Terrorist Kyle Rittenhouse acquitted on all counts

[Uaarkson]

This is a certified Amurican classic 

[stepee]

I didn’t pay too much attention to this since the outcome was obvious that it would be considered legal murder, but did he ever express remorse in a way that acknowledged he understood what he did wrong? Or is the plan “no lessons learned” and to continue killing people?

[Zaku3]

10 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

This isn't shocking to me at all... verdicts like this are a throwback to the Jim Crow trials in the South where the law was designed to protect essentially domestic terrorists. This is no different, and Republicans have passed a ton more laws designied to protect guys like Rittenhouse and punish protestors in the last year in multiple states. This country is heading into some... interesting times.

 

And Malcolm is in defense mode in that picture which is pretty much where I LIVE at all times. 

 

I am concerned about our future. I am an Arabic, Colombian, and Puerto Rican socialist and I can't tell you which of those four is worse.

 

And here I thought the most unrealistic thing about BF2042's setting is hovercraft being the most feared vehicle in the future. Turns out it was the USA being a functional nation.

[mclumber1]

This very well could lead to unrest or further shootings, I agree with everyone here.  But the jury interpreted the law correctly today in my opinion.  We shouldn't make sacrificial lambs of people because we are afraid of the potential outcomes.  If the law is wrong, fix the law.  

[osxmatt]

How is reaching for a loaded gun someone is pointing at you not self defense, but shooting them with that loaded gun is?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, osxmatt said:

How is reaching for a loaded gun someone is pointing at you not self defense, but shooting them with that loaded gun is?

This didn’t happen

[osxmatt]

Just now, sblfilms said:

This didn’t happen

 

I thought the defense made the argument one of the victims reached for the barrel of Kyle's rifle?

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I'm infinitely more livid at the prosecution than the defense or the degenerate of a judge.

 

They blew this case in such an impressively myriad of ways that they should all be disbarred.  Hell, I'll go as far as to say that they took a dive.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Guest]

Just now, osxmatt said:

 

I thought the defense made the argument one of the victims reached for the barrel of Kyle's rifle?

One of them did grab the barrel of the rifle, but Rittenhouse didn’t have it pointed at him when he did it.

[osxmatt]

Just now, sblfilms said:

One of them did grab the barrel of the rifle, but Rittenhouse didn’t have it pointed at him when he did it.

 

Thank you for clarification. I haven't followed the trial that closely.

 

It's still surprising to me that attempting to grab the gun of someone unlawfully carrying is seen as an act of aggression and not self defense, and killing that person is an act of self defense and not aggression.

[Kamusha]

I saw this coming but it’s still difficult to see happen.

 

This will make Thanksgiving with my conservative family a lot more interesting.

[stepee]

I don’t see why you would want them to interpret the law correctly if the law is broken. What is the gain as opposed to misinterpreting a broken law in a way that makes it less broken? 

[mclumber1]

Just now, stepee said:

I don’t see why you would want them to interpret the law correctly if the law is broken. What is the gain as opposed to misinterpreting a broken law in a way that makes it less broken? 

 

Because it would turned over on appeals.

[Massdriver]

I've been tuning out a lot of things, including this trial so I can't give an informed opinion on the verdict. 

 

My question to those that are following it, will this lead to unrest/riots? 

[stepee]

Just now, mclumber1 said:

 

Because it would turned over on appeals.

 

They would try and so? So the good news is they interpreted the broken law correctly and now we don’t have to hear about it anymore?

[stepee]

I guess I just don’t understand the rooting itself for them to interpret the law correctly if the law allows legal murder, unless you are simply on the side of the murderer and using the law as a scapegoat.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

2 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

My question to those that are following it, will this lead to unrest/riots? 

 

I personally believe that there will be very little -- if any -- unrest caused by this verdict as it was by and large "expected".

[johnny]

11 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

I've been tuning out a lot of things, including this trial so I can't give an informed opinion on the verdict. 

