Sinner-to-Saint

Any news on the crowd trial? I'm desperate to get to a game.

No, it's not hard to see where it leads when you start blaming all of society's ills on rich white people...it's happened before.

That shit isn't funny. When people start talking about rich 'white' bankers stealing all the wealth, it's pretty dodgy territory. I'm just waiting for the triple parentheses...

Why do you make it a racial thing? Besides, who's more likely to burgle, assault or murder the average surburanite?

Sorry to sully your good name by agreeing with you, but I was about to post exactly that. It's enshrined in the Constitution, and many believe the Founding Fathers did so, not just in order to protect freedoms from being taken by the government, but so that the people could protect themselves if the government were unwilling to do so.

Are you judging him from a legal perspective, or in terms of morality? I understand it's perfectly legal in the US for citizens to carry guns. There's potentially an issue with him being 17, but then apparently one can join a militia at that age so it could be a grey area. Regardless, even if he was carrying it illegally, it could still be considered self-defence. He would simply be prosecuted for the misdemeanor. The way this debate has gone btw: Me: I think the guy might well be acquitted of the charges based on the grounds that he was defending himself. [POSTS VIDEO FOOTAGE OF SHOOTINGS & ANALYSIS FROM US LAWYER] Everyone else: You're an evil, morally bankrupt, racist imbecile. I hope you die a lingering death from a combination of cancer and a flesh-eating disease.

Charming! I genuinely don't see what has elicited such venom. The shootings were an act of self-defence. That's all I have said...

Why would I conceivably be banned for suggesting someone might have acted in self-defence? It's pretty obvious what this bampot Marxist indy Scotland you all dream of will be like! Clearly any un-woke opinions will result in banishment to a forced labour camp on St. Kilda.

Ach well, we'll have to wait for the trial and hopefully justice will be done. Goodnight everybody! It's been a pleasure debating with you all.

According to his lawyer the gun didn't cross the state lawyer, at least if I recall correctly. Interesting, so you believe I 'identify' with this boy, because I have the audacity to suggest he might have acted in self-defence. That would imply you identify with the victims, given that's how your mind works - a paedophile and a domestic abuser...

When did I say he was objective? I merely linked to video footage he'd posted. What you're suggesting he's edited or otherwise manipulated the footage, now?

Another baseless allegation of prejudice without anything at all to substantiate it.

If you consider an objective analysis based on video footage and scutinisng facts to be 'trolling', 'moronic', 'racist' or any other pejorative term you fancy, then aye, I am all of those things. The responses from you, Bairnardo, et al has been ad hominem and invective. I have been perfectly polite and civilised, as any impartial person will see.

This is one of the videos I watched, in which the presenter provides evidence that the kid put out a fire in a dumpster which aggravated the protesters, and that one of the dead is a paedo. This will be another interesting trial. Do you think it will be televised like the OJ Simpson and Zimmerman court dramas?

[RAGE DETECTED] Care to show me where I have expressed bias? There's a video I found earlier in which he was interviewed on the night, prior to the events, and he stated his intention was to guard property. I haven't given a penny to his crowdfunding page, either - https://www.givesendgo.com/GUCZ Based on all the evidence I have seen, he definitely will not be convicted of murder. He's raised over $200,000 for his defence, and has the Covington boys' lawyer working pro bono.

A dreadful post. A dreadful interpretation of events. He lived just across the state line, around 30 mins away. You clearly have done zero research, unlike me, and cannot even be bothered to try to conceal your ignorance and prejudice.

I don't consider myself left or right. I like to judge these things based on the facts alone. So far the narrative appears to be: 1) The kid is hanging about with a militia, ostensibly protecting property and upholding the law, armed with an assault rifle and carrying a first aid kit. 2) He extinguishes a fire lit by the protesters, who then verbally abuse him, and then an altercation occurs where he runs and is chased and the first person is shot. 3) The second incident is recorded, and I suggest anybody interested watches the footage. It's all over Twitter. It shows the perpetrator being chased by several people, get hit with a skateboard and stumble and fall to the ground. He fires about three shots, and is actually pretty calm given the circumstances. I think the fact Rosenbaum was a paedophile and was acting aggressively doesn't, of course, justify his death. However it does testify to his unsavoury character. There's lots of other footage of other incidents that occurred that night to:

In the preceding sentence I talked about the gunman's guilt or the morality of his conduct. I was merely offering an opinion on the material presented in the video.

Here's another one:

Are you in possession of all the facts? Facts can and often are distorted to portray a false narrative. Do you remember George Zimmerman? The 'white man' who allegedly killed an unarmed black teen? Or the Covington school boys? The latter were actually subjected to racial abuse if you watch the video. But both parties were portrayed by the media to be wicked, using selectively edited recordings. If I was to select certain facts, I could say this was a case of a child acting in self defence after he was pursued by a paedophile.

What it's always important to remember in criminal cases, is that the accused is INNOCENT until proven guilty, and the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. I'm doubtful any jury will convict a man of murder, when he;'s being chased by a mob who were throwing things at him. Interestingly one of the two killed was allegedly a paedo, which will make people sympathetic.

Well apparently he extinguished a fire that had been lit in a bin, which annoyed the protesters, and who then acted aggressively. But aye, the lawyer seems to think he'll not be convicted of murder. I didn't offer an opinion, but stated I thought it was a good analysis.

Nah, it's Castle Greyskull. That's what it's been known as for years, and even the BBC weather lady called it that. Aye, I know it was He-Man's abode, but it's been known as that for years now.

This is an excellent analysis of the Rittenhouse affair: