Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 01:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I would add that Bel's position on this case almost exactly mirrors my own, yet you have not responded to him in kind.  This rather leads me to believe that your issue is not with the argument, but with the person making it.  That generally isn't a good look and it's definitely not in keeping with your stated objective to argue a case based on merit and not on personality.  For all your protestations otherwise, you genuinely do not appear to want a legitimate discussion.  But that's just my opinion, I leave it to others to form their own.

Sure, at a general level, Bels agrees with you on many 2A issues, and like you, he doesn't appear to have a problem with how the law favors self defense in this case. 

But it is false to say I have not responded to him "in kind," if that means disputing his take on the trial and "points not related to the case," like political-theoretical questions about 2nd Amendment rights. I have put for more time and thought in my responses to his "off topic" posts than anyone else's. (See posts # 206, 213, 223.)

So far as I know, Bels has not defended your "mob" thesis, nor told me that I am acting in bad faith and silly for disputing it, and otherwise explained my position in terms of personal character flaws. And he doesn't claim no one is attempting to refute his arguments with facts while they are doing exactly that, then claim he is done talking because no one engages the facts. Jeezus. So his generally thoughtful and respectful demeanor on this thread, focused on argument rather than person, hardly mirrors yours. 

Thus you can't really argue that you and Bels are "mirror images" on this thread, and that I am only addressing your posts because of "the person making it"--as if bully dill were just roaming the playground looking to pick on the odd kid. 

There might very well be a connection between your personality and the form and content of your arguments, which leads you to salt them with ad hominem and to constantly invoke standards you don't follow yourself, but I don't go there. My responses to you always remain focused on the logical consistency and evidential quality of your arguments, not your character.  So in your case, I am responding, yes, but not "in kind," thus always "keeping with [my] stated objective to argue a case based on merit and not on personality." 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2021, 07:52 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL No one declares points settled because no one is questioning them. You were declaring yours settled BECAUSE people continued to question/refute them, as I am doing now.  And you are still doing it, as the last bolded shows. You get to digress on media responses to BLM and Michigan protests; I am "meandering off topic" if I respond.

And someone HAS attempted to refute your mob claim with facts. That's what the links to video showing ONE person chasing R were about. Why do you keep saying that holding to your face the video evidence that counters your interpretation is not an attempt to "refute your points with facts"? (The appropriate quip response would be "because it's not," with no explanation.) You cannot dodge that by claiming the video is not related to the case or that I'm engaging in a "semantic argument" because I don't think one guy is a "mob." 
 
Even two is hardly a "mob," but  I don't grant your claim the guy who fired the handgun was pursuing R. He was walking parallel to the street. Rittenhouse crosses the parking lot 30 yards in front of him, running. The handgun shooter isn't pursuing anyone. He's just there, like those "trailers" R runs past. That's  a "fact based counter point."  

(11-12-2021, 07:56 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, at a general level, Bels agrees with you on many 2A issues, and like you, he doesn't appear to have a problem with how the law favors self defense in this case. 

But it is false to say I have not responded to him "in kind," if that means disputing his take on the trial and "points not related to the case," like political-theoretical questions about 2nd Amendment rights. I have put for more time and thought in my responses to his "off topic" posts than anyone else's. (See posts # 206, 213, 223.)

So far as I know, Bels has not defended your "mob" thesis, nor told me that I am acting in bad faith and silly for disputing it, and otherwise explained my position in terms of personal character flaws. And he doesn't claim no one is attempting to refute his arguments with facts while they are doing exactly that, then claim he is done talking because no one engages the facts. Jeezus. So his generally thoughtful and respectful demeanor on this thread, focused on argument rather than person, hardly mirrors yours. 

Thus you can't really argue that you and Bels are "mirror images" on this thread, and that I am only addressing your posts because of "the person making it"--as if bully dill were just roaming the playground looking to pick on the odd kid. 

There might very well be a connection between your personality and the form and content of your arguments, which leads you to salt them with ad hominem and to constantly invoke standards you don't follow yourself, but I don't go there. My responses to you always remain focused on the logical consistency and evidential quality of your arguments, not your character.  So in your case, I am responding, yes, but not "in kind," thus always "keeping with [my] stated objective to argue a case based on merit and not on personality." 

