Rittenhouse Trial is Effectively Over

[KeithD]

Remember, too, they used the exact same logic to rationalize the Derek Chauvin verdict (i.e. the jury didn't really think he was guilty, they were just afraid of rioting). It's their current go-to bogeyman when it comes to any criminal procedures where they've got skin in the game.

I like how they've picked up on the classic Donald Trump technique: Deflect by falsely accusing someone else of what you're doing bigly--and, usually, right out there in public.

I'm waiting for a cite on that claimed video.

 

[LittleDixie]

Yep. They fucked up and he's gonna get off. Still puts you lot on the wrong side.

How so? If the truth is that the guy pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, and that fact establishes the legal arguments for self defense, then that would mean that the shooting WAS in self defense.

How is that the wrong side? Is legitimate self defense wrong?

 

[KeithD]

How so? If the truth is that the guy pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, and that fact establishes the legal arguments for self defense, then that would mean that the shooting WAS in self defense.

How is that the wrong side? Is legitimate self defense wrong?

Neither one had any business being there with a gun. Both should go to prison. Screw your self-defense argument. The kid wasn't on his front porch. It wasn't his property he was "protecting" (the owners of the property have even declared he was trespassing himself.) He had no business being there. He had no business being anywhere close to a protest--and definitely not with a weapon.

Get a brain. You people are nuts.

 

[YDB95]

I like how they've picked up on the classic Donald Trump technique: Deflect by falsely accusing someone else of what you're doing bigly--and, usually, right out there in public.

I'm waiting for a cite on that claimed video.

To be fair, the right has been at that since long before Trump became their messiah. Remember the Swiftboaters, for example: a known draft dodger running against a three-time Purple Heart winner, and which one ended up on the defense over his record in Vietnam? The only thing Trump added was a healthy serving of absolute shamelessness about it.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Hooray for vigilantism!

 

[Cubantripod]

Neither one had any business being there with a gun. Both should go to prison. Screw your self-defense argument. The kid wasn't on his front porch. It wasn't his property he was "protecting" (the owners of the property have even declared he was trespassing himself.) He had no business being there. He had no business being anywhere close to a protest--and definitely not with a weapon.

Get a brain. You people are nuts.

We understand that you hate guns, and that you hate freedom and people being free to move around. That's the beauty of liberty. You don't get to decide it for other people. You're free to stay home and not own guns. Perhaps while you're home, you can do some research on the constitution, the bill of rights, particularly the 2nd amendment.

 

[phrodeau]

How so? If the truth is that the guy pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, and that fact establishes the legal arguments for self defense, then that would mean that the shooting WAS in self defense.

How is that the wrong side? Is legitimate self defense wrong?

It sounds like Rittenhouse acted in self-defense when he wounded the other guy with a gun. Two other people were killed by Rittenhouse, and they did not have guns. Rittenhouse fired at other people as well, but missed. He’ll need to prove self-defense for each gunshot.

 

[LittleDixie]

Neither one had any business being there with a gun. Both should go to prison. Screw your self-defense argument. The kid wasn't on his front porch. It wasn't his property he was "protecting" (the owners of the property have even declared he was trespassing himself.) He had no business being there. He had no business being anywhere close to a protest--and definitely not with a weapon.

Get a brain. You people are nuts.

Actually, none of what you said matters at all. People do not lose their right to defend themselves if they are somewhere they "have no business" being. You are a human being and you have the right to protect yourself from harm.

 

[LittleDixie]

It sounds like Rittenhouse acted in self-defense when he wounded the other guy with a gun. Two other people were killed by Rittenhouse, and they did not have guns. Rittenhouse fired at other people as well, but missed. He’ll need to prove self-defense for each gunshot.

Actually, that's not how the judicial system works. He doesn't need to prove that he is innocent. The state has to prove that he is guilty.

What you're thinking about is a witch trial. Luckily, the courts don't function like that anymore.

 

[CornusKousa]

Hooray for vigilantism!

Self defense isn't vigilantism.

(D)ipshits need to understand you don't have a right to get violent with others, stop being terrorist scum and patriotic Americans won't have to let the air out of you for being a (D)umb fuck.

 

[CornusKousa]

No they don't.

Yes, they absolutely the fuck do.

Don't have to wait on a cop to defend myself and neither does anyone else.

Cops abandon the block? The people on the block own it.

And you probably should go to prison too for being a seditionist.

Nothing seditious about disagreeing with lefty terrorist scum.

Especially anti-civil rights scum like yourself.

Quite the opposite, it's patriotic.

Putting them in check one controlled pair at a time even more so

 

[Sean Renaud]

Going to defend property that isn't yours in a state you live in with a weapon you can't legally posses is vigilantism however is.

