Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-19-2021, 10:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm going to limit my response to this; your posts and conduct in this thread have been very eye opening.  I guess when the facts don't support your position then snark and sarcasm is the best recourse left.

Lol, but you, the guy who "relies on facts and evidence," are not going to specify the "conduct" you are referring to, are you? You know very well that when I find your conduct "eye-opening," I don't hesistate to demonstrate with examples.

And you never withold "the facts" when you think you really have them.

Regarding your last claim that "facts don't support [my]position," here's a passage from your post #151, in which you say just that, claiming I made a false statement, the one bolded and underlined.

(11-03-2021, 04:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:After Rittenhouse kills Rosenbaum, as he stands over the body calling a friend, bystanders finger him, correctly, as the shooter. He starts to walk away from the scene, then to run as angry people follow, apparently to prevent the shooter from “getting away.” He falls and, seeing their chance, several rush in to disarm him. One person kicks at R, and he fires wildly, missing him.

I won't go so far as to say you're being deliberately dishonest here, but the underlined is a blatantly false statement.  But no one needs to take more word for it, watch the video that proves this.

And you then proffer a link (which doesn't work) to a video which supposedly "proves this."

But what exactly does "this" refer to here? The "blatantly false statement" has three different predications.

Are we to believe there was no jump-kick man, no kick, R didn't fire at him? He did fire but not "wildly"? 
What is "blatantly false" here?  

If your "position" on the jump-kick incident is different from mine, and mine is false, then what should a "blatantly true" description of the incident look like look like?