Jump to content

Crocodile Tears From Rittenhouse!


Parsad
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not that Trump was perfect, certainly a flawed character, but looking better by the day. Nailed this one.

---

"You saw the same tape as I saw ... He was trying to get away from them, I guess, it looks like. ... and he fell, and then they very violently attacked him... it's under investigation.

...I guess, he was in very big trouble, he probably would have been killed, but it's under investigation."

---

Interesting framing with the title of the video...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Gregmal said:

I mean lets put this in perspective....

 

Jacob Blake was a scumbag and a violent criminal...the two people who Kyle shot, both were violent criminals and one was a raging pedophile.....

IDK but seems like everything turned out fine and the world is a better place. But leave it to the left and Blake is a hero, the pedophile and his pal are martyrs, and the 17 year old kid who earlier that day was washing vandal derived graffiti off a school building is the devil....makes total sense LOL

 

6 hours ago, Castanza said:

LMFAO Sanjeev is it a crime for someone to be associated with a group? It's not a crime to be an anti-white BLM racist just like it's not a crime to be a Nazi if one chooses to be. Even if it was proven that he was a "proud boys member" (zero evidence to suggest this) it ultimately doesn't matter for the specific case incident. Comparing him to OJ is also ridiculous...There was zero evidence or situations the remotely resembled the notorious "glove doesn't fit" incident. The judge allowed every piece of evidence that pertained to the case. 

He shot white people. He shot convicted felons. He shot convicted rapists. He shot them in self defense...perhaps he should have defended himself with a rubber chicken against a convicted rapist who had a firearm....Next time a woman protects herself with a firearm from being raped, please go tell her that she is a POS and that she should get 5-10 for assault with a deadly weapon. "recklessly endangering society" during a riot with hundreds of people starting fires, breaking windows, flipping cars, LOL "C'mon Man!" - Sleep Joe 

Your excuses are wanting. Honestly I respect you and most of your political opinions on this board. But your logic on this one is completely lacking. We obviously won't see eye to eye on this and that's fine. 

 

Castanza and Greg...would you feel totally comfortable with a stranger walking around your neighbourhood with a loaded AR-15...with your wife and children home?

Would you be ok if this stranger shot three people in your neighbourhood based on self-defense...even if only one of them was armed and did not discharge their weapon or point it at this stranger?

If you can HONESTLY answer "yes" to both questions...then we have no problem.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Parsad said:

Castanza and Greg...would you feel totally comfortable with a stranger walking around your neighbourhood with a loaded AR-15...with your wife and children home?

It is allowed under the law even if it is unusual to hang out in public with a loaded AR-15. 

Reminds me of the "naked guy" in Berkeley.  Legal, but unusual.

https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/How-Berkeley-s-Naked-Guy-met-a-tragic-end-3232119.php

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Castanza and Greg...would you feel totally comfortable with a stranger walking around your neighbourhood with a loaded AR-15...with your wife and children home?

Would you be ok if this stranger shot three people in your neighbourhood based on self-defense...even if only one of them was armed and did not discharge their weapon or point it at this stranger?

If you can HONESTLY answer "yes" to both questions...then we have no problem.  Cheers!

Is there a riot going on where my neighbors houses are being vandalized by a mob of a few hundred? If that answer is yes, the. My answer is yes. 
 

I mean you ignore all context and it’s laughable. You make it sound like Rittenhouse interrupted a prayer study at the local park, picked a fight and then shot three unarmed people. A felon had a gun (felony) and tried to use it (per testimony) but was too slow. How can you even say that Rittenhouse's use of a firearm was unjustified? His intuition was correct. 

 

Do I think it should be illegal for someone to walk down a street with an AR15 or a gun? No. Would I call the cops on someone walking down my street with an AR15? Yes I would. And the police would ask what they’re doing. If they have no I’ll intentions then they are on their way. I’m fine with that. But it should be known that I also have an AR15 in my house. And if said person got violent on my property or tried to attack one of my neighbors in a violent way you can be damn sure I would take care of the problem. 
 

As Eric said, it’s weird to do that. But in my opinion just because something is weird, doesn’t mean it should be illegal. 
 

i carried a deer rifle of my neighbors over to his house a few weeks ago after I did some work on it for him. Nobody batted an eye. Not everyone e everywhere is as paranoid as liberals when it comes to guns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 11:55 AM, Castanza said:


 

but I thought only “white” people were found innocent. Basically the same case as the Rittenhouse one and he was also found not guilty. 

He didn't get off for his stupidity:

Coffee was found guilty on a count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which could have a penalty of up to 30 years in prison.

He could get 30 years, whereas Rittenhouse will get nothing!  Rittenhouse at the very least should have gotten some sort of reckless endangerment charge and should have gotten at least 5 years for his stupidity.  Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Parsad said:

He didn't get off for his stupidity:

Coffee was found guilty on a count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, which could have a penalty of up to 30 years in prison.

He could get 30 years, whereas Rittenhouse will get nothing!  Rittenhouse at the very least should have gotten some sort of reckless endangerment charge and should have gotten at least 5 years for his stupidity.  Cheers!

He was a felon with a gun. 
 

Rittenhouse didn’t break any laws. And you can’t get reckless endangerment when you are acting in self defense. That doesn’t even make sense. Plus he showed restraint by only firing four shots. Again, stupidity is not illegal unless it breaks a law. 
 

Hopefully the jury gets this Aubrey case right. Guess you never know in Georgia 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/24/ahmaud-arbery-murder-trial-joe-biden-kamala-harris-respond-to-guilty-verdicts.html

Now its "the justice system working"...with Rittenhouse, he was "angry"....

So as I said earlier, I agree the jury got it right here, as well as in the Rittenhouse cases. But its 100% clear with a little bit of deducing, straight from Joe Biden's mouth, that he views people and the correctness of outcomes solely based on the color of skin. The definition of a racist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...