Ritttenhouse Trial

[nursej22]

The Rittenhouse trial has begun in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The prosecution is presenting first, but apparently the defense argument will be self-defense. So a 17 year old travels out of state with his rifle to a demonstration because he fears for his life? 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

33 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Gotcha! So have I. All of it. Watched it all. There you are with your redundant vocabulary specification. 

1 and 1st can be the same thing because 1 is 1. So I said murder one. Anyone with a brain would figure that out. 

The difference here is that I am willing to watch it all with the ability to change my mind. Ypu have several times demonstrated that this is something you cannot do very well. 

So we will see but will you actually? 

It's interesting that you claim to have watched all of the trial so far but seem to not be aware of some of the introduced evidence.  Maybe you closed your eyes for a minute.  

Yeah, you said murder one but Rittenhouse isn't charged with any level of murder.  I just shared with you the charges against Rittenhouse.  Is that evidence that you don't read my comments or don't you understand the difference between between homicide and murder charges?

Are you able to change your mind? Are you willing to change your mind? I'm not certain that there's evidence of that in these threads so we'll just have to accept your self assessment for what it is. 

[Cclm, LPN]

45 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It's interesting that you claim to have watched all of the trial so far but seem to not be aware of some of the introduced evidence.  Maybe you closed your eyes for a minute.  

Yeah, you said murder one but Rittenhouse isn't charged with any level of murder.  I just shared with you the charges against Rittenhouse.  Is that evidence that you don't read my comments or don't you understand the difference between between homicide and murder charges?

Are you able to change your mind? Are you willing to change your mind? I'm not certain that there's evidence of that in these threads so we'll just have to accept your self assessment for what it is. 

Maybe I closed my eyes like Biden? You don't know if I was listening or not. You have failed to establish any evidence that I wasn't paying attention. Because my eyes were closed. Right? 

[Cclm, LPN]

I was referring to this when I said murder 1. 

First-degree intentional homicide

The crime, analogous to first-degree murder in other states, is defined as causing the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or someone else, without the presence of certain mitigating circumstances specified in the law.

From NYT article. 

I said murder not homicide.  Sorry. 

[toomuchbaloney]

9 hours ago, Cclm said:

Maybe I closed my eyes like Biden? You don't know if I was listening or not. You have failed to establish any evidence that I wasn't paying attention. Because my eyes were closed. Right? 

You are unaware of the charges against Rittenhouse and many details of the already presented evidence even though you stated that you've watched all of the trial so far...so you explain that away.  You've been concerned that Biden wasn't listening or paying attention when his eyes were closed so maybe that's what happened with you too? Or maybe that type observation or possibility is reserved exclusively for Biden? Because after having his eyes closed Biden delivered an important, cogent and on topic speech on the topic of climate change while you don't seem to know what happened during a trial that you said you've been watching.  

 

9 hours ago, Cclm said:

I said murder not homicide.  Sorry.

It only took a snide remark and a double down in a couple different responses for you to internalize that a homicide charge is much different from a murder charge in every American state. 

Are you apologizing for your initial response to the correction? There's no need to apologize for getting something wrong, no one is right all of the time.  

[Cclm, LPN]

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

You are unaware of the charges against Rittenhouse and many details of the already presented evidence even though you stated that you've watched all of the trial so far...so you explain that away.  You've been concerned that Biden wasn't listening or paying attention when his eyes were closed so maybe that's what happened with you too? Or maybe that type observation or possibility is reserved exclusively for Biden? Because after having his eyes closed Biden delivered an important, cogent and on topic speech on the topic of climate change while you don't seem to know what happened during a trial that you said you've been watching.  

 

It only took a snide remark and a double down in a couple different responses for you to internalize that a homicide charge is much different from a murder charge in every American state. 

Are you apologizing for your initial response to the correction? There's no need to apologize for getting something wrong, no one is right all of the time.  

I was hoping that there could have been a different type of communication with you. 

This is a trial. It is undecided if he is guilty or not. I said what I think. Now you obviously have a different interpretation. I think your mind is made up already and it doesn't matter what happenes during this trial. 

You are not the judge, the juror the lawyers or anything. You are not the deciding authority no matter how much you spend your retirement forming radical bias opinions on everything and thinking you are correct about anything and everything. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make me ignorant. I did watch it and will continue to as it happens. What I may think thus far is different. That doesn't mean I didn't watch it or don't have a fundamental understanding of bla bla bla in my conservative media era or whatever verbal diarrhea you spew. Along with your stringent attention of specific definitions you think makes you superior. 

My eyes were open and I was aware of where and who I am. Biden? Not so much. Trueinternationslunderpressireblablabeblbl. 

Now go watch the trial and understand there is a issue to be decided, hence there is a trial. The jury will ultimately decide not you. If he's found not guilty, I can't wait to see what baloney you will come up with. 

Oh and yeah. 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

I was hoping that there could have been a different type of communication with you. 

That would require that you stick to facts and evidence rather than offering up your feelings or unfactual musings about the trial.  I'm interested in discussing the facts and evidence. 

