hypochondriac

Wow all those millions who watched the OJ trial must have been guilty of the same thing.

Like you said, it doesn't justify his actions and I wonder if his child victims feel the same way about the mitigating circumstances (spoiler alert they don't and they've spoken out following his death.) It's not completely relevant to the case, but I certainly wouldn't be shedding any tears for the death of a child abuser even if he had been a victim here which it is proven he wasn't in court.

Because it was a very interesting case and it was fascinating to watch a direct source of the case and then see it twisted beyond all recognition by celebrities on twitter. No idea what a fox news type is, you seem to have a greater grasp on fox news than I do. The trial didn't give any impression that he was a psychopath, I think the prosecutorial misconduct on this case was shocking as outlined by the judge the weekend before closing arguments and my allegiance lies with the correct verdict being delivered. In other news, the correct verdict has also been reached in the Ahmaud Arbery case. I suspect you won't be so quick to smear the victim in that case...

Right so you didn't watch the trial, don't know the details of the case yet you think the argument of self defence was a joke verdict? Listen to the testimony and the evidence presented in court, the reasons for Rittenhouse being there on the record, his actions prior to the shooting, his use of "friendly friendly, the fact he was running away, the aggressive actions of the others involved, the climate at the time etc and then try to argue that his actions weren't justified under the law. Not being funny but you've just admitted you didn't watch the trial so I'm not sure why you're asking me questions as if I hadn't done so. Your questions are answered in the trial and no objective individual would have found him guilty as proven by the unanimous verdict of the jury. You've got the legal brains of the likes of Mark Ruffalo on your side though so he's definitely a white supremacist and this has been a massive miscarriage of justice.

I didn't say it did justify it. What justified the killing was the provocation of those who were shot. The fact that the two that were killed were subsequently lionised on social media by Hollywood celebrities says an awful lot when as I previously mentioned one of them anally raped little boys.

Never watched it in my life. I watched a live feed of the trial and made up my own mind based on the facts of the case. What unbiased source did you use to form your opinion?

Is it black fragility if you have darker coloured skin and disagree with BLM? Seems like quite an offensive term tbh.

You would hope that regardless of opinions that people could try to be subjective and listen to the actual trial. Almost every one of the hot takes on twitter talking about him being obviously guilty, a white supremacist, crossing state lines with a gun etc are completely contradicted by the testimony during the trial. It's sad that so many people just read twitter and accept what it says uncritically. The Internet has largely destroyed people's ability to be objective which is a shame.

What's skin colour got to do with anything? Seems a bit racist to me.

Did you watch the trial? Because I did, I watched about 4 days in total and most of the major incidents and what you say is entirely untrue. Go and watch the trial and then try to claim that the verdict was shocking. The jury could not reasonably have reached any other verdict given the facts of the case.

Not sure what you mean by what person he is. He's actually said he supports black lives matter (which I disagree with him on) and the trial was quite illuminating about how he was putting out fires and not seeking confrontation. Obviously there's a wider issue about it being legal for young people to have guns but the fact that in this case a paedophile and a domestic abuser got killed and were the aggressors in this situation means that his shooting was justified under the law.

What the hell is white fragility?

I don't like guns and I think America is backwards for having them but if you'd watched the trial it is immediately obvious that it was self defence and that his acquittal was the correct verdict. You can argue all you like about whether it's right to have guns in the first place but this was the right outcome.

To be honest I'd probably take a point a game which would keep us above the relegation zone and out of trouble. Five points minimum please but we can achieve more.

I think if he's honest with himself soggy knows exactly what it's about but chooses not to understand because he would believe it conflicts with his "side".

And also because being woke is not about simply being worried about sexism, racism and climate change. It's a mischaracterisation.

Shite.

Walcott since he came on and Diallo have done impressions of footballers during the game. Grim.

Sounds like quite an unpleasant character tbh.

They'll announce it in January just to spite me.

Think I read earlier today that some organisations are under investigation for encouraging people to convert to Christianity in order to approve their chances of being able to stay...

If you remember I said similar last year and then it didn't happen so I don't have a great track record with takeovers. I know all about the kits though!

They've been right before on some things and then some things they've said haven't happened but that could have been because situations change. Will be interesting to see if right though.

I've heard more rumours again of an American takeover. Some people saying we will hear news before the end of the year. No idea about it so don't ask!

Isn't that what the nations league is for?