A sincere "thank you" to Deplorables for defending Chauvin, Babbitt & Rittenhouse

RoryN

You're screwed.
Joined
Apr 8, 2003
Posts
60,740
A sincere "thank you" to Deplorables for defending Chauvin, Babbitt & Rittenhouse

When it comes to these three, you've chosen your battles exceptionally poorly, and it's a massive boon for liberals.

Two of them already lost; we will very much enjoy the eventual trifecta. :heart:
 
Isn’t a yawn an indicator of a relaxed state. Just another indication of how full of shit you are. Guess I’m triggered. LMFAO

If she was relaxed and not triggered, she wouldn't have posted. Neither would you. :cool:
 
They have no response on the topic, other than to be triggered by the truth. :D

NEABGF
 
Deplorables sure have a knack for choosing losers as their heroes.
 
Your topic selection is a complete fail, it’s been beaten to death.

And yet, almost immediately, two of you Deplorables show up to comment. You've done so 4 times already.

Why? Because my topic hurts you. Truth always does with your kind. :kiss:
 
And yet, almost immediately, two of you Deplorables show up to comment. You've done so 4 times already.

Why? Because my topic hurts you. Truth always does with your kind. :kiss:


I commented on the definition of a yawn you dumbass! I could give a shit less on your dumbass topic.
 
Chauvin got a "trial." It wasn't much of a trial, but it was a trial.

Babbitt never got one, she was murdered by a cop for no reason.

Rittenhouse shot in self-defense, He's innocent.
 
LMFAO :D “lil dumb dumb”

Your typical brainless chicken shit response.

See your post I responded to and then get back to me, dipshit.

Chauvin got a "trial." It wasn't much of a trial, but it was a trial.

Babbitt never got one, she was murdered by a cop for no reason.

Rittenhouse shot in self-defense, He's innocent.

  • Chauvin got lucky.
  • Babbitt got what she deserved (so says the US legal system).
  • Rittenhouse crossed state lines with intent to kill whilst killing in "self-defense."
  • Dud will always be an idiot.
 
S
  • Chauvin got lucky.
  • Babbitt got what she deserved (so says the US legal system).
  • Rittenhouse crossed state lines with intent to kill whilst killing in "self-defense."
  • Dud will always be an idiot.

* Chauvin got a trial that should have, at minimum, had a change of venue
* Babbitt was unarmed, surrounded by LEOs on her side of the wall, and not in the least threatening the killer cop. The government ignored every standard of use of force to clear him.
* Rittenhouse did no such thing, he was there to provide first aid when he was assaulted repeatedly
* I again own your stupid ass
 
Rottenhouse needed a gun to provide that aid?
You don't even own your mobile home.
 
* Chauvin got a trial that should have, at minimum, had a change of venue

And the defence has grounds to appeal that decision by the Judge. However the fact a Judge made a ruling you don't like or agree with, is not grounds for a retrial. Sorry the trial was conducted according to your legal systems rules.


* Babbitt was unarmed, surrounded by LEOs on her side of the wall, and not in the least threatening the killer cop. The government ignored every standard of use of force to clear him.

After the fact,we all learned Babbitt was unarmed, but the cop in the moment had no clue, so he acted appropriately , an investigation was done, and he was cleared of all charges. Again the fact that you don't agree has nothing to do with due process.

* Rittenhouse did no such thing, he was there to provide first aid when he was assaulted repeatedly

I have no idea where you got the above from, my understanding was he volunteered to protect the property of an Automobile dealership with a group of other "adults".

When he got bored, or whatever, he wondered off, and eventually ended up shooting three people, killing two.

The rest of the facts have not been born out in court, and until they are, anything you or I suggest about what may or may not have happened are just opinion.
 
And the defence has grounds to appeal that decision by the Judge. However the fact a Judge made a ruling you don't like or agree with, is not grounds for a retrial. Sorry the trial was conducted according to your legal systems rules.

After the fact,we all learned Babbitt was unarmed, but the cop in the moment had no clue, so he acted appropriately , an investigation was done, and he was cleared of all charges. Again the fact that you don't agree has nothing to do with due process.

I have no idea where you got the above from, my understanding was he volunteered to protect the property of an Automobile dealership with a group of other "adults".

When he got bored, or whatever, he wondered off, and eventually ended up shooting three people, killing two.

The rest of the facts have not been born out in court, and until they are, anything you or I suggest about what may or may not have happened are just opinion.

* I'm hardly the only person noting the problems with holding the trial in Minneapolis, a city still reeling from the death and riots that followed. Dershowitz has been quite vocal about it, given that a number of jurors expressed open fear of being identified and hunted down by the same folks that torched the town. That's not an environment for a fair trial.

* The fact that we only knew after the fact about Babbitt being unarmed works against, not for, the killer cop. Cops don't get to blast away on the presumption that someone is armed, especially when the petite Babbitt posed no physical threat to the hulking cop. The cop had no indication she was armed, and the fact is she was surrounded by other cops behind her at the moment Mr. Trigger-Happy murdered her.

* There is video of Rittenhouse being interviewed before the shooting about what he was doing there. He clearly states he was there to help defend the dealership and render aid to anyone who needed it.

The first thug who assaulted KR did so because he thought KR had put out a dumpster fire. He chased him shouting threats, and caught a round for his trouble. The second good had assaulted KR in the street soon after, hitting him in the head with a skateboard and coming back for more when he was shot in the chest. Again, self-defense, clearly. The third goon assaulted KR and tried to pull his gun when KR shot his arm off. Self-defense, no question.
 
Back
Top