Dear Trump fans,

Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Gee, I still see Trump in the news lying, but he's doing a lot of sweating these days too. Most are here to watch him and his henchmen crash and burn, it's strictly entertainment from here on out. Donald running around loose is useful and amusing, since he's ripping the republicans to pieces, trying to grift for sucker cash to pay his legal bills. He's also keeping them leaderless and disorganized, he wants to refight his 2020 election loss and won't let them get back on their feet before he goes to prison.

Watching Donald and his henchmen twist in the wind this spring and summer will be fun, bring popcorn! This spring and summer promises to be one Hulluva show, in congress and the courts.

Imagine Donald doing time on a Georgia chain gang, sent up the river by a black prosecutor and majority black jury in Fulton Co. Georgia looks to be first up and lot's of top GOP officials there will have to testify against Trump in court on TV! :lol: The solid south will shit!
Click to expand...
the only problem has been pointed out by..Fog, i think...at least 1/3 of the jury pool are trumptard...and in georgia, it's probably closer to half...so the best you're likely to get out of a trial in georgia is hung jury after hung jury...
 
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds said:
He will never be humiliated
He will always be a victim
It is the Republicon go to
Click to expand...
he's so fucking humiliated right now that he can't stand it, why do you think he insists on rehashing the 2020 election again and again? he CANNOT accept that he lost, and lost badly...so he invents a fantasy where he didn't lose to a liberal he hates, his victory was stolen, and that gives him the right (in his fucking sick mind) to steal it back...
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
the only problem has been pointed out by..Fog, i think...at least 1/3 of the jury pool are trumptard...and in georgia, it's probably closer to half...so the best you're likely to get out of a trial in georgia is hung jury after hung jury...
Click to expand...
Fulton Co is urban and heavily democratic, juries are screened and most folks do decide the case based on the evidence, they are in a group and it is hard for individuals to hold out when there is overwhelming evidence. Most will say they voted for him, but had to convict him based on the evidence. We will see, even if he isn't convicted, his trial will be on TV and the country will make the call, also top republicans will have to testify against him. Mark Meadows was in on that recorded call too BTW, then there is the federal prosecutor who resigned...

All in all I'd say it's worth a shot, if ya don't hit the target, you can cause a lot of collateral damage.

1644433014372.png
 
Last edited:
Roger A. Shrubber

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Fulton Co is urban and heavily democratic, juries are screened and most folks do decide the case based on the evidence, they are in a group and it is hard for individuals to hold out when there is overwhelming evidence. Most will say they voted for him, but had to convict him based on the evidence. We will see, even if he isn't convicted, his trial will be on TV and the country will make the call, also top republicans will have to testify against him. Mark Meadows was in on that recorded call too BTW, then there is the federal prosecutor who resigned...

All in all I'd say it's worth a shot, if ya don't hit the target, you can cause a lot of collateral damage.

View attachment 5082603
Click to expand...
i hope you're right...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Fulton Co is urban and heavily democratic, juries are screened and most folks do decide the case based on the evidence, they are in a group and it is hard for individuals to hold out when there is overwhelming evidence. Most will say they voted for him, but had to convict him based on the evidence. We will see, even if he isn't convicted, his trial will be on TV and the country will make the call, also top republicans will have to testify against him. Mark Meadows was in on that recorded call too BTW, then there is the federal prosecutor who resigned...

All in all I'd say it's worth a shot, if ya don't hit the target, you can cause a lot of collateral damage.

View attachment 5082603
Click to expand...
That doesn't change anything, DIY.
 
Nsparky1

Nsparky1

Member
Trump was and will always be a snake oil con.. he brainwashed his supporters to believe every single lie he told..down to the election was stolen.. he's a dangerous predator, a lier and a traitor to our democracy.
Now. Don't get me wrong..I'm absolutely not a Biden fan but I value dignity respect and professionalism in someone who holds the highest office in the land..not someone who proudly professed grabbing women by the pussy
 
B

B-Rad11

Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
boy i sure wish norm was still around to tell you to stop using his image in your hate filled fantasies...
so now rosenbaum was screaming profanities while "attacking" a punk kid holding an assault rifle?
what's next, you gonna start saying he was armed with a tactical nuke? fucking liar, racist, hate mongering ass
and now, you go the same place i send all you fucktard trump ass kissing racist haters...to the ignore list, because i'll be fucked if you're living in my head for free...bye bye white supremacist
Click to expand...


