Yes, since the dead guy can't speak, we have to believe the guy on trial for murder, when he claims he was threatened. We do have evidence of the mass murderer fantasizing about shooting perceived shoplifters leaving CVS, but the jurors didn't get to see that.
Uvalde School Shooting
- Thread starter Gold Trojan
- Start date
- Status
Pretty sure we already know what the dead guy would say had he lived to be at the trial. “I’m totally innocent your honor….I wouldn’t hurt a fly!” One way or another, he would no doubt claim he’s the innocent one who did not threaten Rittenhouse or lunge for his gun, despite witness testimony saying that he did.
So you are saying that you would believe the “hyper-aggressive”(per witness), suicidally depressed, bi-polar, meth/heroine/cocaine/LSD using, teacher stabbing, girlfriend beater (including a body slam), registered sex offender and 5 time child molester (including anal rape), bail jumper, and rioter who was on probation and that had been heard threatening to kill Rittenhouse and others per a witness?
If they could have only put this guy on the stand in court. With his credibility, it would have cleared all of this up. No doubt he would have convinced the court that he was not at all dangerous and was only doing his civic duty, and Rittenhouse would have been found guilty.
Last edited:
So we have 2 posters here who support as heroic a guy who anally raped a child. A helpless child. Do you know what it takes mentally to push a preteen boy to the ground and rape him? Can you imagine that this guy was simply going to passively disarm KR and then calmly escort him to the police? Good for you two.
Also, the lead investigator in the case said KR was saying “friendly, friendly, friendly” to JR prior to Rosenbaum charging him, but JR charged him anyways. That sounds like KR was trying to “defuse” the situation, to use the vernacular of a poster here.
The more I read of this case, the more I agree with the verdict. In fact, KR shouldn’t have been tried, there was no case, but the DA had no choice, he got railroaded. This was a media generated case, with no legal standing.
Also, the lead investigator in the case said KR was saying “friendly, friendly, friendly” to JR prior to Rosenbaum charging him, but JR charged him anyways. That sounds like KR was trying to “defuse” the situation, to use the vernacular of a poster here.
The more I read of this case, the more I agree with the verdict. In fact, KR shouldn’t have been tried, there was no case, but the DA had no choice, he got railroaded. This was a media generated case, with no legal standing.
I'm saying he might have something to say about what provoked the incident and whether or not he threatened someone. I'm also saying KR would be less likely to lie about what happened if the other people had lived to tell their sides. What we DO know, is that KR had already expressed a desire to shoot people who were of no threat to him in any way, on the mere suspicion that they were shoplifting. He thinks it is OK for him to take the law into his own hands and shoot people over "stuff" --- and not even his stuff.
Last edited:
I cannot imagine these families, not only losing a child, but not even being able to hold them/see them one last time. Just sickening, The mental images will haunt them the rest of their lives. But at least Meal Team Six can feel safe when they're securing their six inch subs and their iced vanilla lattes.
Last edited:
Can you point to anything KR said that was a lie? The DA couldn’t find anything. In fact everything KR reported has been confirmed as true. So what “lie” could have refuted? The whole incident is on video. The video confirms KR’s account of the shooting. What could JR have said, you tell us, that you think might have impugned what we have seen with our own 2 eyes?
"House democrats on Wednesday evening continued to hold a bill hostage that would provide more security for Supreme Court Justices and their families the same day a heavily armed 26-year-old man was detained for a ploy to kill conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh."
Coffee shops are scary....such bravery! PATHETIC and embarrassing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why is that even up for debate?
A jury of his peers decided hes not guilty...
End of discussion.....
Nice photo.....from 2 years ago at a Subway in Raleigh. They asked the employee if they could enter BTW and he gave them permission. North Carolina allows open carry but not at protests.
And way to smear Navy SEALS at the same time. Something tells me you probably haven't missed many meals.
Last edited:
Yep, Dems in the House are holding up a 100-0 Senate bill to protect the Supreme Court Justices with extra security.
Btw, watchdog group just forced Garland to release the documents to not pursue criminal charges against Ashley Babbitt's murderer.