To quote you, LOL.  There is nothing new here.  You have provided absolutely nothing of substance in this thread.  You have ignored basic facts.  You have gotten basic facts wrong.  You have asked for proof of things you were already given at your request.  Your performance in this thread is on par with the prosecutor on the actual case, for the exact same reasons.  Your refusal to address actual facts, instead focusing on minutiae that you feel you can nitpick, is both tedious and boring.  I have taken great pains to avoid making things personal, you have not.

In short, you're boring me with your endless repetition of the same points that have already been refuted.  I might ask for a little introspection on your part, for you to realize that your conduct in this thread is exactly what you decry about the sub-forum in general, but I think that would be wildly optimistic.  I, for one, am done addressing your irrelevancies, speculation and conjecture.  I'll stick with facts, logic and evidence.  Enjoy your weekend.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-12-2021, 07:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you have issues with his wealth of experience and his age?



The Asian food joke is not racial or at least it certainly didn't come off that way to me.  It's about the distance the food would have had to travel and then it sat in port due to the backlog.  My paternal grandmother used the term "colored people" her whole life because that's what she grew up with.  The woman didn't have a racist bone in her body.  If the ADA was a veteran would you have taken issue with the applause for veterans?  I probably wouldn't have done it myself, but it's not a big deal and I don't see how it would be prejudicial.



Wow, you're gleaning a lot of information that I don't think exists.  The judge has a stellar record as a bench officer.  Did you read the article on the judge I posted earlier in this thread?  It contained statements from attorneys that related how fair and consistent he is.  He's had literally one case overturned on appeal, this is very impressive.  A lot of your reticence as stated here are 100% pure conjecture and speculation.  Would you rather have a bench officer who was just appointed yesterday?  I sure as hell wouldn't.


So no one should be a judge for longer than how many years in your opinion?  At what point, in your opinion, does experience change from being a positive to a negative factor?  


One last question, do you find any fault with the prosecutor's handling of this case?

He has a wealth of experience in a broken system. Our criminal justice system sucks. I don't view this as a positive. Here is a google stat. Wisconsin imprisons 1 in 36 black adults the highest rate in the nation. https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/wisconsin-imprisons-1-in-36-black-adults-the-highest-rate-in-the-us/ And presiding over this case we have the longest serving judge in the state. Color me shocked. Would the longest serving judge in the state have anything to do with that stat?

Haven't been in many court rooms in my life. But if I was ever on trial and the judge told the room to give someone applause right before they testified against me I wouldn't be a happy camper no matter what the applause was for.

Didn't read it. I'm not very invested in this. Other than I would like to not see any American cities burning. So I wanted a fair trial.

8 years (I'll go with that answer today). Go be a lawyer if you like law that much. What are the benefits of an experienced judge? You know the intricacies of some of the lesser known laws and procedures on the books? Every case should be different. I don't see this as an occupation where you get better with experience like fixing cars, diagnosing illnesses, or making cupcakes.

Prosecutor seems to be doing a pretty bad job considering the judge already dismissed the FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT charge. No idea how that didn't stick.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2021, 08:59 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: He has a wealth of experience in a broken system. Our criminal justice system sucks. I don't view this as a positive. Here is a google stat. Wisconsin imprisons 1 in 36 black adults the highest rate in the nation. https://pbswisconsin.org/news-item/wisconsin-imprisons-1-in-36-black-adults-the-highest-rate-in-the-us/ And presiding over this case we have the longest serving judge in the state. Color me shocked. Would the longest serving judge in the state have anything to do with that stat?

That statistic on its own means nothing.  Even Fred pointed out that black people commit a much larger percentage of crime then their percentage of the population.  Now, I feel compelled to say this as some will deliberately misuse this statement, I do not think black people are inherently violent or predisposed towards criminal activity.  I think there are a myriad of reasons for this statistical fact, the discussion of which would require far more detail than we can get into here. But it's still a statistical fact.

Quote:Haven't been in many court rooms in my life. But if I was ever on trial and the judge told the room to give someone applause right before they testified against me I wouldn't be a happy camper no matter what the applause was for.

Dude, it's veterans day, they were applauding veterans.  As I said, every judge has a different atmosphere in their courtroom.  This judge has a very good reputation as being fair and impartial.  This incident does not change that.

