BLM was not there when this happened.Sad thing is this insurrection by BLM
BLM was not there when this happened.Sad thing is this insurrection by BLM
LOL. He did. Rittenhouse would have had a 9mm hole in him if he hadn't. I do admire how quickly you switched gears from thinking Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse was a lie to now thinking Grosskreutz pointed a gun faster than Rittenhouse.I also noticed that Al-O-Meter's lie about Rittenhouse outdrawing Grosskreutz didn't bother you at all.
Logical thinking and flat out evidence is not OB strong suits.LOL. He did. Rittenhouse would have had a 9mm hole in him if he hadn't. I do admire how quickly you switched gears from thinking Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse was a lie to now thinking Grosskreutz pointed a gun faster than Rittenhouse.
It would seem based on testimony, neither of them are murderers.I see you're so busy ignoring me that you lied directly about what I said.
I also noticed that Al-O-Meter's lie about Rittenhouse outdrawing Grosskreutz didn't bother you at all.
Rittenhouse is alive because Grosskreutz is not a murderer and wasn't trying to shoot him.
Fair Question:BLM was not there when this happened.
In the larger context of things, I just have to believe there are funding operations and other high-level support for all the riots in "protected" zones where huge outside political contributions installed very very extreme political hacks in as prosecutors, where there was no or ineffective law enforcement that was applied to curtail the riots.
This means, considering the political funding or directions of various groups coming from the same or allied sources, really makes the specific about which group "was there" pretty irrelevant. The same people involved in our media perhaps aiding the political cause really means we do not have objective news and lacking other sources of information, we should be skeptical of what we are being "told"
Rittenhouse got huge negative reports in the "news" that has since been almost totally debunked by basically local fact-finders and people close to the facts who have made the effort to speak out.
He should not have even been prosecuted on the police or prosecuting attorney evidence.
Rioters were given aj pass to do everything they did, and there is still no will in the government to prosecute those lawbreakers. They are the real cause, the real guilty perps, responsible for everything..
Except, as the testimony clearly says, Grosskreutz was already pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Grosskreutz.LOL. He did. Rittenhouse would have had a 9mm hole in him if he hadn't.
Except, I never called it a lie. I said, "That picture doesn't show Grosskreutz's gun point toward Rittenhouse" and "sounds like a fantasy from a spaghetti Western". The very same testimony from Grosskreutz that establishes the gun being pointed also establishes that Rittenhouse pointed second.I do admire how quickly you switched gears from thinking Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse was a lie
That is Grosskreutz's testimony. If you don't believe him, than you have nothing left that clearly shows Grosskreutz pointing a gun at Rittenhouse at all.to now thinking Grosskreutz pointed a gun faster than Rittenhouse.
Reading ordinary English is obviously out of your wheelhouse.Logical thinking and flat out evidence is not OB strong suits.
Evidence it was for fun?He just pointed his gun at Rittenhouse for fun.
Actually, you're currently agreeing with me against Al-O-Meter, who is saying Rittenhouse succeeded in aiming his gun first. Is that an example of your logical thinking?He even admits Rittenhouse didn't pull the trigger until he was in danger but OB just doesn't have the common sense.
I'm not going to pretend that I know why Rittenhouse brought a gun or what he thought he was accomplishing. You could be right.It would seem based on testimony, neither of them are murderers.
He's a kid. I think that often gets lost. He's a kid, and kids don't always make the best decisions. What I think is unconscionable is how Big Tech has conspired against him to ban any positive mention on their platforms, how GoFundMe shut down the effort to provide him a legal defense, how a Salt Lake City reporter sought to shut down any fundraising by using his platform on a TV station to shame a donor, nearly all media broadcasting a narrative that contained many falsehoods against him, how the President of the United States before the trial had happened said the evidence was overwhelming and wanted Rittenhouse quickly prosecuted. He's a kid.For most of us, if you don't go looking for trouble, you're unlikely to stumble into it. Rittenhouse, much like the rioters that night, did not subscribe to that theory.
Well, I can create a link that leads to more than an icon.Kenosha: teen charged with murder after two Black Lives Matter protesters killed
He's just so dumb. How a human can get this dumb baffles my mind.
Very true. Maybe there wasn't a curfew after all. Do you have evidence, or are you JAQing off?Fair Question:
Were you there when this happened?
The news coverage is unreliable.
I've seen the video, blown up, in frame-by-frame slow motion, many, many times. Grosskreutz never got his gun trained on Rittenhouse. He thought he had an opening, came out of his hand-up stance, moved to point his gun at Rittenhouse, but got shot before the he got aimed. The photo I showed is as close as Grosskreutz ever got.Except, as the testimony clearly says, Grosskreutz was already pointing his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Grosskreutz.
So, Grosskreutz lied in his testimony that he had his gun pointed at Rittenhouse?I've seen the video, blown up, in frame-by-frame slow motion, many, many times. Grosskreutz never got his gun trained on Rittenhouse. He thought he had an opening, came out of his hand-up stance, moved to point his gun at Rittenhouse, but got shot before the he got aimed. The photo I showed is as close as Grosskreutz ever got.
So, Grosskreutz is lying to make Rittenhouse look better (by saying the gun was pointing at Rittenhouse when it wasn't)? That's your current position?Either Grosskreutz was straight-up lying or Grosskreutz was mistaken and thought that was what Rittenhouse was doing which would explain why he thought he had an opening to shoot.
Yep, thanks to the prosecution obstructing the evidence collection he was able to say that. Although it would have been far better to have a copy of the phone it will still be interesting to see what Grosskreutz's roommate-at-the-time Jacob Marshall testifies on Wednesday. I have a feeling Marshall is going to say Grosskreutz is lying.
I had not seen this before. It lends some credence to GameFace's position on Rittenhouse, though not certainty.I'm not going to pretend that I know why Rittenhouse brought a gun or what he thought he was accomplishing. You could be right.
It depends on what you mean by "pointed at". If you only believe a gun is pointed at someone if when the trigger is pulled the bullet would hit the person, then it didn't get there. If you believe aiming in the general direction, as opposed to aiming at the ground, aiming at the sky, etc, then it was. The litmus test is the photo. That is as close as it got. If that is pointing at Kyle then it is. If you don't think that is pointing at Kyle then it isn't.So, Grosskreutz lied in his testimony that he had his gun pointed at Rittenhouse?
Grosskreutz didn't say what he did to help Rittenhouse. Just the opposite. Grosskreutz is trying to claim his loaded gun didn't represent a threat to Rittenhouse because if it had then he would have fired. Much like the phantom "re-rack", it is a fiction belied by the evidence.So, Grosskreutz is lying to make Rittenhouse look better (by saying the gun was pointing at Rittenhouse when it wasn't)? That's your current position?
That is true. It didn't. I don't know why if the roommate was going to recant what he said, that he would be a defense witness.Didn't quite work out like you thought, eh? As usual, rather than admit error, you ignore it.