BangkokReady

What are you talking about? The guy was trying to take his gun from him for no reason. He fired four shots in .7 seconds and one entered his back. You're trying to make it sound like he shot him in the back deliberately, which is not the case. If you only have lies, why bother? The facts are available to everyone. People aren't so stupid.

Everyone but you is sticking to facts. Two out of three were armed. And you can shoot unarmed people anyway, if they are trying to kill you. I'm not sure how you can fail to understand this and keep saying things that are so wrong.

So ignore the facts? Ponder false rhetoric and ignore the evidence of our eyes? Why would any sane person do that?

He might have said that, but the evidence shows something very different.

You didn't quote the prosecutor as saying the final shot was fatal (which is what I asked). You quoted the prosecutor in calling it a kill shot, obviously the prosecutor is allowed to say something that there is no evidence for as he is making accusations. This is what happens in trial "I put it to you...". Also, the prosecutor has been extremely sketchy in terms of saying things he should not done, so you're on shaky ground there also. Wrong again. Just double checked. Got the number wrong, it was four shots in .7 seconds, but that is what was reported. Facts. Not what you want it to be, I'm afraid. Bottom line is, the language you use is not representative of what really happened. And it's obviously deliberate.

You do know that simply because you say "opinion + he was an active shooter" that doesn't make him an active shooter, right?

So that's a no. You shouldn't lie in your posts. It makes what you say seem biased and unreliable. What I mean to say is, there seems to be no evidence to suggest that the final shot fired was the shot that caused his death (and that doesn't affect the rest of this point anyway), so saying "he fired the kill shot into his back" was said by you not to make a factual claim, but to make an emotional claim (which you have no evidence for). You also use words that would be associated with hunting and deliberate killing, to try and make it sound like the killing was calculated and done not for self defense but for sport. Also, the fact that the final shot was into his back has no relevance, as he fired the shots in such a quick succession, he would have spun quickly and Rittenhouse would have not had any time to actually be making a conscious decision to fire into his back. I believe it was: threat, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang in less than a second to end the threat. What you want to make it sound like is that Rittenhouse shot the guy a number of times, with enough of an interval between shots that he essential took aim at the guy's back and deliberately and knowingly fired, which I don't believe happened. So you're not really being honest. It's the same as trying to call the people shot by Rittenhouse "victims". They're only victims if he wasn't acting in self-defense, so to want to have them referred to as victims in the court is to remove the presumption of innocence. Imagine if the prosecution wanted the people that were shot to be referred to as "those people that the defendant deliberately murdered", that's the same thing.

Did the autopsy confirm it was the final shot that killed him?

Write about something you find interesting, something you know a lot about, or something that is simply enjoyable for you to write about. Post it and then relax. Don't write things to pander to others. You don't get paid for this, so why bother?

And you track them all down and ask them what they think about corruption in Thailand?

Hopefully he will be found not-guilty. He was clearly acting in self-defense. All the evidence points towards that and most of what people are claiming here is just kind of nonsensical, irrelevant or made up. One guy having a skateboard not a gun, people "thinking" they were stopping an active shooter, the legality of the weapon, claiming photos of him carrying a gun make it look like he was planning to kill people. These are essentially opinions or feelings, not facts, and those don't relate to the trial. The bottom line is, in each situation where Rittenhouse shot someone, those people were attacking him with lethal force when he posed no danger to them and were unprovoked in doing so. In each instance, Rittenhouse had reason to believe that if he did not shoot he would die, hence it was self-defense.

How could you possibly know that? They identify themselves as illegal aliens to you just prior to moaning about corruption?

I'm pretty sure that fully vaccinated foreigners will still be treated like they automatically have covid due to being foreign.

Or countries that are forced to accept Sinovac, either due to poverty or corruption, happen to have naturally occurring conditions that make covid easier to deal with, such as cultural practices or environmental factors.

What made you think that "these people" meant Thais, rather than the people who committed the murder?

Such as?

Sadly, I have experienced this attitude many times, and continue to do so. It wouldn't surprise me if it only gets worse once Thailand opens up fully.

How about "Thai Stop Tourism Plus"? Absolutely ridiculous. After going through the bother required to get in, playing Russian Roulette with the chance of two week symptomless stay in covid jail/hospital with a bill of 100K? No thank you. People will see the tests and just go somewhere else. I wonder if this would be being applied the same to Thais as it will be to foreigners in practice? But I guess you can only get covid form foreigners anyway, so no problem.

If Thailand didn't want prostitution to happen, or rather didn't want Westerners coming to Thailand for prostitution (they obviously aren't bothered by prostitution used by Thais), don't you think they would end it? They know where it goes on and since covid came along they seem to have been able to keep most bars and nightclubs closed, so it isn't like targeting a type of business is beyond their means. They can clearly keep a business closed when they want to, so if they don't want Pattaya to be full of Western focused prostitution, why haven't they stopped it before?

Yes. Not wishing to be rude, but she appears to be not particularly attractive. Older and quite fat. I wonder how she competes with the twenty something slim and cute girls. Must have very low prices. Good luck to her though.

It's not a scam. Just plain old exploitation. Sadly some people see foreigners as being here solely for that purpose. The real heart breaking part is that they don't seem to care if the kids lose out as a result.

The origin of the vaccine is irrelevant. A more effective vaccine could have been ordered long ago. This is especially true once it became known how ineffective Sinovac was against Delta. Thai people deserve better. Sorry, but I don't think your deflection tactics will work here as they are contrary to the facts.

Yes. More effective means less chance of catching the virus and if you do catch the virus less chance of getting very sick or dying. Less effective means this protection is lower.

Blame the author, not the reader. If someone sees the headline "Killed 55 years ago, Thailand’s [murderous tyrannical terrorist figure] finally honored by his university", it's not entirely their fault if they believe it.

If he is genuinely the Thai version of Che Guevara, he should not be being honored at all. I hope it's just the typically complete misunderstanding of basic facts and he wasn't actually the Thai Che Guevara.