Quote:Didn't read it. I'm not very invested in this. Other than I would like to not see any American cities burning. So I wanted a fair trial.

Sorry, then I have to say that your opinion on the man doesn't mean anything then.  If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on a topic before speaking on it then your opinion on said topic isn't one worthy of much, if any, consideration.

Quote:8 years (I'll go with that answer today). Go be a lawyer if you like law that much. What are the benefits of an experienced judge? You know the intricacies of some of the lesser known laws and procedures on the books? Every case should be different. I don't see this as an occupation where you get better with experience like fixing cars, diagnosing illnesses, or making cupcakes.

Dude, really?  You don't see the benefit of experience in an area as complex as the penal code and criminal justice procedure?  There's a reason why law school is so long and grueling, because there's a hell of a lot to know and it's always evolving/changing.  An experienced judge is absolutely of as much worth as an experienced medical doctor.  Both of them have knowledge that can save lives if applied properly.  Of course, in the medical field we're talking about actual death while in the criminal justice system we're talking about potential life long incarceration (yeah death penalty too, but that's rare), but I honestly consider lifelong incarceration a much worse outcome than death.

Quote:Prosecutor seems to be doing a pretty bad job considering the judge already dismissed the FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT charge. No idea how that didn't stick.

The prosecutor doing a good or bad job is not in the least bit dependent on that charge being included or not.  I honestly haven't researched this, but how many of the hundreds of people out that night were charged with this crime?  I have a feeling the answer to that question will be the answer to your question.

[NATI BENGALS]

(11-12-2021, 09:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That statistic on its own means nothing.  Even Fred pointed out that black people commit a much larger percentage of crime then their percentage of the population.  Now, I feel compelled to say this as some will deliberately misuse this statement, I do not think black people are inherently violent or predisposed towards criminal activity.  I think there are a myriad of reasons for this statistical fact, the discussion of which would require far more detail than we can get into here. But it's still a statistical fact.



Dude, it's veterans day, they were applauding veterans.  As I said, every judge has a different atmosphere in their courtroom.  This judge has a very good reputation as being fair and impartial.  This incident does not change that.



Sorry, then I have to say that your opinion on the man doesn't mean anything then.  If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on a topic before speaking on it then your opinion on said topic isn't one worthy of much, if any, consideration.



Dude, really?  You don't see the benefit of experience in an area as complex as the penal code and criminal justice procedure?  There's a reason why law school is so long and grueling, because there's a hell of a lot to know and it's always evolving/changing.  An experienced judge is absolutely of as much worth as an experienced medical doctor.  Both of them have knowledge that can save lives if applied properly.  Of course, in the medical field we're talking about actual death while in the criminal justice system we're talking about potential life long incarceration (yeah death penalty too, but that's rare), but I honestly consider lifelong incarceration a much worse outcome than death.


The prosecutor doing a good or bad job is not in the least bit dependent on that charge being included or not.  I honestly haven't researched this, but how many of the hundreds of people out that night were charged with this crime?  I have a feeling the answer to that question will be the answer to your question.

A justice system with a guy who has had power over lives for 37 years. How does that correlation and causation argument go?

We are at a trial, people died, someone is facing a life sentence. Save your applause please.

I have educated myself on the topic with the current events. My problem in general career judges. The way this guy goes about his business is not the kind of judge I would want.
and after reading what you posted https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-kyle-rittenhouse-judge-kenosha-shooting-20211028-zzh5ma4i65dtbdriaxadk5utdy-story.html
The guy is way worse than my limited expose to him so far has suggested. JFC. Forced aids tests, intentional public embarrassment, cocky, workload imbalances at the courthouse because so many people opted to not have him be their judge, 37 years of experience yet clueless about the domestic terror group who just assaulted the capital months ago in a very publicized event and white supremacist gang hand symbols that have been in the news in recent years... jeeze

What's so great about the guy again?

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To quote you, LOL.  There is nothing new here.  You have provided absolutely nothing of substance in this thread.  You have ignored basic facts.  You have gotten basic facts wrong.  You have asked for proof of things you were already given at your request.  Your performance in this thread is on par with the prosecutor on the actual case, for the exact same reasons.  Your refusal to address actual facts, instead focusing on minutiae that you feel you can nitpick, is both tedious and boring.  I have taken great pains to avoid making things personal, you have not.

