The issue is deriving facts from sources, and separating them from inferences or opinion. Quite tricky. Most media sources have an angle on a story, so it is necessary to separate descriptive/embellishing language from actual events. Photographic evidence and testimonies goes some way, but can still be misleading. The Financial Times is about as close as media sources get to disseminating information. Then again, it only covers limited stories, deemed to be of interest to its readership.

The problem with the Rittenhouse case is fundamentally caused by archaic gun laws in the USA. Who in their right mind would think it appropriate for a teenager to carry an assault-style weapon on the streets 'as a deterrent'.? A weapon is only a deterrent if there is an intention to use it.
The USA has taken another step nearer the legal abyss with this verdict.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (22 Nov 2021 6.52am)

I disengage, I turn the page.

I trust the Mail more than anything just appearing on the web, because it is overseen by an editorial team and lawyers. That's not to say I trust the way it presents and spins, as it consistently looks for angles to support a particularly suspect viewpoint. There are good reasons why, on occasions, the Mail is the only outlet reporting something as it's irrelevant piffle designed to wind people up. It's no longer a serious newspaper.

I don't like the Mail's agenda, which appears to me to want to encourage some of the worst instincts in people. That I expect it from them is true.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You obviously didn't watch the trial, because it was considered over length. The jurors, if they wish, will comment when they are ready.

I did watch a reasonable amount of the trial, and while I would agree that he shouldn't have been there I also make the point that law enforcement were not doing their jobs protecting businesses from rioters and looters and the Democrats were not locking up the few that were actually arrested. That was why protection teams were there outside businesses.

One led to the other....Similar to the deaths that resulted from the Antifa/BLM 'autonomous zone' takeover in Seattle.

All the fault of deliberate Democratic policy, officially stated or not.

The Democrats did not say anything against the riots until they considered it had affected their poll numbers against Trump and that was late on not long before the election. Well, the rioting had been going on for well over a year.

It's a fact that they were actually asked to 'condemn' the riots many times before and refused to do so.

Antifa/BLM are their foot soldiers.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Nov 2021 9.16am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

It's clear that the puppet Biden has used race to gain power and used it to slander Rittenhouse. BLM were used to cause rioting and stoke up resentments before the election, not to mention the extremely suspicious voting patterns.
Now we see an attack on a Christmas parade which is likely to be connected to all this.

It is a shameful chapter in American history, and those that have supported it should hang their heads.

And no Wisbech, I'm not interested in your painfully transparent long winded, bulls*** response to defend the indefensible, so don't bother.

Directed by the Judge not to be part of their considerations when reaching a verdict!

At least we have another breakthrough in that you are now conceding that the DNC condemned the rioting and that it wasn't their policy to support it.

Small steps, but we are getting there.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

No need for anything from me.

"The suspect appeared to have been fleeing another scene when he ran into people at the parade, the law enforcement official - who is familiar with the early findings of the investigation "

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.