Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[cambridgeshire canary 6,672]

How's about that then?

 

[Herman 9,700]

 

[1902 1,167]

Tbh, it was a complex case. That just highlighted the dangers of letting people carry semi-automatic firearms.

[horsefly 4,273]

A Trump supporting judge who did everything he could to get the murdering scum off. Sadly there will now be riots at this gross injustice.

[FenwayFrank 2,450]

The gun laws in the US are just nuts. Problem is that when you talk to them about it they’re adamant that it isn’t a problem it is their right “to bear arms “

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

https://babylonbee.com/news/communist-rioters-scream-and-run-away-in-terror-as-rittenhouse-emerges-from-courthouse

 

 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,733]

Rittenhouse Not Guilty

American justice system guilty as charged.

[Fen Canary 786]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

A Trump supporting judge who did everything he could to get the murdering scum off. Sadly there will now be riots at this gross injustice.

A young man is chased and attacked by a violent mob whose rioting had caused an estimated $50million worth of damage over the previous 3 night in the town in which he has family and friends.

After volunteering to protect a local business, the mob attack him. He shoots and kills two people, one of which is assaulting him on the floor with a skateboard, and shoots and injures a third who is armed with a handgun.

Murdering scum seems a little harsh when the facts are presented don’t you think?

[1902 1,167]

6 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

A young man is chased and attacked by a violent mob whose rioting had caused an estimated $50million worth of damage over the previous 3 night in the town in which he has family and friends.

After volunteering to protect a local business, the mob attack him. He shoots and kills two people, one of which is assaulting him on the floor with a skateboard, and shoots and injures a third who is armed with a handgun.

Murdering scum seems a little harsh when the facts are presented don’t you think?

He also travelled a long distance, armed with a rifle into a highly volatile situation. Essentially he was always more likely to inflamed the scenario than anything else. However that's what 18 year olds will do, which is why it's ludicrous to allow them to carry a weapon.

I actually agree that the situation was a lot more nuanced than many of these killings in the US, he was acting in self defence up to a point, whether he used reasonable force is for a jury to decide in a fair trial.

Despite that the judge showed clear and obvious bias throughout. He may well be innocent (I personally think under US law, he probably is, however absurd I may find those laws), but that will be questioned for as long as the trial was conducted as it was.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

17 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

A young man is chased and attacked by a violent mob whose rioting had caused an estimated $50million worth of damage over the previous 3 night in the town in which he has family and friends.

After volunteering to protect a local business, the mob attack him. He shoots and kills two people, one of which is assaulting him on the floor with a skateboard, and shoots and injures a third who is armed with a handgun.

Murdering scum seems a little harsh when the facts are presented don’t you think?

Predictable perversion of the facts Fen.

[Baracouda 47]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Predictable perversion of the facts Fen.

think you will find, that after listening to all the evidence. The jury, also came to the conclusion that they were the facts, along with the video's that clearly show this to be the case.  Hence, why he was found not guilty.

 

[Fen Canary 786]

2 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

The gun laws in the US are just nuts. Problem is that when you talk to them about it they’re adamant that it isn’t a problem it is their right “to bear arms “

I think their gun laws are ridiculous personally, but it’s their choice. The anti firearm crowd have to convince enough gun nuts that an unarmed society would be better for everybody 

[Fen Canary 786]

12 minutes ago, 1902 said:

He also travelled a long distance, armed with a rifle into a highly volatile situation. Essentially he was always more likely to inflamed the scenario than anything else. However that's what 18 year olds will do, which is why it's ludicrous to allow them to carry a weapon.

I actually agree that the situation was a lot more nuanced than many of these killings in the US, he was acting in self defence up to a point, whether he used reasonable force is for a jury to decide in a fair trial.

Despite that the judge showed clear and obvious bias throughout. He may well be innocent (I personally think under US law, he probably is, however absurd I may find those laws), but that will be questioned for as long as the trial was conducted as it was.

He only travelled 20 miles, and it wasn’t as if he had no connection to the town as his father and family still lived there.

However I’ll agree it was a stupid decision on his part, it certainly was never going to stop the rioting and was much more likely to inflame the situation, which is what happened. With the American gun laws as they are though (stupid in my opinion) I think the claim of self defence is entirely reasonable when being chased and assaulted by a mob, some of whom were armed themselves.

The story as it played out in court was completely different to the media narrative though in the run up to the trial. It sounded as if a white supremacist drove hundreds of miles to a random town to attack a peaceful demonstration, rather than what actually happened.

[Fen Canary 786]

14 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Predictable perversion of the facts Fen.

What actually happened then Grandad? Because that’s how the incident played out in the court of law

[Baracouda 47]

7 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I think their gun laws are ridiculous personally, but it’s their choice. The anti firearm crowd have to convince enough gun nuts that an unarmed society would be better for everybody 

Their gun laws make perfect sense for the time they were made, after we (Britain) tried to confiscate their guns by force and in doing created the American Revolution. The view of the founding fathers, were that only a tyrannical government will disarm you and leave you unarmed and subsequently unable to defend yourself against the government. Thus, its written in the  constitution that it's a right given by god... not literally but meaning no man can take them away. [Its also true that the Revolution was going to happen at some point, lots of tensions but its the straw that broke the camel's back.

"This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: "That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles." A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate."

[RobJames 880]

This youth was not chased by a mob. There is no evidence linking damage to those the killer attacked. Those killed were trying to disarm him. At 14.43 onward you can see what really happened.