This is why defendants don't get to be their own jury. 

You made self defense in R's first killing the cornerstone of your argument in post #43, a defense which turns on whether he believed his life threatened. Being chased by a "large group of people" would enhance that defense. So I asked for proof of the "mob."  

Had you conceded it wasn't a mob, but Rosenbaum still reached for his weapon, etc. From there we might have moved to other issues, like how "subjective" is it really, to term bringing an illegally purchased gun to open carry through a riot riot "bad judgement." We could have revisited the "irrelevancies" you ticked off in that post, while adding new ones. 

But no. You, the "dispassionate" observer, had to double down on the "mob."  To "refute" me you provided yet another video which shows ONE person chasing R, and tried to enlist some passers by and the "warning" shooter, whose path Rittenhouse crossed at a run, 40-yards ahead. 

Now, tired of "endlessly" claiming you have not been refuted by the facts, you demote those facts to "minutiae" and the refutation of your inflated claim to "nitpicking." That is the closest I'll get to a concession.

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 08:59 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote:  What are the benefits of an experienced judge? You know the intricacies of some of the lesser known laws and procedures on the books? Every case should be different. I don't see this as an occupation where you get better with experience like fixing cars, diagnosing illnesses, or making cupcakes.

Prosecutor seems to be doing a pretty bad job considering the judge already dismissed the FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT charge. No idea how that didn't stick.

I have to agree with SSF on the bolded. The more experience a judge gets, that's for the better--except maybe when they get into their golden years and start forgetting.

On the other hand, they might be somewhat behind on recording technology. If they know that recording technology will determine evidence, then they ought to familiarize themselves with it ahead of time so they are not making snap, uninformed judgements about admissibility during the trial.

I am with you on the judges behavior though, especially the shouting, before cameras, and possibly within hearing of the jury. That just looks out of control, when he's supposed to be the ultimate adult in the room. 

[Dill]

(11-12-2021, 08:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: ...  I have taken great pains to avoid making things personal, you have not.

In short, you're boring me with your endless repetition of the same points that have already been refuted.  I might ask for a little introspection on your part, for you to realize that your conduct in this thread is exactly what you decry about the sub-forum in general, but I think that would be wildly optimistic.  I, for one, am done addressing your irrelevancies, speculation and conjecture.  I'll stick with facts, logic and evidence.  Enjoy your weekend.

Here is one example of you doing "exactly what [I] decry about the subforum": in #151 you twice call my statements "the epitome of bad faith." Arguments cannot act in bad faith, only people. These are claims about my honesty and character--personal attack, not refutation of my points about the shot R heard and his back shot. 

Then without a single example of my "conduct," i.e., evidence, you claim I am the one doing what you are actually doing.

How is this perfect inversion of fact and logic "sticking with facts, logic and evidence"?  

How is all that taking "great pains to avoid making personal"?

It is not.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-14-2021, 10:16 PM)Dill Wrote: Here is one example of you doing "exactly what [I] decry about the subforum": in #151 you twice call my statements "the epitome of bad faith." Arguments cannot act in bad faith, only people. These are claims about my honesty and character--personal attack, not refutation of my points about the shot R heard and his back shot.

No, your points were refuted with facts and were blatantly false, as I explained.  If you choose to deliberately state falsehoods about obvious facts and I point that out, that is not a personal attack, it's stating a fact.  Easy solution, don't promote deliberate falsehoods and I won't call you out on them.

Quote:How is all that taking "great pains to avoid making personal"?

It is not.

Pointing out that your are promoting false information is not a personal attack.  If you call out Trump for promoting the "stolen election" trope is that a personal attack on Trump?  No, it's a statement of fact.  Your falsehoods are no less obvious, and your protestations to the contrary are no less inaccurate.  Live with the consequences of your own words and stop whining about being correctly called out on them.

[jj22]

This judge yall....

https://twitter.com/PaulLeeTeeks/status/1460341972221128710

It's like he's Kyle's grandfather or something. I've never seen anything like it.

