No – you said that “the moment the victim is a white male exercising their basic rights you can’t do that, you condemn him”
That is what I’m asking for – please cite this. I’m not denying it – I don’t think I’ve done this, and I don’t accept your accusation without a cite, but maybe I did and you can prove it. So prove it. I don’t think I said this, so if you think I did then prove it with a specific cite.
No you didn’t – you objected to a neutral, purely factual statement.
Why his posts give YOU that impression is that you’re a drooling moron. Come back when you’ve fixed that.
You called Rittenhouse a murderer in the thread you linked to - with context, in the actual post you linked to. Despite proof being shown in the trial that he acted in self defence. Your own words condemn you, but you don’t see that, so quoting more of them won’t help.
But hey, we can test this. Deny Rittenhouse is a murderer. Deny Zimmerman is a murderer.
I’ll have you know I’m not currently drooling.
Very interesting that after oh so many discussions about law, Steophan still factually falsely believes that a “not guilty” verdict is somehow a finding of innocence, or a finding of self-defense, or a finding of anything, when all it’s a finding of is that the case against the defendant has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. IANAL, but I know this very basic legal fact. Steophan, you still appear not to know this.
Fact check: True! So, not an insult.
Cite this. Be specific. I’m not aware that I called anyone a murderer in that thread, aside from KKK killers who were acquitted or ignored in a white supremacist judicial system of the early 20th.
I just went through every single post I made in that thread. I didn’t call Rittenhouse, or anyone aside from those KKK people, a murderer.
Two things. Firstly, innocent until proven guilty is a legal fact, so a finding of “not guilty” reaffirms that fact. Secondly, I didn’t claim that the result of the trial proves innocence, I said it was proven at the trial. Sufficient evidence was produced at the trials of both Zimmerman and Rittenhouse to prove innocence in addition to the legal fact of their innocence.
You have responded to posts where I’ve explained this before, so you know my views, and yet decided to falsely represent my views. Hypocrite.
As I said, I’m not currently drooling. So, false!
Factually false. This is a slogan, not a legal fact. If you believe “not guilty” means, legally speaking, innocent, then provide such a cite. Otherwise, you are factually false.
This is your opinion, not fact. Opinions and facts are different things.
Let’s see a cite for this. So far all your accusations have been false – you’ve objected to neutral statements of fact, and made false and unsupported accusations of things I’ve said.
Come on andy, prove me wrong.
I laughed!
Are you so fucking stupid that you don’t understand how our legal system works? Rittenhouse wasn’t “proven to have been acting in self defense”; the prosecution simply failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he was not.
I did. I didn’t call Rittenhouse a murderer anywhere in that thread. I doubt I’ve called him a murderer in any thread.
If you don’t believe me, prove me wrong. Vote.
There was video shown in court of him being chased and attacked as he was running away. That’s proof of self defence and, as the video was presented in court, we know it’s both factual and relevant. The verdict doesn’t prove him innocent, I will grant, as it doesn’t need to - he’s factually innocent until proven guilty.
Nice to see that you’re capable of admitting you’re wrong!
Now let’s see cites for the claims you made about me.
There comes a point when the difference between intentionally making provocative posts and being too stupid to avoid making provocative posts is small enough that it doesn’t matter.
Ignore them and let the mods deal with the mess.
So, repeat after me - “Rittenhouse is not a murderer, and nor is Zimmerman”. If you believe that, then say it. It’s not hard.
Of course you won’t, though. You are incapable of stating a fact that conflicts with your bias.
I’ve admitted I’m wrong many times on this board. What I’m not wrong about is that the evidence provided at the trials of both Rittenhouse and Zimmerman proves they were innocent. The court won’t announce this because it doesn’t need to, it’s not their job to, because in general we don’t expect people to prove their innocence we presume it.
You made a claim about me. That claim was false.
Now would be the time to apologize to me for making a false claim about me, not playing some weird pretend mind reading game.