Just to pile on (because it’s so easy), you can add these to your list of reasons to despise men like this.
They claim that Kyle lost his right of self defense by bringing a firearm. So the actual thing to be used as a means of self defense obviates in perpetuity the exercise of the action for which the implement was carried to begin with.
What. The. Actual. Fuck
Binger: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.” pic.twitter.com/2pu7lehnBx
Next, they will claim (and have), that Kyle shouldn’t have been there. Here is a reddit/Firearms thread where that is discussed. They’re right.
Same argument as “she was asking for it”
Yep. “You shouldn’t have been at that bar if you didn’t want to get raped”, “you shouldntve (sic) been out after dark if you didn’t want to be raped”.
“She shouldn’t have gone out dressed like that” is directly comparable
Yes, this kind of thinking can only lead to, ‘why did you live in that neighborhood, it’s clearly a bad part of town, just look at these crime rates’ and ‘why are you wearing that, you’re just asking for it’.
Researchers at the University of California were awarded a $500,000 grant from the National Science Foundation developing technology that infuses experimental mRNA Covid-19 vaccines into spinach, lettuce and other edible plants.
The researchers are tasked with demonstrating the genetically modified plants can produce enough mRNA to replace Covid jabs and infuse the plants with the right dosage required to eat to replace vaccines.
[ … ]
Genetically modifying edible plants with experimental vaccines for public consumption is the culmination of a dream, the associate professor explained.
Allow me to translate. “God didn’t do a good enough job when he gave us edible plants. We can do better, and thus we’ve become God.”
First, at Legal Insurrection, the forensic expert supports the defense contention that Kyle’s actions were in self defense. Because they were.
Second, Zero Hedge has a piece up discussing the “grave constitutional violation” involved in the prosecution’s assertion that Kyle’s remaining silent says something about his guilt. In other words, Kyle invoked the Fifth Amendment, and the prosecution wants to make something of it. The jury heard it all. The name of the prosecuting attorney is Thomas Binger. He’s a scumbag.
A witness in the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse testified Tuesday that prosecutors pushed him to change his statement to the police.
Amateur photographer Nathan DeBruin took the stand on Tuesday as one of four defense witnesses called that day. During his testimony, DeBruin recounted an earlier, uncomfortable meeting with prosecutors in which DeBruin said they pushed him to change a statement he gave to police regarding another man, Joshua Ziminski, whom prosecutors have charged with arson.
During the defense examination of the witness, defense attorney Mark Richards asked DeBruin to describe the meeting he had had with Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger and Assistant District Attorney James Kraus.
“I was called down to the district attorney’s office. I met with Mr. Binger and [Kraus] … I was called into a room, sat at a table, handed my police statement, got to read over my police statement, and then I was asked if I would like to add anything to the police statement, and I said I would not,” DeBruin began.
“Mr. Binger pulled out a cell phone and showed me a video and also a photo – which was actually one photo that I brought today – and asked me if I knew who a gentleman was in that photo, and I said I did not. … He said, ‘This is Joshua Ziminski.’ Mr. Binger also has a case with him, and I am subpoenaed for that case also,” he continued. “He says, ‘Well, that’s who that is.’ He put the phone down. He picked the phone back up and says, ‘Who is this?’ And I confusingly said, like, Joshua Ziminski, and he said, ‘Would you like to add that to your statement?’ and I just felt I didn’t want to change my statement.”
DeBruin said that after that meeting he retained counsel. Richards closed his examination after the exchange.
Under cross-examination by Kraus, DeBruin testified that the prosecution asked him to “change” his statement, suggesting that prosecutors wanted DeBruin to give the police false information regarding his knowledge about Ziminski.
Finally, here is an exchange between the judge and the prosecuting attorney (sent by Len Savage). The prosecuting attorney (his name is Thomas Binger) is a disgusting piece of garbage, a true dirtbag. The judge gives the attorney a spanking the likes of which I’ve never seen before. In forty one years in my career, I’ve never been dressed down like that.
With that said, it’s now time for the judge to throw the case out of court and imprison the attorney for suborning perjury and contempt of court, right after he reports him to the BAR to have his license revoked.