[jj22]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/11/12/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-did-judge-bruce-schroeder-act-prudently/6393112001/

[jj22]

While people can debate whether Kyle Rittenhouse shot people in self-defense that does not apply to his cold blooded murder of Joseph Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse admitted he knew Rosenbaum was unarmed and had hands out. Rittenhouse shot him 4 times - the kill shot was in his back

[jj22]

(11-12-2021, 11:52 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Why, what exactly has he done wrong?

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1460270544239030280

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-15-2021, 06:09 PM)jj22 Wrote: https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1460270544239030280

Everyone of these "points" has been addressed in this very thread.  Everyone is either framed inaccurately or makes wild conclusion based solely on pure supposition.  In short, it's a poorly constructed video that only exists to make people who already feel this way give a round of applause of their own.  If this is all you've got then you've got nothing.  Unless you can explain why any of them show bias or demonstrate the judge is not conducting himself as he should on the bench.  I ask because your video definitely doesn't do this, but it could be exhibit A in the case of why confirmation bias is a dangerous thing.

[jj22]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1460360974603472897

[jj22]

(11-15-2021, 06:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Everyone of these "points" has been addressed in this very thread.  Everyone is either framed inaccurately or makes wild conclusion based solely on pure supposition.  In short, it's a poorly constructed video that only exists to make people who already feel this way give a round of applause of their own.  If this is all you've got then you've got nothing.  Unless you can explain why any of them show bias or demonstrate the judge is not conducting himself as he should on the bench.  I ask because your video definitely doesn't do this, but it could be exhibit A in the case of why confirmation bias is a dangerous thing.

I don't know why you are dying on the hill to support the judge. He's getting mocked even by Trump supporters. Not many outside of you think he's done a great job. But let that be your stance. I think it speaks more about you then those who see these clips and have been following from day one who believe he's blown his moment.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-15-2021, 07:03 PM)jj22 Wrote: I don't know why you are dying on the hill to support the judge.

I'm not dying anywhere.  I'm just pointing out that all of these "misconduct" allegations are grounded in either a lack of legal knowledge (the "victims" ruling for example), or based on dumb as hell things like his phone's ringtone or a comment on Asian food.

Quote:He's getting mocked even by Trump supporters.

Oh, so now their opinion matters to you?  Also, source please.

Quote:Not many outside of you think he's done a great job. But let that be your stance.

 
Every single person I know who actually works in the criminal justice field are of the opinion that he's done a very fair job.  Hell, he would have been very justified in dismissing the case with prejudice based on the egregious, actual, misconduct of the prosecutor, but he did not.  Not exactly an example of bias.

Quote:I think it speaks more about you then those who see these clips and have been following from day one who believe he's blown his moment.

This sentence is rather nonsensical, but if that's your opinion then have at it.  After all, there are people who believe in the "great lie" right?  Why not form the left leaning version?  This entire "the judge is corrupt" narrative is being formed to explain away why this case has gone, and started, in dog shit.  Many people who think in ways similar to yourself can't wrap their head around the actual legal arguments so you've formed the "judge is bad" bogeyman to explain the very likely (IMO should be 100%) chance that Rittenhouse is acquitted on all charges.  After all, not finding a new reason to blame this case's failure on would force those people to confront just how wrong they've been about virtually every aspect of this case from the very beginning.  That being the case I understand your, and other's, need to find an alternative cause.

Quite honestly, the only person who's engaged in obvious misconduct in this case is the prosecutor, but I don't hear a single person in the "Kyle is guilty" crowd complaining about him.

[GMDino]

I'm sure there are those who will say if the judge doesn't understand THIS then can we trust him with the rest of the trial.

Those people are probably wrong unless we see a whole BUNCH of stuff this judge doesn't understand.

As usual I will let people smarter than me explain:

Telling the judge they are wrong, educating the judge on the correct law and correct application then sometimes arguing with them is what we do as lawyers. Sometimes gets weird because judges don’t like to be corrected or wrong but to do this is the job and very common.

— Public Defendering, Esq. (@fodderyfodder) November 15, 2021

 



And, I'm repeating myself but this probably hens more than we will ever know because most trials are not televised.  And since this is a hot topic people will apply their own biases to everything they see and hear.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-15-2021, 08:17 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'm sure there are those who will say if the judge doesn't understand THIS then can we trust him with the rest of the trial.

Those people are probably wrong unless we see a whole BUNCH of stuff this judge doesn't understand.

