Tucker Carlson reports

To be honest, Salty it's kind of like asking me what I would do if I could fly. It's just so unrealistic to me that I can't really answer your question other than to say if it comes down to my life or your life, I'll always choose to keep mine so you've gotta go. That's really the most honest answer I can give you without being full of shit about a hypothetical situation that would never happen.

. Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Some of these poster think because we think it was stupid for a 17 year old to go out shouldering an AK-15 in the middle of riots that we wish him I'll will.

Or that we think he should have been convicted.

I do wish the Judge had let his conduct before the shooting entered as evidence but he didn't....the DA said at the time that basically there went his case. He wanted a gun with ammunition to go bear hunting and the Judge gave him a slingshot.

These righties do not seem capable of discussing fact logically and without distortions and lies.

Basically you and I think the kid was an idiot but luckily for many of our posters, that is not illegal.

... Not just you there, Tiny.

All across America - MSM commontatours on the telly.
Me-thinks they just say "didn't follow the trial"
so they can speaw their piss and lie, and then
when called to accounte about it - they then claim
that they were unaware of this point or that...

### Salty

This from NPR sums it up very well.

https://www.wpr.org/jury-wont-hear-e...ys-connections

This is why the Prosecution had no chance. I paid very little attention to the rumblings and political banter before this trial but when the DA lost this ruling...he basically admitted he could not win the case. And after I watched one day in court where the DA tried to bring this in as evidence and the judge tore him a new....that was when I posted Rittenhouse would walk.

It was like when Mark Furman was caught saying the n word. I thought then that that murdering son might just beat the rap! Originally Posted by WTF

are you seriously claiming the prosecution's entire case rested on a couple of photos taken months after the incident with so-called Proud Boys members was the key to their case?


are ... you ... really ..claiming .. that?



BAHHAHHAAAAAAA

... Then there's the point -- WHY is it wrong for
Rittenhouse to be legally carrying a gun, but
NOT wrong for the other blokes to be carrying??

In fact, those lads were either just out of hospital
or former jail inmates... Allowed to carry??

### Salty

are you seriously claiming the prosecution's entire case rested on a couple of photos taken months after the incident with so-called Proud Boys members was the key to their case?


are ... you ... really ..claiming .. that?



BAHHAHHAAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Are you seriously conflating me with Prosecutors? Your comprehension is child like, juvenile at best


Prosecutors argued the evidence was "crucial" to their case as Rittenhouse's statements would illuminate his state of mind on the night of the shootings. The video, which is available online, shows Rittenhouse witnessing alleged shoplifters at a CVS drug store and saying if he had his gun he would "start shooting rounds" at them.

.. Too Right, WTF.

YOU like to PERSECUTE... Not prosecute.

### Salty

.. Too Right, WTF.

YOU like to PERSECUTE... Not prosecute.

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

And you like to believe in Q and the Tooth Fairy

Are you seriously conflating me with Prosecutors? Your comprehension is child like, juvenile at best


Prosecutors argued the evidence was "crucial" to their case as Rittenhouse's statements would illuminate his state of mind on the night of the shootings. The video, which is available online, shows Rittenhouse witnessing alleged shoplifters at a CVS drug store and saying if he had his gun he would "start shooting rounds" at them. Originally Posted by WTF

i wouldn't conflate you with being an educated professional.

bahahahaaaaa

let's review this "damning evidence"





nothingburger.

Some of these poster think because we think it was stupid for a 17 year old to go out shouldering an AK-15 in the middle of riots that we wish him I'll will.

Or that we think he should have been convicted.

I do wish the Judge had let his conduct before the shooting entered as evidence but he didn't....the DA said at the time that basically there went his case. He wanted a gun with ammunition to go bear hunting and the Judge gave him a slingshot.

These righties do not seem capable of discussing fact logically and without distortions and lies.

Basically you and I think the kid was an idiot but luckily for many of our posters, that is not illegal. Originally Posted by WTF

The only thing I really wonder is why the prosecutors even bothered to charge the kid with a gun charge if it is legal for a 17 year old to walk the streets with an AR. Shouldn't they know the law in their state? I just assumed it was illegal for an untrained teenager to be walking around with that kind of weapon. I obviously assumed wrong.

Anyway, it sounds like a pretty fucked up and archaic law to me but whatever, the law is the law so if he didn't break it, so be it.

