• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Rittenhouse verdict poll

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

What is most severe charge you believe Rittenhouse will be convicted of?

  • Intentional Homicide

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Reckless Homicide

    Votes: 13 16.0%

  • Reckless Endangerment

    Votes: 11 13.6%

  • Illegal Weapon possession

    Votes: 10 12.3%

  • No verdict - hung jury or mistrial

    Votes: 24 29.6%

  • Not Guilty on all charges

    Votes: 22 27.2%
  • Total voters
    81
  • Poll closed .
Greenman said:
My guess is that very few from wall street are peddling drugs on the street corner, something that would trigger a search. The first rule of crime is "Don't be seen".
Click to expand...
This right here is why I think that all elected officials should be required to pass drug screenings just like all the regular schmoes that have to for employment.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
You mean the woman that was on the opposite side of a blocked door? Yeah, that one.
Click to expand...

Part of 'the rioters' according to people like you; someone who crossed a line and had to be "stopped." Yeah, that one. Definitely not a magat Karen in the same mob attacking police and parading Confederate battle flags through the Capital building while politicians hid for their lives. Nah.
 
DaaQ said:
This right here is why I think that all elected officials should be required to pass drug screenings just like all the regular schmoes that have to for employment.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have any issue with that at all. A yearly audit would be fine as well.
 
Greenman said:
My guess is that very few from wall street are peddling drugs on the street corner, something that would trigger a search. The first rule of crime is "Don't be seen".
Click to expand...

Just an FYI... a high percentage on Wall Street are doing drugs. They might not be peddling them on the street corner (that's where the NASDAQ got its start), but they're doing them just the same. And that's illegal too, despite its politically-selective enforcement.

But hey, I am glad that to see a 'conservative' argue against the 4a in a thread where other 'conservatives' are chanting that anyone who doesn't support their particular interpretation of the 2a must hate the Constitution. Just par for the hypocritical course.
 
DaaQ said:
This right here is why I think that all elected officials should be required to pass drug screenings just like all the regular schmoes that have to for employment.
Click to expand...
Uniform and universal enforcement of bad laws would be the quickest way to get those laws repealed.
 
Exactly as expected, Cucker is claiming jurors are scared to find Rittenhouse not guilty.

I’m sure Insannity will echo this, along with Laura Ingrate.
Edit...looks like Cucker is devoting his entire show to this.
 
Last edited:
soundforbjt said:
Exactly as expected, Cucker is claiming jurors are scared to find Rittenhouse not guilty.

I’m sure Insannity will echo this, along with Laura Ingrate.
Edit...looks like Cucker is devoting his entire show to this.
Click to expand...
didn't he say the something similar with Chauvin, or am I imagining that?
 
imported_tajmahal said:
You mean the woman that was on the opposite side of a blocked door? Yeah, that one.
Click to expand...
Remind us where in the Capitol building she was shot again?

I'll save you the trouble. She was not on the opposite side of a blocked door. She was shot while climbing through the broken glass part of the door to the Speaker's Lobby. Any ideas how many barricades she had to cross to even get there?
 
killster1 said:
yes sounds like a logical plan, have a gun and if someone trys to rip it from your hands assume they are going to kill you with it and they are crazy. 🙂
Click to expand...

Merely pointing a gun at someone IS a threat of lethal force. It is, for all the person down-barrel knows, the last step before pulling the trigger. If you have to wait for a trigger to be pulled before you can finally call someone with a firearm an imminent lethal threat, then you basically have to wait to be dead.

Say the situation was Grosskreutz witnessed Mr Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum and moved toward him with weapon drawn - Rittenhouse fires as he did and missed - And then Grosskreutz fires back and kills Rittenhouse. Or ... skateboard guy witnessed Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum - he moves toward him with his skateboard - Rittenhouse fires as he did and misses - Skateboard guy bashes Rittenhouse head in with his skateboard and kills him. Both cases are grounds for acquittal on self defense claims, Correct?
 
VRAMdemon said:
Merely pointing a gun at someone IS a threat of lethal force. It is, for all the person down-barrel knows, the last step before pulling the trigger. If you have to wait for a trigger to be pulled before you can finally call someone with a firearm an imminent lethal threat, then you basically have to wait to be dead.

Say the situation was Grosskreutz witnessed Mr Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum and moved toward him with weapon drawn - Rittenhouse fires as he did and missed - And then Grosskreutz fires back and kills Rittenhouse. Or ... skateboard guy witnessed Rittenhouse shoot Rosenbaum - he moves toward him with his skateboard - Rittenhouse fires as he did and misses - Skateboard guy bashes Rittenhouse head in with his skateboard and kills him. Both cases are grounds for acquittal on self defense claims, Correct?
Click to expand...

Yes, both parties to an incident could have valid self defence claims.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top