@factsbyjimmy.bsky.social
BlueSky = BlockSky
Facts Over Feelings
If you're here to check my bio, you're most likely planning an ad hominem attack.
Facts Over Feelings
If you're here to check my bio, you're most likely planning an ad hominem attack.
Eduardo Flores-Ruiz wasn't "innocent."
Remember, "Truth Matters"
What to know about charges filed against Eduardo Flores-Ruiz
share.google/jtTnCbnST8Sq...
Remember, "Truth Matters"
What to know about charges filed against Eduardo Flores-Ruiz
share.google/jtTnCbnST8Sq...
What to know about Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, the man who appeared in judge Hannah Dugan's Milwaukee courtroom
Why Eduardo Flores-Ruiz was in Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan's courtroom, where he's from and answers to other questions.
share.google
December 19, 2025 at 10:45 AM
Eduardo Flores-Ruiz wasn't "innocent."
Remember, "Truth Matters"
What to know about charges filed against Eduardo Flores-Ruiz
share.google/jtTnCbnST8Sq...
Remember, "Truth Matters"
What to know about charges filed against Eduardo Flores-Ruiz
share.google/jtTnCbnST8Sq...
Judge Dugan's conviction was a federal charge.
December 19, 2025 at 10:27 AM
Judge Dugan's conviction was a federal charge.
Unarmed ≠ Not a threat.
•Rosenbaum & Huber attempted to disarm Kyle.
•The term "unarmed" becomes irrelevant when that person is attempting to DISARM you.
•Huber was utilizing his skateboard as an improvised weapon.
•Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at Kyle's head.
Context matters.
•Rosenbaum & Huber attempted to disarm Kyle.
•The term "unarmed" becomes irrelevant when that person is attempting to DISARM you.
•Huber was utilizing his skateboard as an improvised weapon.
•Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at Kyle's head.
Context matters.
December 19, 2025 at 7:40 AM
Unarmed ≠ Not a threat.
•Rosenbaum & Huber attempted to disarm Kyle.
•The term "unarmed" becomes irrelevant when that person is attempting to DISARM you.
•Huber was utilizing his skateboard as an improvised weapon.
•Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at Kyle's head.
Context matters.
•Rosenbaum & Huber attempted to disarm Kyle.
•The term "unarmed" becomes irrelevant when that person is attempting to DISARM you.
•Huber was utilizing his skateboard as an improvised weapon.
•Grosskreutz pointed a firearm at Kyle's head.
Context matters.
Only by the president due to the federal charge.
December 19, 2025 at 7:30 AM
Only by the president due to the federal charge.
Legally, your opinion is irrelevant.
"He should not have been there" doesn't appear anywhere in the self-defense statute nor is it relevant to Kyle's right to self-defense. Additionally, "He should not have been there" wasn't something that appeared in the jury instructions.
"He should not have been there" doesn't appear anywhere in the self-defense statute nor is it relevant to Kyle's right to self-defense. Additionally, "He should not have been there" wasn't something that appeared in the jury instructions.
December 19, 2025 at 7:07 AM
Legally, your opinion is irrelevant.
"He should not have been there" doesn't appear anywhere in the self-defense statute nor is it relevant to Kyle's right to self-defense. Additionally, "He should not have been there" wasn't something that appeared in the jury instructions.
"He should not have been there" doesn't appear anywhere in the self-defense statute nor is it relevant to Kyle's right to self-defense. Additionally, "He should not have been there" wasn't something that appeared in the jury instructions.
Both verdicts were correct.
December 19, 2025 at 6:26 AM
Both verdicts were correct.
Both verdicts were correct.
December 19, 2025 at 6:24 AM
Both verdicts were correct.
Your opinions on the Rittenhouse trial are based on feelings. They are certainly not based on the self-defense statute.
Legally, what led you to believe that the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse?
Legally, what led you to believe that the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse?
December 19, 2025 at 5:55 AM
Your opinions on the Rittenhouse trial are based on feelings. They are certainly not based on the self-defense statute.
Legally, what led you to believe that the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse?
Legally, what led you to believe that the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse?
Everyone against Rittenhouse, including yourself, proves incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
December 19, 2025 at 5:53 AM
Everyone against Rittenhouse, including yourself, proves incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse didn't commit the crime of murder.
Everyone against Rittenhouse, including yourself, proves incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
Everyone against Rittenhouse, including yourself, proves incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
December 19, 2025 at 5:52 AM
Rittenhouse didn't commit the crime of murder.
Everyone against Rittenhouse, including yourself, proves incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
Everyone against Rittenhouse, including yourself, proves incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute & the standards therein shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
Understood. You're incapable of an educated counterargument.
Run away, coward.
Run away, coward.
December 19, 2025 at 5:18 AM
Understood. You're incapable of an educated counterargument.
Run away, coward.
Run away, coward.
Go?
Rittenhouse was found not guilty for a reason. A conviction was unlikely. Virtually all the defense witnesses supported Kyle's claim of self-defense & the video evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor.
Rittenhouse was found not guilty for a reason. A conviction was unlikely. Virtually all the defense witnesses supported Kyle's claim of self-defense & the video evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor.
December 19, 2025 at 3:47 AM
Go?
Rittenhouse was found not guilty for a reason. A conviction was unlikely. Virtually all the defense witnesses supported Kyle's claim of self-defense & the video evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor.
