You proceed form a false premise - you cannot demonstrate that arming yourself and going to a violent area equates to picking a fight, and you...
What does WI law say about self-defense, and, specifically, how do Rittenhouse's actions negate his claim to same?
As -I- am not ignorant of the relevant law and the facts of the matter, -I- would be more than happy to.
What does WI law say about self-defense,...
As you admit your ignorance of both the relevant law and the facts of the matter, how are you capable of engaging in a substantive...
As you admit your ignorance of both the relevant law and the facts of the matter, this cannot be true.
As you admit your ignorance of the law and the facts at hand, you cannot present anything of substance with regard to this topic.
And thus, you cannot demonstrate that Rittenhouse picked a fight.
This is not a surprise, given your admitted ignorance of the facts.
I'm sorry you do not like the fact you admitted your ignorance of the law and the facts, but that admission of ignorance removes your admittedly...
No matter the answer, you do not not know how it is relevant, or how it applies.
Do you know what happened? You admit you don't.
I cannot discuss the issue you with you as you admit you are ignorant of the law and the facts involved in this incident.
That's YOUR failure not...
Cite the questions. Copy and paste the text, and her response.
Your honest and knowledgeable response to my challenge, above, will prove you wrong.
You have, not once, defended them from my commentary.
When you think you can, let me know.
Until then, I fully expect you'll continue...
Thank you for further demonstrating your ignorance of the facts.
I did. You just read it.
- What you would or what do has no bearing on the issue at hand.
- You admit you are ignorant of the law and the...
That "angle" is a claim of self-defense, which has been the claim since day one: under WI law, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt...
Not even remotely..
What -you- would or would not do has no bearing whatsoever on the facts and the law -- to both of which you admit your ignorance.
I congratulate you on reaching a new level of willful misunderstanding.
Saved for posterity.
It means the number of people voting early does not change the total number of votes.
How do you not understand this?
You know this just means fewer (D) voters on election day - right?
Irrelevant to the issue at hand.
By definition, the exercise of a right is not, and cannot be, an unlawful act - unless said laws violate the protections of the right afforded to...
I refer you, again, to the Ginsberg Rule.
Separate names with a comma.