Libs just make s**t up hoping they can convince someone. Aime accuses others of moving the goal post, however, as in the Dr Pepper commercial re: stolen goal posts ..... the goal posts are in her yard
No one is disputing what the jury decided. We're discussing whether or not that was right. We don't always agree with juries.
She just plants a new goal post when she thinks she can get away with it. You will probably find forests of goal posts within the realms of her discussions on this and older sites.
Direct question, ... it's an easy one and should be a yes or no answer -
Do YOU think that the slaves (pre1861) would have been slaves if they had been armed with guns ?
I have no idea. I suppose it would depend on who had more guns. There is slavery now and people have access to guns. Would I support the right of anyone to defend him or herself from enslavement? Absolutely.
Again, let's review, shall we? You made a post justifying gun ownership as a means of standing up to an abusive government. I responded, pointing to the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge, noting that they were well armed and were no match for our government. Is that moving the goal post or on topic? I'd say on topic and directly addressing your point.
Then Prescott Trojan chimed in with 1/6. Was that on topic? No -- not directly. He took my point about armed people being no match for our government as some sort of misguided claim that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection . As if it the fact that rioters couldn't succeed meant it wasn't an insurrection. Regardless of how you feel about that, he was the one who moved the goalpost -- not me. From there, it digressed to a discussion of 1/6. Then it went from there were no weapons, (yes, there were) to yeah, but, how many people died. Again, who moved the goalpost?
Then it went from 1/6 to "whattabout BLM,." Relevant? Sure. But who moved the goalpost? Then it went to whattabout protests outside people's home. Again, who is moving the goalpost? Then I noted that people who think the term "insurrectionist" is incendiary have no problem calling their political oppononents "traitors." Relevant? I think so. Moving the goalpost? Maybe.
Then xuscx concurred and brought it back to the topic of 1/6 noting, "They are also ok shooting unarmed people and calling it self defense as long as the victim is black, shoot a white person with a mob breaking thru a door is murder."
To which Moon demanded that xuscx cite examples of anyone defending the shooting of a compliant unarmed black man when "compliant" was never part of xuscx' s claim.
But yeah, I'm the one moving the goalposts. SMH
Um.... They're not mutually exclusive, you know.Again, let's review, shall we? You made a post justifying gun ownership as a means of standing up to an abusive government. I responded, pointing to the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge, noting that they were well armed and were no match for our government. Is that moving the goal post or on topic? I'd say on topic and directly addressing your point.
Then Prescott Trojan chimed in with 1/6. Was that on topic? No -- not directly. He took my point about armed people being no match for our government as some sort of misguided claim that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection . As if it the fact that rioters couldn't succeed meant it wasn't an insurrection. Regardless of how you feel about that, he was the one who moved the goalpost -- not me. From there, it digressed to a discussion of 1/6. Then it went from there were no weapons, (yes, there were) to yeah, but, how many people died. Again, who moved the goalpost?
Then it went from 1/6 to "whattabout BLM,." Relevant? Sure. But who moved the goalpost? Then it went to whattabout protests outside people's home. Again, who is moving the goalpost? Then I noted that people who think the term "insurrectionist" is incendiary have no problem calling their political oppononents "traitors." Relevant? I think so. Moving the goalpost? Maybe.
Then xuscx concurred and brought it back to the topic of 1/6 noting, "They are also ok shooting unarmed people and calling it self defense as long as the victim is black, shoot a white person with a mob breaking thru a door is murder."
To which Moon demanded that xuscx cite examples of anyone defending the shooting of a compliant unarmed black man when "compliant" was never part of xuscx' s claim.
But yeah, I'm the one moving the goalposts. SMH
...Which kind of makes your entire post here specious, bless your heart.
People do have access to guns today, but I’m pretty sure that slaves don’t.
Like all left wingers she can't answer a direct question
She will dance around, deflect, distract ... claiming to answer, all the while saying nothing
I don't know how you expect me to answer a question about something I have no way of knowing. I said people should absolutely use guns to defend against slavery. What do you want me to say?
They're never finished on the left. If the courts don't give then what they want, then the courts must be wrong. It's truly a form of insanity.
