Another police shooting - this time in Wisconsin...

Heathen Saint said

You didn't answer my question - again.

Videos of a kid scrubbing graffiti or an alibi from a friend or relative don't detract from the action, which was him going to another locale with a loaded weapon.

I'm very open to other interpretations. But you must understand that making blanket statements like "fact vs incorrect information" don't trump others in an argument. Also, condescending remarks about "if you're going to form an opinion" really are of no substance if you can't prove where I'm 'closed' to information that doesn't 'align with my opinion'. Having a difference of opinion on motive isn't equivalent to what you're attempting to label with. It's just a difference of opinion.

Would you like to address those points without the irrelevant condescension at this time?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what question I didn't answer & unfortunately I don't have but a minute to respond. I'll go back tomorrow and see if there's anything that I didn't address.

You asked for evidence that Rittenhouse didn't go there with the intent to kill someone. I gave evidence that suggested he had other or even additional motives. Honestly, I don't know what goes through a killer's mind, but going around with a medical kit offering help to the people he's trying to kill and helping to clean up after the previous nights' riots just doesn't seem to fit to me. And that's not an alibi from his friend, those were reports from other people along with video from other people who are not otherwise associated with Rittenhouse.

You told me that I was arguing semantics when I corrected you on incorrect facts like he was driven to Kenosha with his rifle in tactical gear, all of which is false and all which were fabricated by the media and repeated by political pundits. Those incorrect statements are the type of things that lead me in the first place to believe that you're "regurgitating" information.