I don't think Salty was being a smart ass about his question to me. I just don't share his ideologies and that's okay. He's pretty much always been civil towards me so he's good in my book. But I can't really answer his question thoughtfully although I gave an answer. It is just something that would never happen to me because I would never put myself in that situation.
I would never willingly or knowingly walk towards fires, I purposely run away from them because I'm not trying to be a fireman and act like I know what I'm doing when I don't.

Oh, and fuck the Cowboys. That's 3 wasted hours of my life that I'll never get back. I can't believe those sorry motherfuckers suckered me into believing in them again. I don't know why I keep falling for the same okie-doke gut punch every season. LOL

I'm kind of lost Hedonist. I don't know who Rosenblum, Lawrence Tribe, or Jonathan Turley is. I'm not a worthy opponent for debate on this topic. I do intend to record the Rittenhouse interview on Monday though. Originally Posted by Tiny

Exactly what I'm thinking when you guys start talking economics and money policy which I know less than nothing about. As you might be able to tell, I'm a bit obsessed with the law. I realize I'm not a trained lawyer but I do a helluva lot of research before I comment on this stuff and I probably consume more news from various sources than most people do. I'm retired and probably watch, listen and read, a good 5 to 6 hours a day of news. Not many people have that much time to devout to the news.


Rosenblum was the first guy Rittenhouse shot. Not that it had any bearing on the case but he was a convicted child rapist.



Lawrence Tribe is a Constitutional law professor, the go to guy for the far left because he is so far left, I don't know how he can stand up straight.


Jonathan Turly is a Constitutional professor and is the go to guy for Fox News but he is hardly a right winger and I follow him pretty closely and rarely disagree with him on anything

Exactly what I'm thinking when you guys start talking economics and money policy which I know less than nothing about. As you might be able to tell, I'm a bit obsessed with the law. I realize I'm not a trained lawyer but I do a helluva lot of research before I comment on this stuff and I probably consume more news from various sources than most people do. I'm retired and probably watch, listen and read, a good 5 to 6 hours a day of news. Not many people have that much time to devout to the news. Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I can do OK with transactional law for a nonprofessional, but when it comes to trials, I'm lost. Like McCain, I run the other way from anything that's potentially going to land me in a court case, civil or criminal.

Thanks for educating me on the people, their names sounded familiar but I didn't know their various claims to fame.

... Actually, Lucas - you did give a thoughtful answer to
me question there. And I'm glad to see that you even
looked-about at this case and you're asking some
good questions on WHY was he charged with illegally
carrying a gun - when he's LEGAL UNDER THE LAW.

See? ... Prosecution OVER-CHARGE is the problem and it's wrong.
And why go for murder charges in a clear case of self-defence??
Why not "reckless homicide" - something like that?

just sayin'

### Salty

... Actually, Lucas - you did give a thoughtful answer to
me question there. And I'm glad to see that you even
looked-about at this case and you're asking some
good questions on WHY was he charged with illegally
carrying a gun - when he's LEGAL UNDER THE LAW.

See? ... Prosecution OVER-CHARGE is the problem and it's wrong.
And why go for murder charges in a clear case of self-defence??
Why not "reckless homicide" - something like that?

just sayin'

### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

I've already explained why they charged him...but the judge would not let certain evidence that was critical to their case. They probably should have dropped it after that but I doubt they could with all the scrutiny.

The prosecutor still tried to work in what the judge had already ruled he wasn't allowed to. That is why the judge ripped him a new one in court

No relish no pickles on that Nothing Burger Please

lolling

I've already explained why they charged him...but the judge would not let certain evidence that was critical to their case. They probably should have dropped it after that but I doubt they could with all the scrutiny.

The prosecutor still tried to work in what the judge had already ruled he wasn't allowed to. That is why the judge ripped him a new one in court Originally Posted by WTF

you've explained it .. to yourself. as for your attempts to 'splain it to anyone else you are failing.

you think one video clip of rittenhouse after watching street thugs, one of which appeared to be armed commit robbery say he'd "shoot at them" proves conclusively he had intent to kill at the riots?

and that meet up with the so-called Proud Boys came months after the incident and does not prove any prior ties whatsoever which is why the judge tossed it.

if rittenhouse had intend to kill he would have been on top of that store sniping people.

nothing in that article comes even close to proving intent to kill. and if that's all the prosecution had then they had nothing at all.