be carrying that weapon in that place, they could have proven all the other charges.
With the weapons charge thrown out, it was not possible to convict him of anything.
You still don't feel even a little duped by this narrative? Even with jurors feeling threatened, there was still evidence enough to convince a jury to find him not guilty.
Instead of the media focusing on the wrongness of the rioters, they trot out a criminal who admits that he was pointing a gun at the defendant before he pulls the trigger. The prosecution waived charges against actual criminals to get them to testify against Rittenhouse. Thugs were out destroying people's property and livelihoods, and they focus on a guy trying to protect a neighborhood from vandalism. The president called him a racist for defending his life. I could keep going, but the bottom line is that sanity has been flipped upside down and your so quick to swallow every lie. None of this would have happened 10 years ago. You're smart enough to know that's true, but dumb enough to ignore that fact.
(11-20-2021, 12:49 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2021, 08:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can only claim self defense if you are not committing a crime, that is, if you have a legal right to be where you are doing what you're doing.
Which is to say, all of the charges hinged on the weapons charge. If the prosecution could have proven that he was too young to be carrying that weapon in that place, they could have proven all the other charges.
With the weapons charge thrown out, it was not possible to convict him of anything.
You still don't feel even a little duped by this narrative? Even with jurors feeling threatened, there was still evidence enough to convince a jury to find him not guilty.
Instead of the media focusing on the wrongness of the rioters, they trot out a criminal who admits that he was pointing a gun at the defendant before he pulls the trigger. The prosecution waived charges against actual criminals to get them to testify against Rittenhouse. Thugs were out destroying people's property and livelihoods, and they focus on a guy trying to protect a neighborhood from vandalism. The president called him a racist for defending his life. I could keep going, but the bottom line is that sanity has been flipped upside down and your so quick to swallow every lie. None of this would have happened 10 years ago. You're smart enough to know that's true, but dumb enough to ignore that fact.
It is ironic that the people who were out to commit mayhem- burning, rioting, and destroying things- chased after this guy and attacked him, and when he defended himself, he was the one charged with a crime.
I'm glad the judge was no marshmallow, and kept control of his court and ensured a fair trial.
(11-20-2021, 12:49 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2021, 08:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can only claim self defense if you are not committing a crime, that is, if you have a legal right to be where you are doing what you're doing.
Which is to say, all of the charges hinged on the weapons charge. If the prosecution could have proven that he was too young to be carrying that weapon in that place, they could have proven all the other charges.
With the weapons charge thrown out, it was not possible to convict him of anything.
You still don't feel even a little duped by this narrative? Even with jurors feeling threatened, there was still evidence enough to convince a jury to find him not guilty.
Instead of the media focusing on the wrongness of the rioters, they trot out a criminal who admits that he was pointing a gun at the defendant before he pulls the trigger. The prosecution waived charges against actual criminals to get them to testify against Rittenhouse. Thugs were out destroying people's property and livelihoods, and they focus on a guy trying to protect a neighborhood from vandalism. The president called him a racist for defending his life. I could keep going, but the bottom line is that sanity has been flipped upside down and your so quick to swallow every lie. None of this would have happened 10 years ago. You're smart enough to know that's true, but dumb enough to ignore that fact.
I don't really watch the mainstream media so I have nothing to be disappointed in or feel duped about.
I am disappointed in Biden for calling the kid a white supremacist. I don't know what's gotten into Biden lately, I don't think even Obama would have made a mistake like that.
(11-19-2021, 08:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can only claim self defense if you are not committing a crime, that is, if you have a legal right to be where you are doing what you're doing.
Which is to say, all of the charges hinged on the weapons charge. If the prosecution could have proven that he was too young to be carrying that weapon in that place, they could have proven all the other charges.
With the weapons charge thrown out, it was not possible to convict him of anything.
Do you not understand the definition of self-defense? HE WAS BEING ATTACKED! This is the single most important fact in the case and is not dependent on his age.
Biden, 2:29pm: “The process worked.”
Biden, 72 minutes later: “I’m angry and concerned about the process.”
Biden is not in charge of this administration. #Rittenhouse
https://t.co/4C4jEtJl1v
(11-20-2021, 09:43 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (11-19-2021, 08:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can only claim self defense if you are not committing a crime, that is, if you have a legal right to be where you are doing what you're doing.
Which is to say, all of the charges hinged on the weapons charge. If the prosecution could have proven that he was too young to be carrying that weapon in that place, they could have proven all the other charges.
With the weapons charge thrown out, it was not possible to convict him of anything.
Do you not understand the definition of self-defense? HE WAS BEING ATTACKED! This is the single most important fact in the case and is not dependent on his age.
You can't try to rob the bank and claim self defense when a bystander pulls a pistol on you. There's more to it than "he was being attacked!"
You're so willfully ignorant.
(11-20-2021, 10:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-20-2021, 09:43 AM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Do you not understand the definition of self-defense? HE WAS BEING ATTACKED! This is the single most important fact in the case and is not dependent on his age.
You can't try to rob the bank and claim self defense when a bystander pulls a pistol on you. There's more to it than "he was being attacked!"
He wasn’t robbing a bank, he was putting out a fire.
(11-20-2021, 10:26 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-20-2021, 10:11 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]You can't try to rob the bank and claim self defense when a bystander pulls a pistol on you. There's more to it than "he was being attacked!"
He wasn’t robbing a bank, he was putting out a fire.
It was just an example, sheesh.
(11-20-2021, 10:42 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When is Tulsi Gabbard going to switch parties?
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/...35840?s=20
I think she takes it a bit to far. When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial. The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.
(11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-20-2021, 10:42 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When is Tulsi Gabbard going to switch parties?
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/...35840?s=20
I think she takes it a bit to far. When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial. The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.
Or, had the DA taken the time to examine the evidence subjectively instead of caving to a community who felt, but couldn't prove, that a crime had been committed, there would have been no trial. The law works on facts, not feelings.
(11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-20-2021, 10:42 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]When is Tulsi Gabbard going to switch parties?
https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/...35840?s=20
I think she takes it a bit to far. When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial. The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.
Do you know any of the facts?
(11-20-2021, 11:58 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think she takes it a bit to far. When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial. The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.
Do you know any of the facts?
No, and yet he has the exact same opinions as the mainstream media that he claims to never watch.
(11-20-2021, 11:58 AM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ] (11-20-2021, 10:52 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I think she takes it a bit to far. When a large section of the community feels a crime has been committed, there should be a trial. The alternative is worse, when the people feel totally unheard.
Do you know any of the facts?
When has that ever prevented him from being wrong?