Rittenhouse was found not guilty for a reason. A conviction was unlikely. Virtually all the defense witnesses supported Kyle's claim of self-defense & the video evidence was overwhelmingly in his favor.
You've been reduced to a troll.
Unless you can disprove my FACTS, don't bother replying.
Unless you can disprove my FACTS, don't bother replying.
December 19, 2025 at 12:45 AM
You've been reduced to a troll.
Unless you can disprove my FACTS, don't bother replying.
Unless you can disprove my FACTS, don't bother replying.
You haven't posted anything to disprove my claims.
My argument isn't a left wing/right wing, Trump argument nor should it be. It's irrelevant. It's strictly a legal argument based on the self-defense statute & the standards therein.
My argument isn't a left wing/right wing, Trump argument nor should it be. It's irrelevant. It's strictly a legal argument based on the self-defense statute & the standards therein.
December 19, 2025 at 12:40 AM
You haven't posted anything to disprove my claims.
My argument isn't a left wing/right wing, Trump argument nor should it be. It's irrelevant. It's strictly a legal argument based on the self-defense statute & the standards therein.
My argument isn't a left wing/right wing, Trump argument nor should it be. It's irrelevant. It's strictly a legal argument based on the self-defense statute & the standards therein.
This particular topic wasn't about Trump. Unlike you, I don't deflect.
December 19, 2025 at 12:32 AM
This particular topic wasn't about Trump. Unlike you, I don't deflect.
Not at all. Your original statement was quite clear.
That doesn't change the fact that you're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
That doesn't change the fact that you're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
December 19, 2025 at 12:29 AM
Not at all. Your original statement was quite clear.
That doesn't change the fact that you're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
That doesn't change the fact that you're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
That's not what you said in your previous post. 😂
You're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
You're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
December 19, 2025 at 12:23 AM
That's not what you said in your previous post. 😂
You're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
You're incapable of explaining why the self-defense statute shouldn't have applied to Rittenhouse.
Rittenhouse didn't start the violence.
Kyle lawfully defended himself against violence & it was all captured on video.
Kyle lawfully defended himself against violence & it was all captured on video.
December 18, 2025 at 11:41 PM
Rittenhouse didn't start the violence.
Kyle lawfully defended himself against violence & it was all captured on video.
Kyle lawfully defended himself against violence & it was all captured on video.
@davraye.bsky.social, here's testimony from Richie McGinnis.
Unlike you, I provided sources to support my claims.
You, 0.
Unlike you, I provided sources to support my claims.
You, 0.
December 18, 2025 at 11:13 PM
@davraye.bsky.social, here's testimony from Richie McGinnis.
Unlike you, I provided sources to support my claims.
You, 0.
Unlike you, I provided sources to support my claims.
You, 0.
Are you disputing Dr. Kelleys' testimony? He performed the autopsy on Rosenbaum.
"Unarmed" doesn't mean that Rosenbaum wasn't an active threat considering his earlier threats & ambush.
Also, your "active shooter" theory was debunked. Why did you lie?
"Unarmed" doesn't mean that Rosenbaum wasn't an active threat considering his earlier threats & ambush.
Also, your "active shooter" theory was debunked. Why did you lie?
December 18, 2025 at 10:34 PM
Are you disputing Dr. Kelleys' testimony? He performed the autopsy on Rosenbaum.
"Unarmed" doesn't mean that Rosenbaum wasn't an active threat considering his earlier threats & ambush.
Also, your "active shooter" theory was debunked. Why did you lie?
"Unarmed" doesn't mean that Rosenbaum wasn't an active threat considering his earlier threats & ambush.
Also, your "active shooter" theory was debunked. Why did you lie?
Your Trump deflection has been noted.
December 18, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Your Trump deflection has been noted.
Great. That means 99% of the population "like" me. Your words. 😂
December 18, 2025 at 8:45 PM
Great. That means 99% of the population "like" me. Your words. 😂
Personal attacks are an admission that you don't have an educated response.
BTW. Thanks for proving my point. I'll add you to the list.
BTW. Thanks for proving my point. I'll add you to the list.
December 18, 2025 at 8:36 PM
Personal attacks are an admission that you don't have an educated response.
BTW. Thanks for proving my point. I'll add you to the list.
BTW. Thanks for proving my point. I'll add you to the list.
Active shooter? 😂
After Rittenhouse lawfully shot Rosenbaum he ran directly towards the police. He passed dozens of people who weren't fazed. Kyle wasn't actively shooting, attempting to shoot, or threatening anyone.
How exactly is that an active shooter?
After Rittenhouse lawfully shot Rosenbaum he ran directly towards the police. He passed dozens of people who weren't fazed. Kyle wasn't actively shooting, attempting to shoot, or threatening anyone.
How exactly is that an active shooter?
December 18, 2025 at 8:33 PM
Active shooter? 😂
After Rittenhouse lawfully shot Rosenbaum he ran directly towards the police. He passed dozens of people who weren't fazed. Kyle wasn't actively shooting, attempting to shoot, or threatening anyone.
How exactly is that an active shooter?
After Rittenhouse lawfully shot Rosenbaum he ran directly towards the police. He passed dozens of people who weren't fazed. Kyle wasn't actively shooting, attempting to shoot, or threatening anyone.
How exactly is that an active shooter?