 

[Baracouda 47]

7 minutes ago, RobJames said:

This youth was not chased by a mob. There is no evidence linking damage to those the killer attacked. Those killed were trying to disarm him. At 14.43 onward you can see what really happened.

the evidence that was presented in the trial. 

[RobJames 880]

On slight flaw. This witness was not killed.

[Fen Canary 786]

49 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

Their gun laws make perfect sense for the time they were made, after we (Britain) tried to confiscate their guns by force and in doing created the American Revolution. The view of the founding fathers, were that only a tyrannical government will disarm you and leave you unarmed and subsequently unable to defend yourself against the government. Thus, its written in the  constitution that it's a right given by god... not literally but meaning no man can take them away. [Its also true that the Revolution was going to happen at some point, lots of tensions but its the straw that broke the camel's back.

"This Article reviews the British gun control program that precipitated the American Revolution: the 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder; the 1774-75 confiscations of firearms and gunpowder; and the use of violence to effectuate the confiscations. It was these events that changed a situation of political tension into a shooting war. Each of these British abuses provides insights into the scope of the modern Second Amendment.

Furious at the December 1773 Boston Tea Party, Parliament in 1774 passed the Coercive Acts. The particular provisions of the Coercive Acts were offensive to Americans, but it was the possibility that the British might deploy the army to enforce them that primed many colonists for armed resistance. The Patriots of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, resolved: "That in the event of Great Britain attempting to force unjust laws upon us by the strength of arms, our cause we leave to heaven and our rifles." A South Carolina newspaper essay, reprinted in Virginia, urged that any law that had to be enforced by the military was necessarily illegitimate."

I’m sure it was useful at the time, but over 200 years later it seems to now cause more harm than good. However as I said it’s a choice for the yanks, it’s their country they should be free to run it as they please.

I must admit that I’m glad Britain doesn’t have a constitution in the same way. It seems far to inflexible, I mush prefer the UKs procedures and precedents that manage to muddle its way through to some middle ground more often than not 

[Baracouda 47]

6 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m sure it was useful at the time, but over 200 years later it seems to now cause more harm than good. However as I said it’s a choice for the yanks, it’s their country they should be free to run it as they please.

I must admit that I’m glad Britain doesn’t have a constitution in the same way. It seems far to inflexible, I mush prefer the UKs procedures and precedents that manage to muddle its way through to some middle ground more often than not 

Absolutely, but having been one of the major reasons behind the revolution and the long held view point that only tyranny would try and take them. It has for 200+ years developed into what it is. But as you say, its for them to decide. 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Testimony from the trial. “I believe in the Second Amendment. I’m for people’s right to carry and bear arms and that night was no different than any other day. It’s keys, phone, wallet, gun.” 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

9 minutes ago, Iwans Big Toe said:

Testimony from the trial. “I believe in the Second Amendment. I’m for people’s right to carry and bear arms and that night was no different than any other day. It’s keys, phone, wallet, gun.” 

That's a quote from Gaige Grosskreutz, who testified under oath that he pointed a gun, he didn't have a license to carry, at someone without provocation.

What a hero.

 

 

Edited November 20, 2021 by Iwans Big Toe

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

or maybe victim?

 

 

[Fen Canary 786]

From the BBC

US President Joe Biden called on people to "express their views peacefully", saying that while the outcome of the case "will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken".

Personally I think that’s an incredibly dangerous statement for a leader to make, essentially casting doubt on the justice system by implying the wrong decision was made, and he’d rather have seen a guilty one 

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

18 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

From the BBC

US President Joe Biden called on people to "express their views peacefully", saying that while the outcome of the case "will leave many Americans feeling angry and concerned, myself included, we must acknowledge that the jury has spoken".

Personally I think that’s an incredibly dangerous statement for a leader to make, essentially casting doubt on the justice system by implying the wrong decision was made, and he’d rather have seen a guilty one 

Joe doesn't know what he would have rather seen. Possibly some kids rubbing his hairy legs, a good hairstyle on an aide to sniff or some Ben and Jerry's.

 

 

[7HAR1980 102]

10 hours ago, horsefly said:

A Trump supporting judge who did everything he could to get the murdering scum off. Sadly there will now be riots at this gross injustice.

"Gross injustice"??? 

He was set upon by a group of violent rioters who had criminal histories.

As he has a constitutional right to protect himself he did so.

Have you been following the case or living under a rock? Have you not seen the still shot photograph of one of the rioters holding a hand pistol directly at Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse was sitting on the road?

Clear as day case of self defense as has been found by a jury of his peers which would include far left, far right and everything in between! 

[7HAR1980 102]

9 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

The gun laws in the US are just nuts. Problem is that when you talk to them about it they’re adamant that it isn’t a problem it is their right “to bear arms “

Unfortunately it is a right for them to bear arms under their constitution. 

Whether anyone in other countries disagrees with the US constitution matters none.

[7HAR1980 102]

7 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Predictable perversion of the facts Fen.

Obviously not what the jury thought! 

You know, the one that the prosecutor and defense gets to agree or disagree with during the selection process. 

[7HAR1980 102]

6 hours ago, RobJames said:

This youth was not chased by a mob. There is no evidence linking damage to those the killer attacked. Those killed were trying to disarm him. At 14.43 onward you can see what really happened.

 

Again, obviously not what the jury thought!

[7HAR1980 102]

6 hours ago, RobJames said:

On slight flaw. This witness was not killed.

No but he did admit to pointing a hand gun at Rittenhouse while he was on his ****!