Opinion Rittenhouse Is WINNING His Trial So Far, But Its Far From Over, His Own Friend SOLD HIM OUT Published: November 04, 2021 | Channel: Timcast Watch The FULL Podcast Show – http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Become a Member – https://www.timcast.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGbMfrHS7dc … *For corrections please email email@example.com* Share Next Woke Left IMPLODING, Most Now OPPOSE Black Lives Matter As CRT Pushes People To Vote Republican 11.4.21 | Timcast Staff 4 responses to “Rittenhouse Is WINNING His Trial So Far, But Its Far From Over, His Own Friend SOLD HIM OUT” nukedaddy777 says: November 5, 2021 at 11:31 am This is a Soviet style show trial. Log in to Reply HerrDoktor says: November 5, 2021 at 9:06 am If you abandon your principles in the hope that the authoritarians will give you mercy, all that will happen is you have lost your principles as well as all hope of mercy from anyone. Log in to Reply UppityG says: November 4, 2021 at 6:53 pm At 9:17, Pool talks about the judge explaining why “reckless endangerment” might still apply. Pool says at first he doesn’t agree with the judge but then later says he understands the judge’s reasoning. Here’s why I do not. (Mind you, so far this judge has comported himself far more like a judge, a law referee, ruling what weapons can be used in the adversary contest that a trial is, and what cannot, and is clearly very engaged in the conduct of the trial and his authority, which is not as commonplace as it should be, unfortunately.) The hypothetical is you are being attacked by a man, you have a firearm, but behind the assailant are four children. The premise is that you, the intended victim, the self-defender is who is responsible for recklessly endangering the children behind your assailant if you shoot at him to save your life. Incorrect. Depending on the time elapsed between attack and trigger pull, the person responsible for endangering the children is your assailant. How so? By doing dangerous and criminal activity that will result in collateral effect and likely harm. At all moments a criminal actor is acting criminally he can simply stop. He can turn around a leave. When criminals commit crimes, they develop tunnel vision, becoming so focused on completing their crime to their satisfaction. When someone is defending himself, he will tend to develop tunnel vision, because he becomes so focused on getting out alive. We have to stop simply giving the criminal the pass of “well he’s the bad guy, we can’t *expect* him to do the right thing, he’s just a mindless savage”. What? This is why we don’t even bother TRYING to appeal to their humanity, whatever little of it there might be? Not like you’d see in a movie, I mean just asking them if they really want to do this and if they reply with total zerofucks or rabies, ok then fair try over. For far too long, lefties / libs / progs / socialists / marxists have been whittling away at this natural division and assignment of responsibility so as to dissolve the wise and common sense foundations of our once moral and wrong-righting justice system, allowing Bad Guys to take more and more ground against the Good Guys. Part of it is the left’s insistence that no one can tell who is a Good Guy or a Bad Guy anymore. They insist that if a Good Guy is not totally pure in every way, then he stands on the exact same ground as a Bad Guy who is not totally polluted in every way. With the left, the not yet wise, still developing adult circumspection, it’s all or nothing, black or white. Negotiating the gray areas is still frustrating to them and so they take refuge in the facile and unchallenging white or black extreme. Unfortunately this softening of standards, loosening of boundaries has allowed all officers of the court, from judges to lawyers and all in between to indulge in allowing more and more exceptions that provide gaps in sanity and safety that criminals and their abettors can exploit. Why? Because it’s easier. And the marxists never stop demanding it. We must fight back. RTFN. Log in to Reply omgtrey says: November 5, 2021 at 1:43 pm That’s exactly what I was thinking… the 4 children wouldn’t be in danger if the criminal wasn’t attacking. The liability should be on the criminal for any danger those behind him face. I think it’s pretty safe to assume Rittenhouse wouldn’t have shot if he had not been pursued and Rosenbaum should be considered the one who recklessly put McGuinnes (sp?) in danger… but it’s hard to get anything out of a dead guy, so the prosecutor’s gonna prosecute. Log in to Reply Click here to cancel reply.You must be logged in to post a comment.