|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 15:37:45 GMT -5
The far left has overreacted to the verdict by ignoring that the evidence didn't appear to prove Rittenhouse guilty. The far right has reacted by ignoring that Kyle did plenty wrong -- just not enough for a guilty verdict. (I think a reckless endangerment charge might have been in order, but I don't know the definition, so I can only say that Kyle was reckless. Perhaps a civil trial will provide full justice.
Right now though, I don't think the evidence proved Kyle guilty in a criminal trial. I think Kyle has been guilty of a lot of things, but not of murder.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 15:47:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 16:06:12 GMT -5
Rittenhouse said he there to help people, lying to them that he was an E.M.T., when in fact (as he smartly admitted in court) he wasn't. After he shot the first guy (which is why he was later chased), "Rittenhouse stood over McGinniss for half a minute. Amid the sound of more gunfire, he didn’t stoop to check on the injured man or offer his first-aid kit. “Call 911!” McGinniss told him. Rittenhouse called a friend instead."
As I have mentioned, Kyle has a lot of good in him, but he also has a lot of bad. He used horrid judgment in carrying his AR-15 into an area where if he truly thought he needed the weapon to be safe (as he testified), he shouldn't have gone.
I think the criminal non-guilty verdict was likely just. I suspect a judgement against him in a civil trial would be just as well.
I think it was very convenient that according to his testimony, Kyle's friend (legally) bought the gun for him and held it for Kyle in Kenosha, which meant Kyle didn't carry the gun illegally across state lines. I find the explanation quite convenient, but I have no evidence that it was not true.
For Kyle to get off Scott free probably isn't right, but perhaps a civil trial will work that out. I think the far left is wrong that Kyle should have been convicted (except for the weapons charge, which he lucked out on). And I think that the trial proved Kyle innocent.
He isn't. While most couldn't be admitted into the trial, it is clear that Kyle has done quite a bit of wrong. But I think with proper direction he could be a good guy.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 16:06:49 GMT -5
Ready to honestly answer questions yet, Matt?
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 16:48:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Nov 20, 2021 20:00:26 GMT -5
Rog- Why couldn't Donald believe 61 courts that ruled against him? Because he has his own version of the truth, and his version isn't limited by reality. Have you got a better explanation, Matt?
Boagie- He couldn't believe it?..is that his official stance on the rulings, he couldn't believe it? I think it's fairly easy to believe because it happened. I can't tell you what Trump was thinking when he said something I can't support. But that's why you ask questions, because you know I won't have a good answer.
I don't think they got their ruling wrong, I think there was a lack of evidence because the Democrats are good at covering their tracks and Republicans are awful at uncovering the Democrats' corruption. The Democrats put together a cloak and dagger election night and the following days and they were very successful. Of course the judicial system won't overturn and election unless there's loads of solid evidence to support it.
Where I think the courts got it wrong is allowing the Democrats change the rules right before the election. They made their judgement before the opposition really had a chance to counter, that'show the Democrats planned it.
The question I have for you is what does the court ruling on the election have to do with Kyle Rittenhouse? The elections were decided by judges, the Rittenhouse case was decided by a jury. There's really no correlation...you're just displaying your TDS yet again. Talk about something else other than Trump.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 20:12:27 GMT -5
You're right. It did happen that 61 courts, one of them Supreme, ruled against him. You don't support that he says the election was stolen? I thought you said (without evidence) that it WAS stolen. Worse, I think you applauded the Democrats for doing it so cleverly.
If the Democrats did it, why can't the Republican election officials and Secretaries of State find evidence? Why did the Georgia audit by their Republican Secretary of State affirm the result -- while pointing out that if Trump could have gotten just HALF of the 28,000 voters who voted down ballots but abstained from voting for president, he would have won? That's right. The REPUBLICAN Secretary of State pointed the finger at Trump for scaring away those voters. Arizona did an audit that wasn't done according to audit rules, because it was done by Trumpers who were more concerned with overturning the election than doing so fairly, but even they couldn't change the result in that state.
Not to mention that had Trump won BOTH those states (which Republicans tell us he didn't), he needed at least one more state to turn in his favor.
As for the Supreme Court and other courts overturning an election, they are supposed to do so if there is a preponderance of the evidence. NOT that they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but that that there is 50.1% of the evidence to support it. Some of the courts scoffed that Trump presented virtually NO evidence. If you read the courts' decisions, they virtually laughed him out of court.
If he weren't so deadly, Trump would indeed be a joke. But we're talking about a man who allowed hundreds of thousands to die unnecessarily.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 20, 2021 20:24:26 GMT -5
That was a good question you asked, Matt. Rittenhouse did have a jury trial, while both Trump and my friend took theirs directly to a judge or judges. But they relate in that both were legal judgments. Trump was happy to accept the judgment on Rittenhouse, but he wouldn't abide by a single one of the 61 judgments against his Big Lie.
I'll be happy to talk about something else other than Trump. Let me switch to my question of why you won't answer my questions? If you don't have answers, as you seem to imply, you're living a lie. And your inability thus far to give me honest and logical answers makes me wonder if you truly have them. Don't worry, I haven't found anyone else who has them either. Or perhaps that should worry us even MORE.
I believe in the truth. I'm not 100% that Kyle didn't get away with something -- and he's morally guilty and perhaps civilly as well -- but I agreed with the verdict based on the facts that I had at my disposal. That's why I said well ahead of the verdict that I didn't think he would be convicted of much, if anything.
He clearly WOULD have been convicted of illegally possessing the AR-15 as a minor, but a Wisconsin hunting technicality -- if he was hunting that night, he WAS guilty as charged, but I don't believe he was, at least not to a reasonable doubt -- got him off. And I think that set the tone for the jury. It would have been much better if the judge had ruled on that initially, so that it could have been appealed BEFORE the trial, rather than dictated to the jury near the end of it. It was a very confusing area that IMO deserved a second opinion, regardless of which way the judge decided.
The judge didn't particularly distinguish himself, and the prosecuting attorney came close to be guilty of malpractice, but I still think the verdict was appropriate based on the evidence I know about (which isn't all of it, but which is probably more than everyone else here combined).
How did you like the video of Kyle sucker punching the girl? It certainly appears to be him, and he appears to be wearing the very same shoes he was wearing in the picture of him carrying his AR-15 in what appears to be a hunting setting.
|
|
|
Post by sharksrog on Nov 24, 2021 14:34:07 GMT -5
The three guys in the Arbury trial were all convicted. Based on the evidence I saw, the verdicts in both trials were just.
The verdicts in the 61 election cases appeared to be just. Even when the verdict doesn't go the way he'd hoped, Joe Biden says he believes in our jury system. When the verdict doesn't go the way Donald Trump had hoped, he either pardons the convicted person or maintains his lie that the election was stolen, despite having no evidence (which is why the courts all rejected his claim).
Joe Biden is a patriot. Donald Trump is a narcissist.
Donald Trump allowed the biggest combination of death and economic disaster of any president since the Civil War.
How do people continue to support a man who allowed such a disaster to happen?
|
|