Why did Tucker trot out all those other prosecution considerations (long rifle, state line, etc.) but omit provocation? He's a hack, right? It's just FoxNews, yeah?
REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Tucker: Rittenhouse trial taught us this
- Thread starter WindowLicker
- Start date
The judge decided to allow the jury to consider a provocation argument. The jury will decide if there is provocation or not. Not the judge.
The quality of the drone video that the provocation argument hangs on is problematic IMO. But the provocation instruction to the jury was a serious blow to the defense IMO.
The quality of the drone video that the provocation argument hangs on is problematic IMO. But the provocation instruction to the jury was a serious blow to the defense IMO.
The argument goes that pointing a weapon at someone in a confrontational atmosphere is "provocation."
The prosecution maintains that drone video (and I believe one still photo that required 20 hours of enhancement work) shows KR pointing his gun at Rosenbaum and that was the point that Rosenbaum charged/chased KR. Because he was provoked.
Defense maintains the video/photo are of such poor quality that no determination can be made and that KR did not point his weapon at Rosenbaum until Rosenbaum charged him and was within about 3-4 feet of KR.
The pointing of a weapon at an angry mob would not be provocation anyway even if he did point the weapon. You'd then have to prove that he pointed the weapon without cause. If he pointed it with reasonable cause that would not be provocation.
Humans are by nature something something --DK
Brandishing a weapon in the social environment is a provocative act because when you do it stuff like this happens.
Can't wait for the next riot when both sides are brandishing rifles.
Brandishing a weapon in the social environment is a provocative act because when you do it stuff like this happens.
Can't wait for the next riot when both sides are brandishing rifles.
The judge says you read the law as well as FecalFace, hal9000, and myself.
You get an "F" for Fecal like the rest of "us".
Ultimately that's for the jury to decide. The footage is complete garbage though, so IMO they failed to prove this.
lies by omission; massive bias.
he's doing the same stupid thing Duffy does when he repeats "two weeks to flatten the curve"
there's a difference between what we know now and what we knew then; the fact that reporting changed as new facts, video, and court testimony emerged does not mean you were being lied to and manipulated prior when the reporting was based on less data
Fox is just as guilty as CNN on this front. Cucker should not be throwing stones
also, the United States legal system AND his own employer have stated that his show is an act of bloviation and should not be taken on its face as literal or factual:
law.justia.com
Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” ... This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ...“exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Fox persuasively argues,...that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. ... Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.
much in the same way that windowlicker and GromsDad's posts are idiotic bloviation by doughy cucks
he's doing the same stupid thing Duffy does when he repeats "two weeks to flatten the curve"
there's a difference between what we know now and what we knew then; the fact that reporting changed as new facts, video, and court testimony emerged does not mean you were being lied to and manipulated prior when the reporting was based on less data
Fox is just as guilty as CNN on this front. Cucker should not be throwing stones
also, the United States legal system AND his own employer have stated that his show is an act of bloviation and should not be taken on its face as literal or factual:
McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)
McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 - Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) case opinion from the Southern District of New York US Federal District Court
Mr. Carlson himself aims to “challenge[] political correctness and media bias.” ... This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ...“exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.” Fox persuasively argues,...that given Mr. Carlson’s reputation, any reasonable viewer “arrive with an appropriate amount of skepticism” about the statements he makes. ... Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as “exaggeration,” “non-literal commentary,” or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same—the statements are not actionable.
much in the same way that windowlicker and GromsDad's posts are idiotic bloviation by doughy cucks
Because someone doesn't do something you tell them to do, it's doesn't mean that they can't.
It might be a sign that they think you are stupid.
I hope this clears up any future confusion.
Last edited:
Serious question, when does an unarmed person have a right to defend themself from someone pointing a firearm at them? Obviously the guy with a gun has the upper hand and it’s probably a bad idea to react with any aggression or sudden movements. This isn’t a question about whether acting in self-defense from someone pointing a gun at you is the smart move so much as if you have the same right to self-defense if you fear for your life as someone with a gun does? We’ve seen gun owners use the “I feared for my life” defense repeatedly in cases of shooting the unarmed, does that same principle of fear apply in the reverse or are those rights exclusive to those that are carrying firearms?
I think you might have to work on your communication skills if you wish to feel heard.
