New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Tucker Carlson on Rittenhouse: “What a sweet kid”

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Obviously I disagree with your characterization of the jury.
It's actually your characterization that's in the wrong. It was either a properly selected jury or it was not, now that they've not reached your desired hate mongering verdict you dutifully have to start attacking them. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
It's actually your characterization that's in the wrong. It was either a properly selected jury or it was not, now that they've not reached your desired hate mongering verdict you dutifully have to start attacking them. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
Rittenhouse had a very favorable jury. His jury consultant was the same woman who did jury consulting for OJ.

Ironic, no?

;-)
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
It's actually your characterization that's in the wrong. It was either a properly selected jury or it was not, now that they've not reached your desired hate mongering verdict you dutifully have to start attacking them. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
It's what kids do when they don't get their way
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Rittenhouse had a very favorable jury. His jury consultant was the same woman who did jury consulting for OJ.

Ironic, no?

;-)

Therefore....?

In reality you don't know who the jurors are..do you? They all could have been a fair representation of people from all walks of life....
 

EatTheRich

President
It's actually your characterization that's in the wrong. It was either a properly selected jury or it was not, now that they've not reached your desired hate mongering verdict you dutifully have to start attacking them. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.
The question isn’t how they were selected (the lavishly funded defense using their challenges strategically while the haphazard prosecution didn’t really try to influence jury makeup) but how they made their decision (among other things, in the context of armed threats by folks like Maserati Mike).
 

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
The question isn’t how they were selected (the lavishly funded defense using their challenges strategically while the haphazard prosecution didn’t really try to influence jury makeup) but how they made their decision (among other things, in the context of armed threats by folks like Maserati Mike).
My gawd stop crying verdict is sealed
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
The question isn’t how they were selected (the lavishly funded defense using their challenges strategically while the haphazard prosecution didn’t really try to influence jury makeup) but how they made their decision (among other things, in the context of armed threats by folks like Maserati Mike).
Wait...so thinking strategically is wrong?
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
It is if your aim is to pervert the course of justice and help a guilty man get away with murder.
No. Not at all. That's your evil cast. Once again, I've substantiated my position over and over again. You've yet to present a thing...
 

EatTheRich

President
No. Not at all. That's your evil cast. Once again, I've substantiated my position over and over again. You've yet to present a thing...
Nonsense. You keep coming back to the verdict and ignoring that reaching the verdict required the cooperation of prosecutors and the judge with the defense as well as armed intimidation of the jury.
 

PhilFish

Administrator
Staff member
Nonsense. You keep coming back to the verdict and ignoring that reaching the verdict required the cooperation of prosecutors and the judge with the defense as well as armed intimidation of the jury.
Nah.. not at all

That's you throwing all you can fabricate in your anger and hate
 
No. My view is that one cannot start shit, and then claim self defense when that shit ensues. And that’s what Rittenhouse did.

What if those who chased Rittenhouse did so to disarm him so he wouldn’t shoot others? Do you think Rittenhouse was still justified in shooting them?
SJW's Vigilantes

Your lovely dirtbags, who are now taking a dirtnap, were there to participate in the looting and the shooting of any concerned citizen who tried to stop them and their baboon buddies. It's the only way Whiggers can prove to themselves that they're not losers and immature weaklings. "I'm blacker than Black, bro!"
 
Nonsense. You keep coming back to the verdict and ignoring that reaching the verdict required the cooperation of prosecutors and the judge with the defense as well as armed intimidation of the jury.
One Riot, One Ranger

This is the opposite situation from the OJ case, where the prosecution bungled on purpose, throwing the case because of the feral extortion which is all a race riot amounts to. But the Kenosha prosecution, even feeling the same extortion, bungled only because Rittenhouse never should have been charged with anything. Desperate to avoid a race riot using an acquittal as a phony excuse (as with Rodney King), the prosecution did the best they could, but their case was hopeless from the start. Luckily, Kyle's Commandos have long-range deadly accurate hunting rifles or the Kenyan's Kenosha would be burning to the ground, cremating Kyle's attackers.
 

EatTheRich

President
One Riot, One Ranger

This is the opposite situation from the OJ case, where the prosecution bungled on purpose, throwing the case because of the feral extortion which is all a race riot amounts to. But the Kenosha prosecution, even feeling the same extortion, bungled only because Rittenhouse never should have been charged with anything. Desperate to avoid a race riot using an acquittal as a phony excuse (as with Rodney King), the prosecution did the best they could, but their case was hopeless from the start. Luckily, Kyle's Commandos have long-range deadly accurate hunting rifles or the Kenyan's Kenosha would be burning to the ground, cremating Kyle's attackers.
This is the opposite situation but for the opposite reasons of the one you claim. Prosecutors bungled the Rittenhouse case on purpose because due to popular pressure (and they were far more concerned about the peaceful demonstrations they clamped down so hard on than the riots which occurred in the wake of that crackdown) they could not avoid charging him; their best and brightest worked around the clock to convict Simpson but couldn’t because the case was weak.
 

God of War

Lets go Brandon!
You lump everyone among the protesters together: if one person starts a fire they are all arsonists. What it means that one person was seen with Ziminski is that Ziminski was in the same town they were in. There is no evidence he or anyone seen with him started a fire, and no evidence that when he fired his gun it was not to deter an immediate deadly threat from Rittenhouse or one of his Proud Boys allies. It is not surprising or revelatory that people wanted to harm Rittenhouse after he started shooting unarmed protesters.
Nobody as a protester after dark is up to any good. Free speech needs to end at sunset so that by nightfall the community is protected from the worse impulses of the protesters.
 
Top