Guns!

[Stripe]

A rabbi, a Hindu and a lawyer are in a car that breaks down in the countryside one evening. They walk to a nearby farm and the farmer tells them it’s too late for a tow truck and he has only two extra beds, so one of them will have to sleep in the barn.

The Hindu says: “I’m humble, I’ll sleep in the barn.” But minutes later he returns and knocks on the door and says: “There is a cow in the barn. It’s against my beliefs to sleep in the same building as a cow.”

So the rabbi says: “It’s okay, I’ll sleep in the barn.” But soon, he is back knocking on the door as well, saying: “There is a pig in the barn, and I cannot shelter in a building with a pig.”

So the lawyer is forced to sleep in the barn.

Shortly, there is another knock on the door and the farmer sighs and answers it. It’s the pig and the cow.

 

[Right Divider]

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Clete]

I am happy to see that you accept the verdict of the jury.

You clearly don't.

 

[Nick M]

How does that (if at all) excuse the three men who attacked him?

There are honest, yet stupid people that think he was an"active shooter" because the prince of power of the air said so.

 

[ok doser]

There are honest, yet stupid people that think he was an"active shooter" because the prince of power of the air said so.

Thinking for yourself is extremely dangerous for democracy

 

[Avajs]

You clearly don't.

He had really good lawyers compared to the prosecution. I accept it because the case was tried and the jury reached a verdict. I didnt hear all the evidence. I can still think he was foolhardy and we dont really know what happened that night because two of the people he claimed attacked him are dead. Those here who seem to think that he was correct in killing criminals are simply wrong--that is not the way the law is supposed to work. Remember, he had the benefit of a trial, those he killed did not.
The lawyer jokes are great by the way. Lots of family members are lawyers.

 

[Avajs]

Thinking for yourself is extremely dangerous for democracy

Was that clip supposed to be related to Rittenhouse?

 

[Avajs]

The rifle was for self-defense (and the defense of others); you dishonest hack.

Which ignores the issues of why he went there at all and if he claimed he went as a medic, why was he then supposed to defend people with his weapon? I await your next ad hominem.

 

[ok doser]

... we dont really know what happened that night ...

There's video. That the jurors found persuasive.

... he was correct in killing criminals ...

He was correct in killing criminals who were trying to kill him

 

[Clete]

He had really good lawyers compared to the prosecution. I accept it because the case was tried and the jury reached a verdict. I didnt hear all the evidence. I can still think he was foolhardy and we dont really know what happened that night because two of the people he claimed attacked him are dead. Those here who seem to think that he was correct in killing criminals are simply wrong--that is not the way the law is supposed to work. Remember, he had the benefit of a trial, those he killed did not.
The lawyer jokes are great by the way. Lots of family members are lawyers.

You are definitely a foolish moron. The facts of the case even as presented by the regular idiotic press exonerates him.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee Avajs. You are actively supporting and even participating in that which is going to destroy this nation and you along with it. Read a history book about communism and fascism that was written more than twenty years ago and try to learn how to think for yourself. Read Ayn Rand! I dare you to read Ayn Rand!

 

[Right Divider]

Which ignores the issues of why he went there at all and if he claimed he went as a medic, why was he then supposed to defend people with his weapon?

• Where did you hear such a claim?
• My understanding is that his stated claim as to why he was there was to help protect businesses and their owners from rioters.

 

[Avajs]

You are definitely a foolish moron. The facts of the case even as presented by the regular idiotic press exonerates him.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee Avajs. You are actively supporting and even participating in that which is going to destroy this nation and you along with it. Read a history book about communism and fascism that was written more than twenty years ago and try to learn how to think for yourself. Read Ayn Rand! I dare you to read Ayn Rand!

Ah another ad hominem.
And Ayn Rand? Why? She would not have approved of Rittenhouse's desire to help his fellow man.

 

[Clete]

Ah another ad hominem.

It was NOT an ad hominem! Oh! How I wish people would learn what that term actually means!

And Ayn Rand? Why? She would not have approved of Rittenhouse's desire to help his fellow man.

Are you just completely ignorant of every single thing you say anything about?

 

[Avajs]

• Where did you hear such a claim?
• My understanding is that his stated claim as to why he was there was to help protect businesses and their owners from rioters.

There was testimony at his trial that he claimed he was a certified medic. Clearly an untrained 17 year old, not even old enough to
Own the weapon he had is just the person to drive 20 miles to insert himself
In the middle of a riot

 

[Avajs]

It was NOT an ad hominem! Oh! How I wish people would learn what that term actually means!




Are you just completely ignorant of every single thing you say anything about?

Please enlighten me,thanks

 

[Right Divider]

There was testimony at his trial that he claimed he was a certified medic.

That is NOT the same as your CLAIM. You are a dishonest hack, just like I said earlier.

Clearly an untrained 17 year old, not even old enough to
Own the weapon he had is just the person to drive 20 miles to insert himself
In the middle of a riot

Clearly, ruled self-defense.

 

[Avajs]

That is NOT the same as your CLAIM. You are a dishonest hack, just like I said earlier.

Clearly, ruled self-defense.

Is it your standard operating procedure to call people names?
And yes, the jury agreed it was self defense and yes he told people at the riot he was a certified medic.
And OJ was not guilty as well, right?
Juries in both cases decided. If the state did not like the result it should have appealed. If I thought both of the decisions wrong then too bad for me. But I did not hear the evidence.

 

[Right Divider]

Is it your standard operating procedure to call people names?

My policy is to tell the truth. Too bad that hurts your feelings.

And yes, the jury agreed it was self defense and yes he told people at the riot he was a certified medic.

Again, that was NOT your original claim.

And OJ was not guilty as well, right?

Irrelevant misdirection.

Juries in both cases decided. If the state did not like the result it should have appealed. If I thought both of the decisions wrong then too bad for me.

The videos that I saw clearly showed him defending himself.

But I did not hear the evidence.

Figures.

 

[ok doser]

• Where did you hear such a claim?
• My understanding is that his stated claim as to why he was there was to help protect businesses and their owners from rioters.

My understanding is that he worked as a lifeguard at a public pool and as such would have been trained in CPR and other basic first responder techniques.

 

[Stripe]

Two shots or two criminals? I was just playing off the "3 shots" from the previous post.

Sorry. I misread your post.