[Westie Man]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Yeah that judge is having trouble speaking coherently. The "news articles" that quote him aren't quoting him in full. They're heavily editing what he actually was saying, so that their readers can make sense of it.

He forbade anyone calling the victims of the shooting - victims. In medical terms, that's what they were. Victims. They didn't die of old age. They were victims of fatal wounds from gunshots. Just like someone who dies from cancer is a victim of cancer. And someone who falls off a ladder is a victim of a broken neck. Someone who is killed in a car crash is a victim of massive internal injuries.

Victim is a 100%valid word to use for someone who is dead as a result of a gunshot. But the judge wants to minimize the "victimhood" of the victims by forbidding the word.

It was okay to call the victims rioters or looters, if it could be proven that they were. He actually pro-actively stated as such. But he pre-emptively forbade the word "victim." Even if it could be proven they were victims, they aren't allowed to call them that and when one witnessed used the word in his testimony the judge went ballistic.

(I was watching this on Fox News, at the time, in case anyone REALLY and SINCERELY gives a crap)

He is gaslighting a trial he presides over.

While being deposed by the defense attorney I called myself the victim. The attorney replied that the State of Florida is the victim

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Vermilion Villager

Hopefully your 17yo son wouldn't illegally obtain an assault rifle then go to another state to parade around in an area where there is civil unrest with it strapped across his back looking for trouble....hopefully

My grandson has a mounted buck head that he shot when he was 11yo.

Not to seem biased, but it does seem that city folk have an innate fear of big bad guns. Wonder why the survivor of the shooting is not ostracized for pointing a pistol at the DEFENDANT, the way this young man is criminalized for defending himself.

Hey, maybe that guy would not have been shot if he had not been where he should not have been, and brandishing an illegally possessed pistol while chasing a person down the street. I am presupposing that he illegally possessed the pistol, based on the statement by him that his CCW permit was expired at the time of the shooting.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

You mean it won't get me out of a ticket? Damn!

I stand corrected.. There are always exceptions...

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Hifred

You are forgetting those whose lives were lost. To you it is entertainment.....to the families and those that loved the people who died it is life altering. Have compassion.

To me, it's just street justice. Sometimes you just have to accept the good with the bad. I am sure that the families are thinking of how much money they may be able to get out of the system and that those two finally may have been productive for something in their lives.

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

And that makes him a "white supremacist?" SO, shooting three white guys is proof that he is a racist? I know of several racists in The Villages, but that does not make me a racist. Some folks just jump to conclusions based on what someone tells them, and others reason things out and do not condemn based on gossip and rumor.

there are pictures of him making the white power ok sign....no one forced him to do that.

so you know several people that are racists...do you hang out with them in bars letting them serenade you with Proud Boys anthem????

idk, if I was awaiting trial for killing people at a Black Lives Matter protest, it's not something I would do. I would use my "reasoning" to think that's not a good look.

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

The t-shirt proves nothing...

That "gesture" has also been used by countless others, as I showed earlier in this thread. It proves nothing...

Being given a drink by his parent proves nothing...

And what is this "Proud Boys Anthem" you speak of?

well....he was awaiting trial for killing people at a Black Lives Matter protest....he was there illegally carrying a weapon now he was again breaking the law by drinking in a bar (if his mother wants to give him a drink in the privacy of their home, that's different) to do so in public seems like a flaunting display of entitlement.

“Proud of Your Boy” a song written for the 1992 Disney film “Aladdin,” but not used until a 2011 stage adaptation, and is the source of the name of the far-right group self-described “western chauvinist” group the Proud Boys. Prosecutors said the song sung by members of the Proud Boys “as an anthem and for self-identification.”

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by George Page

Please provide a source for this claim

Good luck with your request. There are posters who have a history of inaccuracy in their posts, but they never provide proof of their assertions. It is easier to misrepresent than it is to actually do a little research. Even when presented with proof that they were incorrect, they will stick to "their truth".

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

there are pictures of him making the white power ok sign....no one forced him to do that.

so you know several people that are racists...do you hang out with them in bars letting them serenade you with Proud Boys anthem????

idk, if I was awaiting trial for killing people at a Black Lives Matter protest, it's not something I would do. I would use my "reasoning" to think that's not a good look.

I don't know what a "white power sign" is, but last I heard there was no law regarding the gesture. Was that instrumental in his shooting three WHITE guys?
I don't hang around in any bars, and I do not know what the "Proud Boys Anthem" is. Does that make me want to go out and shoot three WHITE guys?
Why don't you contact the young man and give him suggestions on how your "reasoning" and what a "good look" to be so he can emulate it?


So, you believe the guy to be guilty of being a racist, therefore he is sure to go out and shoot three white guys for no other reason than they were following him down the street?

[Bonnevie]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Well, he didn't have an AK-47, so there's that...

yes, that's so much better. it was only an AK-15 style rifle
so what's the big deal some teenager was roaming the streets with it? oh,yeah there's this:

AR-15 rifles are lighter and have a higher rate of accuracy than the AK-47, but the AK-47 is considerably cheaper and more dependable in comparison.

and this:The AR-15 is sometimes called "America's Rifle" because it is the most popular long gun in the country. There are around 10 million AR-15 units currently in the United States. In fact, the AR-15 has also been popular with perpetrators of mass shootings — the gun was used in the San Bernardino, Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings.

whew, I feel so much better now that you said it wasn't an AK-47

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by christine J Toft

Thank you for some clarity need by many!

Actually the poster did not provide clarity as their post was proven not factual with the trial transcripts. It would be more accurate to say that the post "muddied the waters".

