Would we expect anything less.
Printable View
Would we expect anything less.
Well if we are going by the evidence all his actions prior to being mobbed were helpful and not antagonistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Yes the situation was FUBAR which is exactly why he felt the need to go help, his words not mine. We can't just start making up reasons without evidence.
It appears that multiple organizations and public figures reached out to him after the incident, inuding the proud boys. I have yet to see any evidence of his association with any nefarious groups prior to the night of the shooting.
Gilroy you have used derogatory language to describe Rittenhouse all over this thread and that is the exact "internet tough guy" talk I was referring to in my original post.
Give me an example of my derogatory language?Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrible_E
The "proud boys" thing was hearsay without proof. I would think that's why the "evidence" was not admitted. The judge was right on top of it. The fact the kid armed himself and went to where the SHTF is "moot" because it was 100% legal. That,too,is why no charges were laid. We may find it ridiculous by our standards,but,alas,that's the law in those states. Any self respecting lawyer would have the FB account disabled,immediately,to prevent intrusion by those attempting to make this a "right/left" thing. Anyone attempting to launch a lawsuit against a minor will have a very tough uphill battle. No matter how many judgements some ambulance-chasing jacka** of a lawyer thinks he can get out of some kid that doesn't have a pot to pee in or the window to through it from ain't got a hope. No matter how hard they try,they can't get blood from a stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
It's funny you're trying to deny this. I'm not going through the whole thread again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
In your opening comment you call him a weekend warrior who is a weak and scrawny kid who can't defend himself. I'm paraphrasing but this is the gist of your point.
Well the post where I laid out the facts and said I wouldn't wast my time, I changed my mind, one more.
https://www.oodmag.com/community/sho...=1#post1180279
but this is just too good and accurate.
Rittenhouse Unloads On Prosecutor Binger: ‘A Corrupt Person Who Just Wants To Make A Name For Himself’
https://www.dailywire.com/news/ritte...e-for-himself?
Looks like "G" still trying to make it about race and the group that stands up to ANTIFA and BLM (Proud Boys, that according to the media is white supremacist but is run by a black Cuban.) ???
Well "certain elements" down there just raised 2 million big one's for his defense in this trail?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...t-quality-aid/
He will get sued and he will go down. The social media accounts have already been recorded for evidence.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...eaths-rcna6207
Yes I have a low opinion of this person, I think I am entitled to my opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrible_E
I stand by everything I said about him including those described words.
I mean if you liked judging books by their cover sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
Glad to know your proud of insulting a 17 year old on the internet.
In Canada, for something to constitute fair comment, the comment must be on a matter of public interest (excluding gossip), based on known and provable facts, must be an opinion that any person is capable of holding based on those facts, and with no actual malice underlying it. The cardinal test of whether a statement is fair comment is whether it is recognizable as an opinion rather than a statement of fact, and whether it could be drawn from the known facts. There was formerly a rule stating that the opinion must be honestly held by the publisher (See Chernesky v. Armadale Publications Ltd. [1978] 6 W.W.R. 618 (S.C.C.)) but this rule was changed to one requiring that the opinion is capable of being held by anyone. (See Rafe Mair v. Kari Simpson [2008] 2 S.C.R. 420Quote:
Originally Posted by Terrible_E