It looks like the jury is giving it thought.

redfish said:
the residents of america were not British citizens. damn is your historical knowledge as inept as your legal knowledge? Do you understand what the word "colony" means?
Click to expand...

Almost all of them were British subjects, they do not call them citizens.
 
Jarod said:
1. Why does that distinction make any difference?
2. It violated the law of the nation the rioters were citizens of.
3. The residents violated the law of their nation, England, their colony, and their city.
Click to expand...

horseshit, they were protesting the application of a tax on a product, a tax the no one in the "colonies" voted for or had a chance to vote for or against. The were protesting taxation without representation. what exactly were BLM and antifa protesting in Portland that justified the destruction of public and private property, personal attacks, burning a federal courthouse, and wounding and killing many police?
 
redfish said:
the residents of america were not British citizens. damn is your historical knowledge as inept as your legal knowledge? Do you understand what the word "colony" means?
Click to expand...

So because they were not British citizens there were no laws preventing them from destroying the property of others? That seems to be your argument.
 
redfish said:
horseshit, they were protesting the application of a tax on a product, a tax the no one in the "colonies" voted for or had a chance to vote for or against. The were protesting taxation without representation. what exactly were BLM and antifa protesting in Portland that justified the destruction of public and private property, personal attacks, burning a federal courthouse, and wounding and killing many police?
Click to expand...

So you believe what they are protesting is what makes the difference? It’s OK to protest, loot, burn, and destroy corporate property if you’re protesting one thing but not OK if you’re protesting another? Is that your position?
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Actually, it was exactly what the Prosecutor's star witness said. He tried to say it was "unintentional" but the reality was he testified that Rittenhouse didn't fire on him until he was pointing a gun at him and advancing.

Your ignorance of very clear facts in this case tell me you clearly paid no attention, didn't want to pay attention, had already decided guilt regardless of what was said, and have no business discussing the case with anyone until you do learn about it.
Click to expand...
Actually, the prosecution's star witness is Rittenhouse.


Explain why there is no video evidence of him pointing the gun? He admitted that he didn't get shot until he approached. Not sure why he would say that he pointed the gun?
 
Althea said:
You might have a point, if that's what happened. Rittenhouse was shown to have lied about every claim he initially made.
Click to expand...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......I would provide video proof of just how wrong you are, but you don't watch videos unless they side with you......which none of the court testimony or witness videos do.......

so what it comes down to is you'll stomp your little feet and wring your tiny hands and rant and rave about a corrupt judge because rittenhouse isn't convicted.........

like I said, you're completely delusional
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top