Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, concha said: Andy getting upset that I post an article that says something he doesn't like and can't refute... 👇 Whenever you use "arguable" or "there are arguments" you're just bullshitting. 3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: “At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.” The Wisconsin Department of Justice honors concealed carry permits issued in Illinois. But Rittenhouse did not have a permit to begin with, and he was not legally old enough to carry a firearm in Wisconsin. In Illinois, concealed carry applicants must be at least 21 years old. Since Rittenhouse is 17, he would not qualify for a permit. Wisconsin law stipulates that "any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor." On Aug. 27, prosecutors charged Rittenhouse with a misdemeanor count of possession of a dangerous weapon under the age of 18, according to court records. concha's tells are so easy. When he's not flat out lying he just uses weasel words like "arguable" or phrases like "there may be arguments" to smuggle in his desire to let a criminal go free because of his obvious political affinity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 Just now, concha said: Politifact... Well, that's like a unanimous Supreme Court decision. 🤡 I knew this would be your response when your bullshit fishing expedition was exposed as baseless. They simply read the law and the charges that were filed again him. Crazy, right? 😄 💩 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBP66 Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, concha said: He didn't drive 20 miles with an AR-15, Andy...his mother dropped him off!..your kind of women! He had a job in Kenosha. The rifle was a friend's..and he not allowed to use it because he's a child. He stuck around to help paint over graffiti on people's businesses and then volunteered to help look after a local business...not his job and how did that work out? He was assaulted and defended himself. As is clear in multiple videos....he shot someone and tried fleeing the scene...very obvious what he was doing. Your dishonest fantasies are laughable....you're rooting for a killer... 🤡 🤡 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 Just now, Atticus Finch said: So he was there for work, now. First, he was there to help people. Then he was there to defend himself. Now, he was there to work. 👌 You keep trying to be cute with this. He was there for work. That has come out. He did stay to help people. He did defend himself. It's funny how you get so frustrated by the truth. 🤣 🤡 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, concha said: And it still doesn't address the fact that Rittenhouse defended himself. Because that has nothing to do this particular claim. He's going to be a convicted criminal soon because he clearly broke the law by carrying a gun. concha scrambling as usual to defend the indefensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 Just now, Atticus Finch said: I knew this would be your response when your bullshit fishing expedition was exposed as baseless. They simply read the law and the charges that were filed again him. Crazy, right? 😄 💩 🤡 So did the Milwaukee paper, I'd imagine. LMAO Andy's having a tough day. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, concha said: If the courts decide he shouldn't have had a gun, then fine (if and when that happens). The law is clear. The only way he gets off is nullification which will certainly be their strategy. So are you going to admit that he was committing a crime with his mere presence with a weapon? Probably not. concha never admits factual things that go against his unwavering support for right-wing loons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, concha said: He was still assaulted and still was acting in self-defense. Maybe if you keep saying it then it will be true. 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, concha said: It's funny how you get so frustrated by the truth. 🤣 2 minutes ago you were just embarrassed by the facts checked by politifact. Everybody here knows that you're a liar and bullshitter. 💩 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 Just now, Atticus Finch said: Because that has nothing to do this particular claim. He's going to be a convicted criminal soon because he clearly broke the law by carrying a gun. concha scrambling as usual to defend the indefensible. The courts will decide if there will be a conviction and punishment for having a gun. No one is disputing he is 17 nor that he had a gun. 🤡 I'm LMAO at you trying to avoid the obvious truth that he defended himself. Literally every video out there shows this. Was he assaulted, Andy? Did that cause him to defend himself? Please lie. You know you want to. 🤣 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, concha said: So did the Milwaukee paper, I'd imagine. A literal child could read the law in both states and understand that there's zero wiggle room for this kid. He's guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 1 minute ago, concha said: No one is disputing he is 17 nor that he had a gun. Then why are you having a hard time saying that he committed a crime? It's rhetorical, concha. We all know why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 Just now, Atticus Finch said: 2 minutes ago you were just embarrassed by the facts checked by politifact. Everybody here knows that you're a liar and bullshitter. 💩 Why is Politifact the ultimate arbiter and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article incorrect? I'm not even saying Rittenhouse will not be found guilty. 🤣 But it's great to see you getting your panties in such a bind over it. Take it away, Andy... 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: A literal child could read the law in both states and understand that there's zero wiggle room for this kid. He's guilty. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, DBP66 said: you're rooting for a killer... No question whatsoever. He likely did the same thing with George Zimmerman. They also never answer this simple question: Has there ever been a George Zimmerman or Kyle Rittenhouse that you thought was guilty? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 concha is not even at a child's reading level apparently. I kid. I know why he refuses to call this kid a criminal. It's because he's a Trump supporter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 4 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: Then why are you having a hard time saying that he committed a crime? It's rhetorical, concha. We all know why. Because a lawyer in Wisconsin indicated that the law is poorly written and there might be exceptions? I love it that Andy thinks he's arguing with me, but he's actually crying about a lawyer who specializes in gun law.🤣 🤡 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 14 minutes ago, concha said: Because a lawyer in Wisconsin indicated that the law is poorly written and there might be exceptions? Well, then that's settled! A lawyer defending the criminal thinks that it's poorly written and might have exceptions. Done deal! 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 All the times concha called people or acts criminal despite no convictions or even charges being filed. 👇 On 12/29/2017 at 10:18 AM, concha said: Trump campaign + Russia = Nothing to Write Home About Hillary/FBI/Fusion GPS + Russia = Looking Worse and Potentially Criminal by the Day On 8/31/2018 at 8:22 AM, concha said: A couple of things: 1) Things are looking more and more criminal. But for Dems. Ooops. On 3/24/2019 at 5:33 PM, concha said: What you leave out is the BS (some very arguable criminal in nature) committed by the opposition and high-ranking law enforcement officials. On 6/2/2020 at 1:11 PM, concha said: And yet another are just criminal assholes taking advantage to loot and blow off steam (while people's lives and neighborhoods are destroyed). But refuses to call Kyle Rittenhouse a criminal until a jury convicts him. Oh, and his lawyer thinks there may be wiggle room despite the math of his age (17) being under both the requirements for his home state (21) and the state he was in (18). 🤷♂️ 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I AM IRONMAN Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 1 hour ago, DBP66 said: what time do you get out of school today mam??... When I'm done schooling you junior. So probably not for a while! 🍕 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 13 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: Well, then that's settled! A lawyer defending the criminal thinks that it's poorly written and might have exceptions. Done deal! 😄 Nobody said he was defending the guy, Andy. You're making up a lot of shit today. 🤡 That's because you are dishonest and flailing. 🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
concha Posted September 3, 2020 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 25 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said: All the times concha called people or acts criminal despite no convictions or even charges being filed. 👇 But refuses to call Kyle Rittenhouse a criminal until a jury convicts him. Oh, and his lawyer thinks there may be wiggle room despite the math of his age (17) being under both the requirements for his home state (21) and the state he was in (18). 🤷♂️ 😄 Andy is so desperate that he's doing his pathetic search back for years crap and posting things out-of-context. 🤣 His usual mental turbo diarrhea. 🤡 Flailing Andy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockinl Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 20 hours ago, maxchoboian said: Employers and HR departments are overwhelmingly liberal? I don't buy it. No. Scared of lawsuits and boycotts? Absolutely. I know for a fact that the corporation I work for would never allow an anti BLM sticker/flag, shirt, etc... It's already been tried, and was shutdown immediately with threat of termination. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownSouth Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 34 minutes ago, rockinl said: No. Scared of lawsuits and boycotts? Absolutely. I know for a fact that the corporation I work for would never allow an anti BLM sticker/flag, shirt, etc... It's already been tried, and was shutdown immediately with threat of termination. Why would there be any reason to wear an anti BLM patch (or whatever) to your job? Any corporation that is built around professional behavior wouldn't allow any political statements in terms of dress code or belongings in your office anyway. I don't to see your MAGA hat while you're presenting new investment strategies to me, and nobody wants to see a Don't Tread on Me flag hanging behind the front desk person at the Four Seasons. - For the record I don't want to see any "left" causes being represented in professional environments either. Sounds like a bunch of complaining over nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bormio Posted September 3, 2020 Report Share Posted September 3, 2020 28 minutes ago, DownSouth said: Why would there be any reason to wear an anti BLM patch (or whatever) to your job? Any corporation that is built around professional behavior wouldn't allow any political statements in terms of dress code or belongings in your office anyway. I don't to see your MAGA hat while you're presenting new investment strategies to me, and nobody wants to see a Don't Tread on Me flag hanging behind the front desk person at the Four Seasons. - For the record I don't want to see any "left" causes being represented in professional environments either. Sounds like a bunch of complaining over nothing. But people on the Left are insisting on exactly that (wearing BLM shirts, caps) and daring employers to say something. Then if someone responds from the other side, the lefty whines about his/her safe space. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.