Last edited:
You don’t know if slaves would have been better off with weapons to defend themselves, but you know the jury in the KR got it wrong and you know that Rosenbaum and Huber’s testimony would have been important, even thought we have good eyewitness and video evidence that KR was telling the truth. You do understand that there is only one truth, right? I asked once before of you and xx, what could they have said to change jury opinion? Take a guess. Remember the jury had hard video evidence and eyewitness testimony that supported KRs story.
You got it wrong and your ego won’t let you admit it. Thats ok, but own it. Just say “ my ego and my political positions just won’t let me be truthful about KR. I want him in jail, even though there is no evidence against him. That would make me happy.@
You understand that slaves were often prisoners of war, right? I'm guessing whatever arms the slaves had their adversaries would also have. SMH
Last edited:
You understand that slaves were often prisoners of war, right? I'm guessing whatever arms the slaves had their adversaries would also have. SMH
Yep, during times of slavery and post-Emancipation it was the democrats who wanted to violate the Blacks Second Amendment rights by not allowing them to own guns. Whenever there has been injustice in America it's been the racist democrats behind all of it.
They usually resort to reinterpreting the law by punching it full of holes until it's meaningless. Recent examples are Title 42 and the Remain in Mexico laws. Both were upheld by the US Supreme Court and both have been circumvented by the democrats.
As if that is something exclusive to the left? The Trump campaign lost or had tossed SIXTY court cases and still couldn't accept the fact that he lost. Trump whined about his own appointees ruling against him. He incited a riot because he didn't get what he wants.
Yep the right never takes issue with a ruling they don't like.
Last edited:
No longer using the left’s language… “gun control.”
An accurate framing is… civilian disarmament.
Yep; summed it up nicely, with the exception of “posters.”
Instead, insert “communists, who vote democrat” and you would have NAILED IT!
REALITY is…Again, let's review, shall we? You made a post justifying gun ownership as a means of standing up to an abusive government. I responded, pointing to the incidents at Waco and Ruby Ridge, noting that they were well armed and were no match for our government. Is that moving the goal post or on topic? I'd say on topic and directly addressing your point.
Then Prescott Trojan chimed in with 1/6. Was that on topic? No -- not directly. He took my point about armed people being no match for our government as some sort of misguided claim that 1/6 wasn't an insurrection . As if it the fact that rioters couldn't succeed meant it wasn't an insurrection. Regardless of how you feel about that, he was the one who moved the goalpost -- not me. From there, it digressed to a discussion of 1/6. Then it went from there were no weapons, (yes, there were) to yeah, but, how many people died. Again, who moved the goalpost?
Then it went from 1/6 to "whattabout BLM,." Relevant? Sure. But who moved the goalpost? Then it went to whattabout protests outside people's home. Again, who is moving the goalpost? Then I noted that people who think the term "insurrectionist" is incendiary have no problem calling their political oppononents "traitors." Relevant? I think so. Moving the goalpost? Maybe.
Then xuscx concurred and brought it back to the topic of 1/6 noting, "They are also ok shooting unarmed people and calling it self defense as long as the victim is black, shoot a white person with a mob breaking thru a door is murder."
To which Moon demanded that xuscx cite examples of anyone defending the shooting of a compliant unarmed black man when "compliant" was never part of xuscx' s claim.
But yeah, I'm the one moving the goalposts. SMH
BOTH Waco and Ruby Ridge were under “GUNED” and out “NUMBERED.”
At Waco, our government, used a tank, in order to BURN the Branch Dividians.
At Ruby Ridge, our government, used snipers, killing the dude’s wife.
This is what happens when BOTH sides are EQUALLY ARMED (with AR15s) with similar NUMBERS…
Bless your heart. The Trump campaign filed, what was it, six cases, total? The rest were by other than the Trump campaign. Trump did complain about his own appointees. Reasonably. He had a lot of Trojan Horses in that group. And, no, he didn't incite a riot.
Then comes the final comment. SMH. Are you completely unfamiliar with that case? Is that the explanation? Nobody familiar with it and reasonable would characterize the reaction to it as merely politically motivated sour grapes, as you have.
So, what, exactly, is conservative about you, again? Virtually every position you stake out is the opposite of conservative. Maybe it's time for you to reevaluate your self-perception.
Try ... using ... common ... sense ................ oh wait ............. never mind !
Last edited:
- Status