As usual I will let people smarter than me explain:

Telling the judge they are wrong, educating the judge on the correct law and correct application then sometimes arguing with them is what we do as lawyers. Sometimes gets weird because judges don’t like to be corrected or wrong but to do this is the job and very common.

— Public Defendering, Esq. (@fodderyfodder) November 15, 2021

 



And, I'm repeating myself but this probably hens more than we will ever know because most trials are not televised.  And since this is a hot topic people will apply their own biases to everything they see and hear.

I receive calls from court officers, which is a probation officer who works in the courtroom, asking me to explain certain things to bench officers all the time.  The vast majority of the time the people and defense will end up agreeing with my explanation.  Of course this is not always the case, but your example is also correct, both litigators will argue the law and its interpretations with the bench officer all the time.  At the end of this debate the bench officer makes their ruling, which is final unless new evidence or information comes to light.  Criminal laws are often written by people with no background in criminal law.  You see some of this ambiguity in the WI law that saw the judge toss the illegal possession charge, and laws cannot be written in a way to cover every possible scenario.

Like I stated earlier in this thread, the only unusual thing I've seen in this trial (aside from the case being garbage from the jump) is the prosecutor using Rittenhouse's exercising his 5th Amendment right against him and then deciding on his own that he could ignore the bench officer's prior ruling on a matter because he "believed" that circumstances had changed.

I'll add for those who accuse me of bias in this incident, I've been a slam dunk witness for the defense when the people's case was weak.  I've stated honestly on the stand that I believed the wrong person was being charged or that the evidence did not support the charges in my professional opinion.  I'm about what's factual and fair, not what puts the most people in prison or sets the most people free.

[Dill]

(11-15-2021, 12:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, your points were refuted with facts and were blatantly false, as I explained.  If you choose to deliberately state falsehoods about obvious facts and I point that out, that is not a personal attack, it's stating a fact.  Easy solution, don't promote deliberate falsehoods and I won't call you out on them.

Pointing out that your are promoting false information is not a personal attack.  If you call out Trump for promoting the "stolen election" trope is that a personal attack on Trump?  No, it's a statement of fact.  Your falsehoods are no less obvious, and your protestations to the contrary are no less inaccurate.  Live with the consequences of your own words and stop whining about being correctly called out on them.

Agreed--pointing out "falsehoods" is not personal attack. (Though just calling statements such does not establish they are.)

But accusing people of "deliberate" falsehood IS personal attack. 

Such attacks on character are not about "information"; they don't refute facts. They inferences operating as value judgments; they don't accomplish any factual or logical refutation. All the more so when aimed at reasonable objections to a questionable interpretation of the facts of a legal case. 

Here is how you demonstrate a falsehood.

1. Quote the statement in question, don't paraphrase or offer an impression: I have taken great pains to avoid making things personal, you have not.  Note that this makes two claims, each to be refuted by different means. Double and complementary falsehoods.

2. Refute the first one with an actual quote, or two, citing the post: #151 The underlined is the epitome of a bad faith statement. . . I take it back, this is the actual epitome of a bad faith statement. * These accusations of dishonesy, and many other statements which could be similarly adduced, enact rather than "avoid" personal attack. 

3. In the second case, ABSENCE of evidence refutes the point. Note the absence and leave it to the claimant to supply it. If he cannot/does not, your refutation stands.

4. If you wish, you may open the question of why someone would accuse you, without evidence, of doing what he is doing. But the evidence and demonstration are enough to settle the question of TRUE or FALSE.  Other readers will understand what's up if your opponent continues to accuse you of "deliberate falsehood," but finds demonstration boring.  

A number of your statements about the Rittenhouse case are inflated, inaccurate, and open to challenge. Not just the hyperbolic "mob" chasing R when he killed Rosenbaum.  They don't suggest you are all about "what's factual and fair," anymore than your comments about me suggest you have taken great pains to avoid making things personal. 

*It helps in this case that the "bad faith statements" are reasonable interpretations of the evidence given, i.e., questioning whether R would assume gunshot heard from 40 yards away was IMMEDIATELY behind him, connected to the unarmed Rosenbaum.  One has to be pretty excited to, on such bases, call my position on this thread "horribly biased, and in a frightening and apparently intentional way."