 

[phrodeau]

Actually, that's not how the judicial system works. He doesn't need to prove that he is innocent. The state has to prove that he is guilty.

What you're thinking about is a witch trial. Luckily, the courts don't function like that anymore.

People are dead of bullet wounds from his gun. That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? If he pleads self-defense for those, he doesn’t have a case.

 

[LittleDixie]

People are dead of bullet wounds from his gun. That’s pretty clear, isn’t it? If he pleads self-defense for those, he doesn’t have a case.

Ummm... sure he does.

He absolutely has a case.

 

[Cubantripod]

Actually, that's not how the judicial system works. He doesn't need to prove that he is innocent. The state has to prove that he is guilty.

What you're thinking about is a witch trial. Luckily, the courts don't function like that anymore.

Not exactly. He's claiming self defense which is an affirmative defense. A legal excuse. He's admitting that he killed the two decedents. He's arguing that he was justified. The prosecution will argue that he wasn't justified and he has the burden of proving that he had a reasonable fear for his life. Had he plead no guilty, then the burden was on the prosecution to show that he did do it.

 

[CornusKousa]

Going to defend property that isn't yours in a state you live in with a weapon you can't legally posses is vigilantism however is.

No, it's still not.

Just ask the roof Koreans

 

[Sean Renaud]

Their opinion is irrelevant. If you're trying to enforce laws but you're not law enforcement or at least security you are by definition a vigilante.

 

[Cubantripod]

Their opinion is irrelevant. If you're trying to enforce laws but you're not law enforcement or at least security you are by definition a vigilante.

That's great. When people believe that law enforcement isn't doing its job to keep the city safe and private citizens step up, their peers will give them a pass. Just ask Bernard Goetz. It appears that Rittenhouse may have been justified in his actions. Even if he wasn't, that jury was going probably to send a message just like the jury did in the Goetz case.

 

[PaxNurgle]

(five characters)

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/aea9ea33b99caf681c65633de5c11a28/81e43d841ab84019-26/s540x810/ee7e92afb343bc6bf524641bbac8580a813d6dba.jpg

 

[CornusKousa]

Their opinion is irrelevant. If you're trying to enforce laws but you're not law enforcement or at least security you are by definition a vigilante.

Protecting your shit isn't "enforcing" any law....it's just plain ol' protecting your shit.

A perfectly normal right in any civilized society especially when there is a clear breakdown of law and order.

No cops??? Cops not stopping the riot?? You gotta protect you and yours first and foremost, your security becomes your responsibility at that point.

Don't want to get shot? Don't go around attacking armed citizens or try to burn their lives down... or you might get shot, this is the US of A.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Neither one had any business being there with a gun. Both should go to prison. Screw your self-defense argument. The kid wasn't on his front porch. It wasn't his property he was "protecting" (the owners of the property have even declared he was trespassing himself.) He had no business being there. He had no business being anywhere close to a protest--and definitely not with a weapon.

Get a brain. You people are nuts.

He was there to protect property and offer medical assistance to anyone who needed it. He talked with the police much earlier in the evening and they were fine with it. NOBODY should have been there because the premise of the “riot” was a false narrative, like “hands up, don’t shoot!” But LibTards typically get lost in the weeds and can’t seem to understand that if a cop gives and order, you fucking comply. If not, what happens next is on you! Simple, but clearly you simpletons aren’t bright enough to get that. Criminal behavior warrants swift and certain law enforcement!

 

[KeithD]

We understand that you hate guns, and that you hate freedom and people being free to move around. That's the beauty of liberty. You don't get to decide it for other people. You're free to stay home and not own guns. Perhaps while you're home, you can do some research on the constitution, the bill of rights, particularly the 2nd amendment.

Well, no, my family has a remote ranch in Colorado. We have guns. I'm against gun nuts. You qualify.

Our guns are not toys. We keep them locked in gun safes. We don't treat them like penis extenders. We don't take them to protests, or grocery stores, or schools, or churches, or concerts just to show everyone our penis extenders.

I wager guns will lose their toy value to you the day it becomes your job to put the family dog out of its misery with one.

Asshole.

 

[KeithD]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/aea9ea33b99caf681c65633de5c11a28/81e43d841ab84019-26/s540x810/ee7e92afb343bc6bf524641bbac8580a813d6dba.jpg

I have twice at least here fingered the guy who had the pistol as well--which is twice more than you've disapproved of a seventeen-year-old vigilante taking a rapid-fire rifle to an out-of-town protest.

 

[KeithD]

He was there to protect property and offer medical assistance to anyone who needed it.

Oh, bullshit. He was there to play Trumper stormtrooper. He was trespassing. The owners of the property have declared he wasn't engaged to be there or to protect their property. He was a seventeen-year-old imbecile propagandized on social media by vicious fuckers like you.

You're scum.