A room full of court jesters. If the judge has any integrity, he’ll call counsel to his chambers and end the trial now. The prosecuting attorney should be submitted to the BAR to have his license and practicing privileges revoked.
Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent of all charges against him. This is nothing but a political show.
So, they did, but not without some weasel words to be able to deny they ever made the mandate in the first place. This isn’t a very good look for Hornady, but at least they backed down.
For what it’s worth, as of this writing, I still haven’t gotten a response to my note to Steve Hornady.
Southwest Airlines Co. asked a federal court to reject a request from its pilots to temporarily block the carrier from carrying out federally mandated coronavirus vaccinations, saying such an order would put the company’s business, employees and customers at risk.
The Southwest Airlines Pilots Association is seeking to stop the airline from moving ahead with the Nov. 24 deadline for the shots until an existing a lawsuit it filed over alleged U.S. labor law violations is resolved. The union claims Southwest illegally changed work rules during the pandemic instead of negotiating them with pilots.
It’s true that if they lose a pilot in a heart attack due to blood clot in a vaccinated pilot (like Delta), the money woes will be much worse, especially if the plane crashes and hundreds of people perish.
“I don’t believe the vaccines are safe”. How much data, gathered over what period of time, will it take to put this false narrative to bed?
“I don’t believe the vaccines are effective”. While there have been some, few instances of people contracting COVID after having been vaccinated, the effects they suffer are, almost without exception, an order of magnitude less severe than they would have been otherwise.
“I have already contracted the disease and so I already have some level of immunity and see no benefit from vaccination”. Right on the first count, wrong on the second; you can be certain that your immunity will only be bolstered with a vaccination.
“I am afraid of suffering side effects from the vaccination”. While some have reported this to be the case, there are stunningly few and the effects are modest/weak and very short-lived.
“My circumstance puts me at a heightened risk from being vaccinated”. I don’t know what circumstance that is; it most certainly does not apply to those attempting to become pregnant, for example.
“I have a history of adverse allergic reactions”. Maybe. That alone has a taint of legitimacy.
“I claim a religious exemption”. For the life of me, I can’t understand the basis of such a thing. What religion would advocate against something that will protect your life and that of others? Certainly none that I’ve ever heard of. Go ask the Pope.
“I can’t afford it”. Bullshit; it’s free.
“I don’t know where to find it”. Are you living under a rock?
“I’m a freedom-loving American and I simply don’t want to”. Ahhh, here we go. This is far and away the most frequent – and lamest – excuse. Even Donald Trump, the poster-child for the selfish exercise of frequently nonsensical individual freedoms (“I’m not wearing a mask because I don’t want to”.) has been vaccinated and has encouraged other people to do so as well (NB he’s also previously contracted the disease, above). As a member of a society, you have an obligation not to threaten the health and well-being of others, particularly when doing so comes at no risk or expense to you.
I’ll admit I enjoy no small measure of schadenfreude reading stories of those stubborn people who find themselves stricken and on death’s door, suffering from their earlier foolish decision not to get vaccinated. I look at it almost as a Darwinian effect, helping cleanse our gene pool. Excuse my lack of sympathy. Too bad. Completely avoidable. Didn’t have to happen.
I will ask the pope nothing at all. He’s an unbeliever and godless communist and has an adviser who is a Gaia worshiper and atheist. Besides, I’ve written on this subject and if the author of this stupid and ill-informed missive took the time he could have studied the issue as well.
When a writer gets to the point that he’s telling people (he doesn’t even know) that he doesn’t care if they live or die, something has gone badly wrong. It’s time to take a long break and stop writing. Something is deeply disturbed and wrong in the soul.
He also doesn’t seem to be very well aware of the real data on adverse reactions (see also here, and here, and here). It doesn’t really matter. He’s just aping the crap he hears on CNN.
Either way, he’s jettisoned his following, defenestrated them, thrown them out the window. He doesn’t care any more for whatever reason. He tried to apologize, but it fails.
Good job, dummy. You just destroyed your business. Go find another job now.
4 years, 1 month ago
