egg

He got it wrong, pure and simple. He gave away the midfield, Adams as a kind of false 9 went as badly as you'd expect, 3 at the back went badly. Staggering that you defend that tactical clusterfuck.

Give it a fucking rest mate. People don't have to explain every opinion they have.

Agreed. We'll be more direct I think, balls into the channels for the 3 up top, also expect to see them coming deep to almost play as 10's and play on the turn. Really interesting line up.

The Dutch managed it.

Yep, "in you come, and do a little test when you get a chance". Crazy.

Brave is the kindest word I can think of. If ever there was a game for 3 in the middle it was today.

Possibly...but not sure why you assume that's an ego caused by an agent. Could well be poor man management.

Want to jump to any more conclusions?!

Sutton to beat Barrow in league 2 looks pretty nailed on to me.

Not at all. You're supporting a vile killer. I'm not.

Having a gun means there's a prospect of using it, but that's different to "looking for action". It's a fine ish line though.

Bollox did he. He's a family man, and can't point to what was apparently said in evidence. I don't believe a word of it.

You have not answered it. You've said that a closing speech mentioned him taking a hiding. That's a) not evidence or b) fear of death. People who watch trials hear the evidence and can explain it. People who don't just go round in circles like you.

The legal test is a reasonable belief of death. Nothing more or less. I've said that his best point was Huber apparently approaching his gun. What made him fear death at the hands of the unarmed (on his admission) Rosenbaum? Don't bounce this back with another "watch it" response - you apparently did so what's the answer?

But you apparently spent 4 days watching it and still can't / won't say what convinced you that he feared death!

It's not worth my time as who the fuck wants to spend 4 days of their lives watching a TV trial?! I have a life, wife, job, and family. Give some thought to that question of yours mate, it'll open your eyes to the real world.

We've covered this. Reasonable fear of death is the legal test, not a hiding. I've asked you several times now what you heard in your apparent 4 days of watching that made you conclude that he feared that. I haven't had an answer yet, and to be honest, I'm not interested. We'll end up with you maintaining that he's innocent cos the jury said so and they're always right.

I think most are having a sensible conversation...and the sensible conclusion is that this fool is vile and would not be defended by right minded people. And no, that's not because that's what twitter says.

I've answered mate. You think this bloke is innocent, I don't. I have no interest in the answer, but ask yourself whether (using your own question) you "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" in the hypothetical scenario I laid out above. Back to Rittenhouse, you still haven't explained what you heard in 4 days of trial watching to satisfy yourself that he feared death. Rosenbaum threw a bag at him, and he knew he had no gun. I don't believe that he had any reasonable belief to fear death. You think otherwise. We'll agree to differ.

You asked me "Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?" It seems that you need to mull that one over yourself mate and relate it my rhetorical questions. It's either your position that what a jury decides / the judge directs must be the correct outcome, or it isn't.

OK. Let's take a hypothetical scenario. A burglar breaks into your house, takes a shit on your pillow, causes a bit of damage, steals your favourite stuff. He's seen, admits he was there, but at court some technicality means that the judge has to direct the jury to acquit (it happens, lots). Are you happy with that legally correct outcome? Or are you fucking livid by the obviously unjust outcome? Rhetorical questions because I can't be arsed, and it's obvious what the answers should be. Legally correct outcomes aren't always the just one. That's the reality.

There's nothing bizarre to that logic. Correct application of the law often leads to unjust outcomes. It is bizarre, and more than a tad naive, to believe otherwise.

The reaching for his gun was Huber and, as I said above, that was his best point. It does not relate to Rosenbaum. If you watched for 4 days, you'd know that. You'd also know that he conceded that he was aware that Rosenbaum had no gun - presumably he feared death by toothbrush or carrier bag?! Your constant "watch the trial" line is patronising and unhelpful - if you really watched for 4 days you could explain your rationale. Nobody has to watch a trial to know the facts of a case - I've been a practicing lawyer for over 25 years and every precedent case is reported, relied upon and discussed by people who weren't at or watching the case- the facts are laid out in writing and people sensibly debate and discuss them. Let's leave it mate. It was a shocking decision (even if correct by their fucked law) and I'll stick to my position that I find it shocking that anyone would defend the bloke.

Twitter! Not me mate. Nobody has to watch 4 days of a trial to understand the facts. Someone who did should be able to explain how he feels that Rittenhouse felt that he was in danger of death. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he concede in evidence that he knew that Rosenbaum had no gun? On the first point, I thought that your earlier posts this evening suggested a relevance to the victim's past to the defence. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

What's their character got to do with Rittenhouse believing he was in danger of death from them?