It looks like he was yelling profanities at the group kyle was with. I guess he got what he asked for.

Kyle also didn't have an assault rifle. The AR 15 is a semi automatic weapon and an assault rifle is automatic.
 
B

B-Rad11

Member
Kyle was also legally allowed to have the rifle which is why the gun charge was dropped.

Wisconsin Statutes §948.60(3)(c), which pertains to possession of firearms by someone under 18, says that “this section” - §948.60 - “only applies” to someone under 18 “if the person is “in violation of” any of three specific sections of law. Those three sections are:

1. §941.28, “possession of a short barrel shotgun or a short-barrel rifle.”

The rifle he was carrying was not short-barrel, so he was not in violation of this section.

2. §29.304, “restrictions on hunting by persons under 16 years of age.”

That’s not a typo, it’s “16.” Kyle was 17.

The prohibition on possession of firearms for hunting except under adult supervision is found in §29.304(3)(b), “No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm” unless there’s a hunting certificate and adult supervision.

Since Kyle was 17, not “under 16,” this does not apply to him, and thus he was not in violation of this section.

3. §29.593, “requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.”

He was not engaged in hunting, so regardless of whether or not he had a certificate and a hunting approval, he was not in violation of this section.

Kyle was not in violation of any of those three sections, and since §948.60(3)(c) says that §948.60 only applies to a 16- or 17-year-old if they are in violation of any of those three sections, the whole of §948.60 does not apply to him.

He was legally permitted to openly carry that rifle under Wisconsin law.
 
Offmymeds

Offmymeds

Well-Known Member
B-Rad11 said:
Kyle was also legally allowed to have the rifle which is why the gun charge was dropped.

Wisconsin Statutes §948.60(3)(c), which pertains to possession of firearms by someone under 18, says that “this section” - §948.60 - “only applies” to someone under 18 “if the person is “in violation of” any of three specific sections of law. Those three sections are:

1. §941.28, “possession of a short barrel shotgun or a short-barrel rifle.”

The rifle he was carrying was not short-barrel, so he was not in violation of this section.

2. §29.304, “restrictions on hunting by persons under 16 years of age.”

That’s not a typo, it’s “16.” Kyle was 17.

The prohibition on possession of firearms for hunting except under adult supervision is found in §29.304(3)(b), “No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm” unless there’s a hunting certificate and adult supervision.

Since Kyle was 17, not “under 16,” this does not apply to him, and thus he was not in violation of this section.

3. §29.593, “requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.”

He was not engaged in hunting, so regardless of whether or not he had a certificate and a hunting approval, he was not in violation of this section.

Kyle was not in violation of any of those three sections, and since §948.60(3)(c) says that §948.60 only applies to a 16- or 17-year-old if they are in violation of any of those three sections, the whole of §948.60 does not apply to him.

He was legally permitted to openly carry that rifle under Wisconsin law.
Click to expand...
Legality doesn't trump morality. He and his mother are troubled individuals.
 
Paul Drake

Paul Drake

Well-Known Member
B-Rad11 said:
Kyle was also legally allowed to have the rifle which is why the gun charge was dropped.

Wisconsin Statutes §948.60(3)(c), which pertains to possession of firearms by someone under 18, says that “this section” - §948.60 - “only applies” to someone under 18 “if the person is “in violation of” any of three specific sections of law. Those three sections are:

1. §941.28, “possession of a short barrel shotgun or a short-barrel rifle.”

The rifle he was carrying was not short-barrel, so he was not in violation of this section.

2. §29.304, “restrictions on hunting by persons under 16 years of age.”

That’s not a typo, it’s “16.” Kyle was 17.

The prohibition on possession of firearms for hunting except under adult supervision is found in §29.304(3)(b), “No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm” unless there’s a hunting certificate and adult supervision.

Since Kyle was 17, not “under 16,” this does not apply to him, and thus he was not in violation of this section.

3. §29.593, “requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.”

He was not engaged in hunting, so regardless of whether or not he had a certificate and a hunting approval, he was not in violation of this section.

Kyle was not in violation of any of those three sections, and since §948.60(3)(c) says that §948.60 only applies to a 16- or 17-year-old if they are in violation of any of those three sections, the whole of §948.60 does not apply to him.

He was legally permitted to openly carry that rifle under Wisconsin law.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t mean you have to carry it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top