Bob Ness

I completely agree but that wasn't what the trial was about. The issue was whether he could be found guilty for the charges the prosecutor came up with. The trial had nothing to do with vigilantes, teenagers or even AR-15s. Juries are carefully instructed about the legal issues involved and are asked to consider facts involving very specific circumstances. Drunk driving kills many people every year and untold tragedies among the families and so on but that has nothing to do with a specific DUI claim against Joe Schmoe. The jury in this case carefully considered the specific facts that could be ascertained during the event and could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know it for a fact (I wasn't there) but it seems they did their job like they were supposed to.

The jury in the case isn't being asked to determine the moral ramifications of going to protests with guns. That is an issue with local and state laws that is taken up in different venues, not the trial of Rittenhouse. That's not a "technicality". Anyone suggesting that the larger issues circling the Rittenhouse trial should be considered when determining his guilt or innocence, while understandable, is subscribing to vigilantism themselves while clothing it in righteousness. As outrageous as his behavior was, the victims weren't lily-white roses walking their sweethearts home from Sunday School when they happened into him. They were all there illegally, in one way or the other, and although that in itself doesn't justify the use of deadly force the protesters don't have carte blanche to destroy property or confront strangers with guns either. By all appearances every one of the shooting victims could have walked away. I don't know that but that's my impression.

My point is David that the jury didn't make a finding like that. They're not reading papers or watching TV to determine the facts of the case. Neither you or I have been presented with the evidence and considered it in detail to the extent the jury has. In my experience they usually get it right and in this case it appears the jury seriously considered the circumstances.

This is irrelevant. That's the point. It has no bearing on the trial whether you or I believe it or not. The jury determined after carefully examining the evidence the crowd didn't act appropriately. You're assuming they did but how is KR going to know they are trying to disarm him? Perhaps they were going to kill him? They were to the best of my knowledge. They could have considered lesser charges also. I'm sorry but all of this has nothing to do with anything regarding his trial and is EXACTLY WHY juries in other cases have wrongly convicted innocent people. I hope you are never in a trial where a jury is asked to factor "inflamed citizenry" into their decisions. Don't like the guy, his motivations or actions but I'm confident the jury seriously weighed the evidence presented. The clown show prosecution didn't help either but it was probably going to be a tough road to hoe anyway. The fact is the laws as written are the real problem in this instance.

Yeah. A defense attorney friend of mine had this to say, which I agree with: “This case was about one defendant in one set of facts. It is not about anything else, and should not be painted as such. A serious jury deliberated, reached a verdict and delivered it. It should be respected and not made a stalking horse for the brazen claims of either side.”

Exactly. Better luck tomorrow.

Hmmm. Weird. Autopsy porn spread among the SS. Sick.

Yeah, I'll go back over it again and maybe explain it a little better. Have to go save some puppies from a fire now though.

More than one of those in this fiasco. Did Jim G actually see them or was that Moore saying that?

Yeah I agree but that gag wasn't what I was talking about. I was talking about the point Jim G. was trying to make during the interview. He told us the anecdote and it seems something should follow that and never did. The coyote is still danglin' in mid air, so to speak.

Jim Gochenaur's point after he describes Moore slamming a gun on the table and exclaiming "Who do you work for?" didn't land for me. What was he trying to imply? Did it get cut out or am I missing something obvious?

I seem to remember an interview or a discussion of him but don't remember where.

Figures. Don't blame them for grabbing the cash but the sixth floor shouldn't be able to dictate usage IMO. Whatever...

I don't think they can renew it now. I may be mistaken but I don't think they can hold a copyright after 2058 at the most, and that's if they renewed it in 1991.

I'd guess not. IANAL but it seems they don't protect it elsewhere and with thousands of copies of it out there I doubt they could claim financial damages. Stone's lawyer is probably pretty good I imagine.

But not for the doc I take it. I get why they'd squawk about the trailer.

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) November 7, 2021 “ It's really simple. They don't have to secede. Al they have to do is let everyone else vote on it. Sea ya later!! Don't let the door hit ya etc.

Jim are they not licensing the Z film for the doc? Seems they don't protect it much elsewhere, does that negate any fair use claim or infringement? Just curious.

Haha! Maybe you're next in line! There's gotta' be some kind of trophy out there for ya'... I sure hope there are residuals hahaha! Looking forward to seeing it!

Sole credit. Nice!

Where is this happening? I haven't seen it.

Yeah I know seems ridiculous (it is) but it's not unusual. I know a guy who paid a famous basketball player a million dollars to put a hat on during a celebration after the NBA championships. Crazy. Famous names trade on that all the time (Hunter Biden is a good example). When Hills goes to speak somewhere she has a full entourage and travel expenses, security details on top of secret service, advance teams probably etc. etc. They wouldn't give her or anyone else that money if they didn't see value in it. It's a brand, like Trump's BS, so it has a price in some circles. Payoff's of a sort I suppose, but probably not much of the quid pro quo that is tempting to imagine.

I'm curious. Whatever happened to the requirement that didn't allow sock puppets to create profiles and comment?

This is so stupid I don't know when I'll stop laughing. An "unidicted co-conspirator" is also known as a person yet to be charged among other things. Tyler Durden is your source? Hahaha! You're Killin me Denis. Red Pill, 3%er, BS for the window-lickers.

This is funny too. I wonder how many apps like this are compromised? All of them? Maybe this is where mystery information comes from. These apps are intel/LEO Golden Gooses along with segments of the backbone and "unbreakable encryption". The LEO folks have just unveiled this gag but I don't know why they did. Hundreds arrested in global crime sting after underworld app is hacked | Organised crime | The Guardian