 

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

This is a trial. It is undecided if he is guilty or not. I said what I think. Now you obviously have a different interpretation. I think your mind is made up already and it doesn't matter what happenes during this trial. 

I imagine that you have made some assumptions about my thinking even though I've shared my thinking with you.  That's a recurring issue in our discussions...you stating assumption and belief as if it is established and accepted truth or fact. It certainly won't matter what happens in this trial if you don't actually pay attention to the evidence, testimony or proceedings and continue to imply things not discovered or proven. 

So far you haven't actually discussed details of this trial with attention to facts or details.  

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

You are not the judge, the juror the lawyers or anything. You are not the deciding authority no matter how much you spend your retirement forming radical bias opinions on everything and thinking you are correct about anything and everything. Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make me ignorant. I did watch it and will continue to as it happens. What I may think thus far is different. That doesn't mean I didn't watch it or don't have a fundamental understanding of bla bla bla in my conservative media era or whatever verbal diarrhea you spew. Along with your stringent attention of specific definitions you think makes you superior. 

Derp. 

None of us are involved with the trial, captain obvious...you aren't even in this country where the trial is occurring.  Having a different opinion is different from believing and sharing incorrect information. I didn't call you ignorant but I'm certainly capable of identifying ignorance of a topic when ignorance is forwarded as informed. Like ignorance about what criminal charges are even at play here or what the frightened defendant was doing rather than administering the first aid that he supposedly was trained to provide. 

Do you think that I'm superior because I haven't implied or said that I'm superior.  I definitely seem to be better informed about the Rittenhouse trial, late term abortion and some other current events but that doesn't translate into superiority.  That's your personal spin.  It is very humbling to be corrected on facts, spelling or science or anything really...I imagine that's where that emotional response originated. 

I could counter that your lack of attention to detail, specific facts or the spelling or meaning of words makes you a sloppy or poor communicator. Did you find that helpful? At least my statement was based in reality and not in emotion like yours was.  The difference is that I'm not offended.  I just chalk that up in the really long column of evidence that tippy aren't really here to discuss topics, you are here to agitate and provoke using all of the toxic techniques of facebook conservative warriors.  Yawn

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Cclm said:

If he's found not guilty, I can't wait to see what baloney you will come up with. 

What baloney? Is already pretty clear that there is an excellent chance that this jury will be very lenient with this killer. Are you now imagining and projecting some Trumpian response and claim that the trial was rigged?

[Cclm, LPN]

38 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That would require that you stick to facts and evidence rather than offering up your feelings or unfactual musings about the trial.  I'm interested in discussing the facts and evidence. 

 

I imagine that you have made some assumptions about my thinking even though I've shared my thinking with you.  That's a recurring issue in our discussions...you stating assumption and belief as if it is established and accepted truth or fact. It certainly won't matter what happens in this trial if you don't actually pay attention to the evidence, testimony or proceedings and continue to imply things not discovered or proven. 

So far you haven't actually discussed details of this trial with attention to facts or details.  

Derp. 

None of us are involved with the trial, captain obvious...you aren't even in this country where the trial is occurring.  Having a different opinion is different from believing and sharing incorrect information. I didn't call you ignorant but I'm certainly capable of identifying ignorance of a topic when ignorance is forwarded as informed. Like ignorance about what criminal charges are even at play here or what the frightened defendant was doing rather than administering the first aid that he supposedly was trained to provide. 

Do you think that I'm superior because I haven't implied or said that I'm superior.  I definitely seem to be better informed about the Rittenhouse trial, late term abortion and some other current events but that doesn't translate into superiority.  That's your personal spin.  It is very humbling to be corrected on facts, spelling or science or anything really...I imagine that's where that emotional response originated. 

I could counter that your lack of attention to detail, specific facts or the spelling or meaning of words makes you a sloppy or poor communicator. Did you find that helpful? At least my statement was based in reality and not in emotion like yours was.  The difference is that I'm not offended.  I just chalk that up in the really long column of evidence that tippy aren't really here to discuss topics, you are here to agitate and provoke using all of the toxic techniques of facebook conservative warriors.  Yawn

You are not the decider of facts. Your opinions are no more facts in the absolute than mine are. I'm not sure where you think that what you say is facts but not others. I usually say IMO. Anything you disagree with you discount and everything you say you claim is facts. You have demonstrated a superior type conduct that conveys that you are the arbitrator of facts. Especially with opinions that do not align with your own. 

I did not mistake the charges. : 

"First-degree intentional homicide

The crime, analogous to first-degree murder in other states, is defined as causing the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or someone else, without the presence of certain mitigating circumstances specified in the law"

I said murder not homicide. I pretty sure I'm not the only person to miss use the word. 

Again. Just because you interpret something different, doesn't mean you are right and everyone else is wrong. 

Stop with the emotion bs. You sound like Ben Shapiro! I'm pretty sure you fo not agree much with what he says. As well stop trying to degrade my opinion by inferring I'm some sort of social media freak. 

I explained why my spelling is off and comes up wrong. 

1st: my young child gets my phone and messes with my settings. My phone has a cracked screen which messes up the letters on the key board.  

2nd I am very busy and can't always edit my comments for your convenience. 

3rd I trust in your intelligence to figure it out.  Oh and I don't really care about what you think about me personally. 

[Cclm, LPN]

50 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

What baloney? Is already pretty clear that there is an excellent chance that this jury will be very lenient with this killer. Are you now imagining and projecting some Trumpian response and claim that the trial was rigged?

It's actually in your name. 

What in the living he'll first Trump have to do with this? You have a problem . What do you say? 

"Trump derangement"? Either that or you are secretly in love with him. 

Just now, Cclm said:

It's actually in your name. 

What in the living he'll first Trump have to do with this? You have a problem . What do you say? 

"Trump derangement"? Either that or you are secretly in love with him. 

 

[toomuchbaloney]

4 minutes ago, Cclm said:

You have demonstrated a superior type conduct that conveys that you are the arbitrator of facts. Especially with opinions that do not align with your own. 

That's opinion not fact.  

 

5 minutes ago, Cclm said:

 

I said murder not homicide. I pretty sure I'm not the only person to miss use the word

You were wrong and were corrected. It matters to you why you were wrong but it doesn't change that you were using the wrong words.  It also doesn't matter that other people might also be wrong. 

 

7 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Again. Just because you interpret something different, doesn't mean you are right and everyone else is wrong. 

Yeah...sometimes it does...like when you say that it was a mistake to consider murder 1 as a charge in this case or when you suggest that late term abortion is a form of birth control. I will note however, that we aren't really talking about "everyone" being wrong, we're talking about you being wrong about something as evidenced by facts which contradict your beliefs, feelings and claims. 

 

11 minutes ago, Cclm said:

1st: my young child gets my phone and messes with my settings. My phone has a cracked screen which messes up the letters on the key board.  

2nd I am very busy and can't always edit my comments for your convenience. 

3rd I trust in your intelligence to figure it out.  Oh and I don't really care about what you think about me personally. 

Your communication reflects upon you, not the readers.  I'm glad that you aren't troubled by hearing that your messaging is often difficult to understand because of misspellings and garbled sentences. In other cases it appears that you intentionally misspell words or names repeatedly in an attempt to disrespect the individual or the idea. That's a common practice in some of the more toxic conservative corners of social media. 

 

14 minutes ago, Cclm said:

It's actually in your name. 

What in the living he'll first Trump have to do with this? You have a problem . What do you say? 

"Trump derangement"? Either that or you are secretly in love with him. 

Yeah...baloney is in my name because there is so much baloney in these threads. I trust in your intelligence to comprehend such a reference to Trump and a rigged outcome.  Perhaps I expected too much.   Trump derangement syndrome is propaganda...a made up insult...but you knew that before you shared it, didn't you?

[Cclm, LPN]

1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

That's opinion not fact.  

 

You were wrong and were corrected. It matters to you why you were wrong but it doesn't change that you were using the wrong words.  It also doesn't matter that other people might also be wrong. 

 

Yeah...sometimes it does...like when you say that it was a mistake to consider murder 1 as a charge in this case or when you suggest that late term abortion is a form of birth control. I will note however, that we aren't really talking about "everyone" being wrong, we're talking about you being wrong about something as evidenced by facts which contradict your beliefs, feelings and claims. 

 

Your communication reflects upon you, not the readers.  I'm glad that you aren't troubled by hearing that your messaging is often difficult to understand because of misspellings and garbled sentences. In other cases it appears that you intentionally misspell words or names repeatedly in an attempt to disrespect the individual or the idea. That's a common practice in some of the more toxic conservative corners of social media. 

 

Yeah...baloney is in my name because there is so much baloney in these threads. I trust in your intelligence to comprehend such a reference to Trump and a rigged outcome.  Perhaps I expected too much.   Trump derangement syndrome is propaganda...a made up insult...but you knew that before you shared it, didn't you?

Yeah. I heard it from you. Trump derangement syndrome. Who's name do I purposely misspell? 

[toomuchbaloney]

5 minutes ago, Cclm said:

Yeah. I heard it from you. Trump derangement syndrome. Who's name do I purposely misspell? 

Fauci. You misspelled it again after the misspelling was noted. If I criticized Trump using propaganda and then spelled his name Frump, even after corrected, would you think that implied inattention to detail or intention to disrespect the fellow? It could be either and neither would be flattering to me. 

Trump derangement syndrome is far right wing propaganda.  Are you saying that you didn't realize that before now? You just used it to try to insult me, presumably because you are interested in having a different kind of interaction with me.  I  mean, that's what you said a bit ago.  

Why not just talk about the issues at hand? Maybe Google the topics and read something that is more middle of the road reporting than The Blaze before offering up opinion based in social media, cable or radio commentary and rhetoric.  I do that, others do that, you should do that.   I comment upon topics that I have read some things about. We offer articles and citations and we read those things and then we talk about them.  Sometimes that talk involves correcting misinformation or misunderstanding.  We're adults.