And if trained accountable people who have gone through a rigorous vetting period can do it. Then anyone can right?
There are detailed analysis of why that alleged talk was not admitted as evidence. Itâs all part of criminal law cases in the US. (And civil, but thatâs another topic).
As I seriously doubt you have any sort of real knowledge of how your own legal system works, let alone rules of evidence, so STFU about ours, or at least do some research, mmmkay?
Obviously the County Prosecutor has enough basis in law and facts to convince a magistrate judge to find probably cause for the charges and issue arrest warrants.
Beyond a reasonable doubt will take a whileâŚ
Right, Iâm doofadumbass doesnât understand how that works.
Very few people do in the USA.
None of your concern.
Stick to your own business, in Australia.
Itâs not like Brazil needs to hear the President of France run his stupid mouth about Brazilâs business.
Which is why Brazilians immediately started mocking him, and insulting him, when he did so.
And rightfully so, although I think they should have left his wife out of it, personally.
Iâm not pretending to be a lawyer or have any legal knowledge
Fact is, Kyle vocalised murder rampage fantasies, then low and behold he ended up killing folk
Coincidence?
Regulate them all and let God sort them out
Right, so you talk out of your ass.
And now you engage in hyperbole to cover up your ignorance.
You arenât stupid, you just seem that way.
Do you know how many people talk shit on a regular basis?
I donât know what the percentage is, but I suspect it is extremely fucking high.
I understand why the death fantasy talk was inimicible, I just donât agree with the law
So sue me
INADMISSABLE, you fucking idiot. I literally spelled it out for you previously.
It wouldnât be a coincidence if he said that two weeks prior then walked into the riot and started capping motherfuckers all over the shop.
It IS a coincidence because he was talking mad shit with his boys two weeks before acting like he was hard, then got attacked and had to defend himself.
You donât agree with the law because youâre a moron who doesnât understand the law.
No you donât, you are an idiot who doesnât even know how your own judicial system work.
Itâs not a law, either, so, once again, you ignorant fuckâŚ
I guarantee if you were on trial for murder, you 'd be VERY concerned about whatâs admissible as evidence and why.
1 Like
To make that claim it kind of has to be your business though doesnât it?
Rather than one random internet chirper saying it to another.
It is not your concern in the slightest, either way, unless you come to the United States.
In that case, you could speak to your point of view as a tourist, and as a guest of our country.
You are right in one sense, you are a random Internet chipper with regards to this issue, this situation, US gun laws, etc.
And are every bit as rude, and full of your fecal matter, as the President of France was, when he lacked the education and social graces, to know that Brazil did not need his opinions on Brazilian policies regarding agriculture, forestry, and fires, and then he was widely mocked, for his pretentiousness, ignorance, and lack of education and social graces in that regard.
Again, it was a shame, his critics also mocked his wife.
But, they were kind of making a point, because his comments were rude to their internal household matters, that were none of his business, and about which, he was clearly a fool.
By the way, if you wish to talk about how you do things, in Australia, I have no problem with that.
If you wish to talk about why you do those things in Australia, I have no problem with that.
If you state that what you do in Australia is what should be done in the United States, or anywhere else, then you are full of dung, and should be told so.
If you state that what you do in Australia is right, and different methods are wrong, then there is a good chance that you are full of dung.
You guys can have whatever gun laws you want in Australia, none of my business.
Not my concern.
Not my area of expertise.
If we are talking about my property, my area, my State, and my country, that is a different matter.
Because I have both skin in that game, and some knowledge in that area, of firearms, use cases for firearms, and of my property, my area, my State, and my country.
It doesnât matter you have a problem with though.
Not trying to be mean but If you want to make up a bunch of fantasy posting rules regarding who can discuss what. They really only apply to you.
Not anyone else.
If you want to discuss Australia on Bullshido with no skin in the game. What sort of arrogant screaming arsehole would I have to be to try to stop you?
In fact you have discussed Australia, I mean you got everything wrong, you seem to think we donât have cattle farms here or something. But you can say it. I donât own Australia. I donât own this forum.
You go buck wild.
Otherwise I can pretty much guarantee nobody has skin in this game. Nobody here is friends with Rittenhouse or was part of the trial or part of the protest or had any personal involvement with any of what is being discussed.
And everyone would have gotten their in depth personal knowledge of the situation from the internet. Which was exactly the same place I got mine.
The internet.
Pretending Otherwise is dishonest.
3 Likes
Whoa there sport, tie your kangaroo down there a minute
When did I claim to be a legal analyst?
The indimnicipliness of Kyleâs murder rampage fantasies was established before the trial even began
I get that that is the law in Wisconsin
Had his murder rampage fantasies been adniminipital do you think it would have altered the outcome of the trial?
I see you are perimenapausal, so I forgive your emotional outburst
If their actions have no bearing, neither does Rittenhouseâs.
Thatâs irrelevant anyway as the original point still stands. Theyâre attacked someone with an AR and lost, on camera. I still donât know why people are trying to put a spin on this.
As for deserving it, Iâd say they did. Iâm no fan of Rittenhouse but but was retreating in every case and was clearly shitting himself, they obviously saw him as an easy target and went for him. I mean the hubris of a stake board Vs an AR is pure gold.
2 Likes
I never said that you cannot post rude and stupid things here, as a âruleâ.
You thinking that is what I said, is another poker tell of how dense you are.
No dummy, I made fun of you for implying that you know anything about cowboying, because there are some Australian cowboys.
You are a total moron.
Every court decision sets precedents.
Therefore, every American has skin in the game when it comes to that trial.
Also, unlike you, I donât own toy guns, I own and carry real firearms.
In fact, I am licensed by my State to teach the classes, that qualify others to apply for their permits to carry firearms.
Court precedents regarding how firearms are carried, and may be used in self-defense, if attacked, therefore affect me.
This is what you and a lot of dummies often miss.
You canât read something on the Internet about many domains, and have the same interpretation ability as people with real, applied expertise in those domains.
Reading something on the Internet, as a lay person, is not remotely the same, as someone who is an expert in a domain.
You are like a kid who read about sex in a book, and has never done it.
It still never stops you from running your mouth, telling people who have had sex many times, what sex is like.
[A note for dummy Greg, the comment about sex, was an analogy, o dense one. You are not meant to take that one literally].