NO ONE has yet to provide proof of the inaccurate allegations the poster made, as well as those who have posted similar comments. Do you have proof that those statements are actually fact? And be careful citing a MSM source since the there is a proven history of misinformation (remember Nicholas Sandman?).

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

well....he was awaiting trial for killing people at a Black Lives Matter protest....he was there illegally carrying a weapon now he was again breaking the law by drinking in a bar (if his mother wants to give him a drink in the privacy of their home, that's different) to do so in public seems like a flaunting display of entitlement.

“Proud of Your Boy” a song written for the 1992 Disney film “Aladdin,” but not used until a 2011 stage adaptation, and is the source of the name of the far-right group self-described “western chauvinist” group the Proud Boys. Prosecutors said the song sung by members of the Proud Boys “as an anthem and for self-identification.”

Wow, no one ever drank an alcoholic beverage before they were adults before. I guess I am guilty of murder because I had a draft beer given to me by a relative in bar. Sounds real ominous.

And now, a Disney theme song makes the young man a racist? Still trying to figure out why it matters if a racist shoots someone in self defense is any different than someone that is a Methodist or a Catholic shoots someone. And what is really interesting is that the supposed "racist" shot three white guys. I have not heard of any minorities shot by this supposed mass murderer.

So, the consensus by CERTAIN folks on here is that if you are around anyone that might be racist, you are deemed a racist and therefore must be a mass murderer. And if you are a racist and shoot a white guy in self defense, you are guilty of murder regardless of whether or not you feared for your life.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

"Poor decisions?" Hmmm, I wonder what some on here would do if confronted with the same situation. I probably would have approached the situation a bit more cautiously, but I would probably be on trial for THREE deaths instead of just two. I've had more experience over the years with firearms, I'm sure. I doubt I would have been able to attempt to outrun the crowd, so I would have had to make a fast decision as to what I would have to do to protect myself. "Poor decision?"

Well - you can ask MOST people in this country. Since every single person in this country had the same options:

a) Show up in a town you don't know anything about, in a state you don't even live in, at while you are still a minor who isn't even eligible to join the armed forces, armed with a semi-automatic weapon that had previously been classified as an actual assault weapon, to an event where you know you will be expecting violence, which is why you are bringing your firearm, to "protect" or "defend" people who never asked you to show up at all.

Or

b) Stay home, or go to work, or go to school if it was on a school day, or go outside and toss a football with your pals, or go shopping, or "anything OTHER than the above paragraph."

Most people chose option b.

In fact, even most people who chose to attend the event weren't armed at all, let alone with a semi-automatic weapon. MOST people chose not to be armed with a firearm at all.

MOST people were not shot at, and MOST people were not killed. And MOST people - including the people who WERE armed - chose not to shoot anyone.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Well - you can ask MOST people in this country. Since every single person in this country had the same options:

a) Show up in a town you don't know anything about, in a state you don't even live in, at while you are still a minor who isn't even eligible to join the armed forces, armed with a semi-automatic weapon that had previously been classified as an actual assault weapon, to an event where you know you will be expecting violence, which is why you are bringing your firearm, to "protect" or "defend" people who never asked you to show up at all.

Or

b) Stay home, or go to work, or go to school if it was on a school day, or go outside and toss a football with your pals, or go shopping, or "anything OTHER than the above paragraph."

Most people chose option b.

In fact, even most people who chose to attend the event weren't armed at all, let alone with a semi-automatic weapon. MOST people chose not to be armed with a firearm at all.

MOST people were not shot at, and MOST people were not killed. And MOST people - including the people who WERE armed - chose not to shoot anyone.

Wow, now that is not only totally erroneous, but also a very desperate response. You attempt to make suppositions where they really do not exist. Sorry, but my best response is that your post is just wrong.....

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

My grandson has a mounted buck head that he shot when he was 11yo.

Not to seem biased, but it does seem that city folk have an innate fear of big bad guns. Wonder why the survivor of the shooting is not ostracized for pointing a pistol at the DEFENDANT, the way this young man is criminalized for defending himself.

Hey, maybe that guy would not have been shot if he had not been where he should not have been, and brandishing an illegally possessed pistol while chasing a person down the street. I am presupposing that he illegally possessed the pistol, based on the statement by him that his CCW permit was expired at the time of the shooting.

Ooopsie! That's a big no-no...

My guess is that he should have continued to treat injured people, like Rittenhouse was attempting to do... If he had simply "kept it in his pants"...

Now that I think about it, that's sage advice for many!

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Proveone

The judge is a nut case. He is an elected official and playing to his "audience". Pathetic human being! The prosecution is inept. Rittenhouse should have stuck to video games. He will be a "marked" person if he gets off. By the way, so that's how you entertain yourself with popcorn?

So if Rittenhouse is found not guilty by reason of self defense, you find it perfectly acceptable to post a threat?

You do realize that the judge is trying to work around the deliberate prosecutorial misconduct in this trial? I believe that the prosecutor (based upon his star witness admitting he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse BEFORE he was shot, and the other prosecution witness saying under oath that the prosecutor's office tried to get him to change his statement) is trying to "tank" this trial as he knows his case is most likely a lost cause. The prosecutor doesn't want "the loss", so he is hoping to force the judge to render a mistrial. I don't believe that the judge wants to take the case away from the jury, as he stopped himself from openly, on the record, indicating that the prosecutor has crossed the line and provided grounds for mistrial or appeal.

Again, why aren't people concerned that a prosecutor would DELIBERATELY violate Rittenhouse's constitutional rights to remain silent? It doesn't matter if he is found guilty or not guilty, the prosecutor should be sanctioned for misconduct at the least.