ADVERTISEMENT

WI Christmas Parade

Lucy, I know you pretend to be dumb, but are you really that dumb in real life? I already said about a thousand times I thought KR was innocent.
I never said you said he was guilty, Listening to his side is very interesting. You know I am not that dumb or a racist.
 
Reading this thread kind of makes me wonder why a handful of posters here are surprised when people accuse them of being racist.

Please point out the posts that would lead some to expect to be called a racist…
I too would like to see these posts.

Goat has a bad habit of talking out of his ass so I’m not holding my breath.
 
I never said you said he was guilty, Listening to his side is very interesting. You know I am not that dumb or a racist.
This isn't a good look:

No way a black person would do such a thing! No way.

You know it's bad when Mas likes your post. You can claim you meant something else, but his endorsement pretty much nails you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
I too would like to see these posts.

Goat has a bad habit of talking out of his ass so I’m not holding my breath.
Well, people were quite happy to jump on the Bad Black Man Revenge for Rittenhouse angle. They didn't have the balls to admit they were wrong.

Props to conservatives like @IUCrazy2 who said, whoa, slow down, let's not assume things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
Well, people were quite happy to jump on the Bad Black Man Revenge for Rittenhouse angle. They didn't have the balls to admit they were wrong.

Props to conservatives like @IUCrazy2 who said, whoa, slow down, let's not assume things.
I don’t disagree with that. Partisan hacks of all stripes darken the doorway of this forum every day.

Also, Crazy wasn’t the only one saying that.
 
Well, people were quite happy to jump on the Bad Black Man Revenge for Rittenhouse angle. They didn't have the balls to admit they were wrong.

Props to conservatives like @IUCrazy2 who said, whoa, slow down, let's not assume things.
Put up or shut up. Which posts? People, that’s more than one, let’s see it Jacobite(lol). You’re a liar.
 
This isn't a good look:



You know it's bad when Mas likes your post. You can claim you meant something else, but his endorsement pretty much nails you.
No, I no
This isn't a good look:



You know it's bad when Mas likes your post. You can claim you meant something else, but his endorsement pretty much nails you.
Your assessment of me is probably accurate!
 

Comparing visuals from the video and known photographs of Rittenhouse also seems to show that this is the same person. Of course, more than one person can own the same style of shoe, and identifying a person based solely on visual comparisons isn’t always accurate.
To sum things up, videos taken in July 2020 appear to show Rittenhouse punching a woman during an altercation in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Both videographers identified Rittenhouse as the man in the red and blue shorts. However, this identification appears to be based on visual comparisons and circumstantial evidence, so while this video most likely shows Rittenhouse, we can’t say with certainty that this isn’t another person who resembles the 17-year-old accused of shooting and killing two people at a protest.

So is this Kyle Rittenhouse in both photos? Full disclosure the snopes article says it's inconclusive that it is, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong. This is the reason it may be relevant



Now it may have been prejudicial to allow this video in court, but it would have been interesting to hear him proclaim under oath that he was not the person shown beating up a girl in July 2020, basically 2 mos prior to him shooting people in "self defense" in the same town that he doesn't live in...Kind of speaks to his temper if it is, don't you think?

I mean I guess there could be two nerds in Kenosha wearing those same shoes, not to mention the way the shorts are worn. But the decision by this particular judge not to allow either this photo/video to be used as evidence, along with the (audio) video of him saying he wanted to shoot looters certainly seemed to handicap the prosecution... Remember, the Defense did not deny that the person in the CVS video was Kyle...



I'm going to go ahead and stipulate that it's Kyle in both pics. And that the young man in the video is completely different in temperament than what the defense portrayed him to be with the picture of innocence they painted in court. The fact is that two people died because KR decided to interject himself into a situation he had no business interjecting himself into.

He's not a hero, and if we acknowledge that it's him in the video outside the Chicago CVS he's pretty close to a vigilante, and expressing thoughts in that area. Just because this jury was unaware of those facts and found him not guilty does not mean that a different jury privy to additional evidence might have agreed...His actions that night contributed nothing positive...
Have you seen the Rittenhouse Dossier? I hear he went to Sturgis and paid a hooker to urinate on an Antifa hat. Can't be disproven or nothing.
 
Well, people were quite happy to jump on the Bad Black Man Revenge for Rittenhouse angle. They didn't have the balls to admit they were wrong.

Props to conservatives like @IUCrazy2 who said, whoa, slow down, let's not assume things.

Are we sure it's too early to dismiss any rationale for the incident? Here are some supposed screenshots from the Brooks social media:

FEzf1WdXoAAJ3ES


FEzfNsnXsAASnFz



FEzfYMtWYAoYlRY
 
This guy better be sent to hell, at the very least. He had no business being out and about in public society.

If our justice system was a meritocracy - the judges giving him such low bail levels would be sanctioned, suspended , fined …etc. Like the judges would be ready to impress on non-performing attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants ..etc.
 
If our justice system was a meritocracy - the judges giving him such low bail levels would be sanctioned, suspended , fined …etc. Like the judges would be ready to impress on non-performing attorneys, plaintiffs, defendants ..etc.


I think the problem lies here. Listen, you can say that the justice system is maybe too harsh on certain offenses...but when you get to a guy like Brooks, the dude should have been locked up and the key thrown away. He tried to run over the mother of one of his children apparently not long before this incident. He is a sociopath. And the bail was either $1000 (effectively $100) or the bail was waived completely.

There has to be some sort of rational middle ground where people like Brooks are not getting mixed in with a guy getting picked up for weed or something for the first time. Bail reform should not apply to people like Brooks who keep getting out, time and time again, to terrorize their communities.
 
Update:

So I guess yesterday the police said they were not actively chasing this guy but he was leaving an incident at a park. They are also still saying not terrorism FWIW. JDB posted some of the stuff I saw from the guy's social media, I think a fair and interesting question is why the "wait and see" angle from the media only applies in certain instances. They had Rittenhouse tried and convicted on made up facts and if he had posts on social media extolling the virtues of Adolph freaking Hitler...well, I think there would be some pretty clear inferences being drawn. I think it is fair to ask how this guy's worldview may have made it easy for him to run over a bunch of white grannies and children.
 
Seems pretty obvious this guy did not like the Whites. Now I won’t jump to the conclusion of calling it racially motivated, because I’m not a progressive.

But let’s just say there is far more evidence of this being racially motivated than Chauvin/ Floyd.

See how that works leftists? I can help you through it if you need.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ulrey
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT