He was with the proud boys. He's definitely a fascist cunt.
He was with the proud boys. He's definitely a fascist cunt.
Did anyone expect the trial to go any other way?
The majority of American gaming forum ResetEra seemed to.
I'm a twit
Kyle Acquittenhouse.
Think people should just watch the judge in that trial and realise how broken the system is.
I haven't really followed the ins and outs of it at all, but from what I have read it seems that the prosecution were fairly useless. Not that they necessarily had much of a hope of winning.
That was my understanding too. The witness testimony went a long way, too.
Beyond all the NARRATIVE and wank the basic fact is that America lets you shoot people attacking you. He shouldn't have been there etc. and so on, but he was, and they attacked him.
That is the beginning and end of it, yes.
Shouting fire in a crowded place is illegal but shooting anyone who then rushes you is self defense is a great system.
Kinder Eggs: too dangerous.
Hello Kitty child size Rifles: fine.
Zimmerman was the ultimate test case.
Guy attacks an unarmed kid for no reason, kid fights back and wins the fight so shooting him multiple times counts as legal self defense.
Exactly. I have no idea if they have the same laws (those were some funky Floridian statutory expansions of the concept of self-defence no?) that led to that in Minnesota (was it?) but if they did then there would have been no point even going to trial. As it is (assuming they don't have those laws) it's still probably 'self-defence' even in the vanilla situation. The problem is being allowed to walk the streets with an AR-15, not the legal mechanics of what happens when you defend yourself from a perceived threat.Originally Posted by phonics
Open carry really kicked it off. Conceal that and you walk right through. I'm still stunned the dumpy little gimp didn't think that far ahead but carried medical gear with him.
70% of it. Most states have similar. Likely prosecutors choose the wrong charges due to public pressure because nobody understands the technical nature of the law. Reckless endangerment (I dont really have a clue as the the exact charge in Wisconsin) would probably have been better but the left / right divide would still be upset because we all pretend we understand a technical area we are genuinely clueless about.
30% is that defendants rights are very robust here. You wouldnt know it due to our prison population but if you can afford competent defense prosecuting cases is tough. Most people cant so they fall prey to the plea bargain system and cant take access of their rights. Leading to shit cops who get away with being shit, prosecutors with political ambitions not really being able to actively try cases, and poor people having the same rights but lacking the ability to actually access them.
Tldr:
Law is just the judge working out who is the asshole and if hes on your side you win.
When less than 2% of criminal cases go to trial, judges really are not going to be the issue. Here are federal stats, if you are interested:
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles...oes-it-matter/
That Christmas parade in Wisconsin. Fucking hell.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-59369492
"Damn protesters, I'll fix 'em." <hits school marching band>
That's Baz's next album sorted anyway. Might be able to get an NFT of the car.
It's a wonder it's being reported at all given the 'direction' of the attack.
Reversing at speed is more difficult I suppose.
Shouldn't have been having a Christmas parade in mid-November, should they?
Maybe it was for Thanksgiving.
What, the "Christmas Parade"?
Nah, deffo Thanksgiving parade.
Don't lecture the Irish on parades, they have more experience than most.
The dinner is the only similarity between Christmas and Thanksgiving. They don't do the trees and all that.
Isn't that a typical rugby indoctrination?
https://www.skysports.com/rugby-leag...un-in-24-hours
That isn’t normal. What a freak
Nice they're raising money for him though.
Why would the mother want, or allow, a national news story to be made out of that? Not even anonymously either. "Here is the full name and even pictures of my six year old son who got vomited on by a stranger!". Was it not embarrassing and unpleasant enough for the lad in the first place? It seems like a very strange parenting choice.
Probably to get free stuff.
It's not a parenting choice, it's an attention seeking choice.
If I was to guess, her kid being threw up on really ruined her day.
I can only speak as a Dad, but it's the sort of thing you get mad about, laugh about and begrudge having to sort out all at the same time. But the primary concern would be getting photos for his 18th birthday / stag t-shirts, not phoning the beeb.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-59386281
I wouldn't even go public in this country, too many tales of friends and family turning on people. Why the fuck would you do so in Mexico of all places? No offence Pep, like.
$500 tickets? Damn, they used to be $15 back in the day.
I also wouldn't go public anywhere and definitely not in Mexico. Kidnap guaranteed.
A family in my town won a few million in the late-nineties and they all fell out. The local rumour was that the ticket was actually bought by the teenage son, so the parents had to claim it, and then they pissed 'his' money up the wall and nobody could do anything about it.
They've just robbed that off Only Fools and Horses, haven't they?
The family definitely won the lottery and fell out, so if that is less cretinous than whatever really happened then lol.
Speaking of which, how are you getting on with your Milf in law these days Mahow?
None of that story surprises me, unfortunately.
Fuck, wish I'd been around in 2012 for this knowledge.Curious Britons were also keen to know what love was and to pick up some tips on how to flirt and kiss.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