 

My question to those that are following it, will this lead to unrest/riots? 

i dont think so. now if the guys who murdered ahmaud arbery get away with it, there might be.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Just now, johnny said:

i dont think so. now if the guys who murdered ahmaud arbery get away with it, there might be.

 

Right - that's the case where an acquittal will set cities ablaze.

[Jason]

 

[skillzdadirecta]

It's real easy to say "fix the law" when this country's law makers have proven to be inept. One side is completely frozen in place and the other side has no interest in actually governing. Only maintaining power. I hate to be a doomsayer, but this country is broken on a fundamental level and I have no idea what fixes it. One can only hope that this is the natural growing pains of a relatively young nation still figuring shit out. That's the optimistic view... the alternative? 

[Bloodporne]

I can't get myself to care if this was obvious based on current laws or whatever when the precedence it sets is so glaringly fucking terrible. The kid is Owning The Libz incarnate and like a gas can thrown on the fire.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

12 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It's real easy to say "fix the law" when this country's law makers have proven to be inept. One side is completely frozen in place and the other side has no interest in actually governing. Only maintaining power. I hate to be a doomsayer, but this country is broken on a fundamental level and I have no idea what fixes it. One can only hope that this is the natural growing plains of a relatively young nation still figuring shit out. That's the optimistic view... the alternative? 

 

Those who speak of "fixing the law" are doing so from a remarkable position of privilege as they will more than likely never feel any of the impacts of those broken laws.

They have the luxury of advocating for change "within the system" while those adversely affected simply do not have a shred of that luxury.

[skillzdadirecta]

Also "fix the law" only seems to apply to laws they agree with but know will never be "fixed". Laws they don't agree with don't need to be fixed because they are declared unconstitutional and thereby invalid anyway.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

[Guest]

There is no fix to be made other than removing guns from private hands. Once we allow for guns in the hands of private citizens, you will get this sort of event from time to time. Even if you advocate for a requirement of retreat, Rittenhouse meets the legal standard for retreating in each of the the three moments he fired his gun.

 

 

51 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

 

Thank you for clarification. I haven't followed the trial that closely.

 

It's still surprising to me that attempting to grab the gun of someone unlawfully carrying is seen as an act of aggression and not self defense, and killing that person is an act of self defense and not aggression.

He wasn’t unlawfully carrying it either  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

1 minute ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

 

 

 

[stepee]

11 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Also "fix the law" only seems to apply to laws they agree with but know will never be "fixed". Laws they don't agree with don't need to be fixed because they are declared unconstitutional and thereby invalid anyway.

 

Yuppp. “Fix the law” is just another delay tactic for something the people saying it don’t want to happen.

[stepee]

6 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

 

 

 

Lets go brandon?

[Guest]

I am genuinely curious as to what people would have wanted Rittenhouse to do once he was chased, corned, and attacked by Rosenbaum. The notion that this was “legal murder” as @stepeekeeps trying to make a thing is baffling when all of the evidence shows Rittenhouse trying to flee the conflict at every step.

[Zaku3]

45 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

It's real easy to say "fix the law" when this country's law makers have proven to be inept. One side is completely frozen in place and the other side has no interest in actually governing. Only maintaining power. I hate to be a doomsayer, but this country is broken on a fundamental level and I have no idea what fixes it. One can only hope that this is the natural growing pains of a relatively young nation still figuring shit out. That's the optimistic view... the alternative? 

 

I'd actually say one side is inept and fine with things as they are and the other side wants to make things worse.

[Zaku3]

16 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

Yuppp. “Fix the law” is just another delay tactic for something the people saying it don’t want to happen.

 

Also the US is incapable of "fixing the law". 

[ort]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

I am genuinely curious as to what people would have wanted Rittenhouse to do once he was chased, corned, and attacked by Rosenbaum. The notion that this was “legal murder” as @stepeekeeps trying to make a thing is baffling when all of the evidence shows Rittenhouse trying to flee the conflict at every step.

 

Not be there in the first place.

[osxmatt]

26 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

There is no fix to be made other than removing guns from private hands. Once we allow for guns in the hands of private citizens, you will get this sort of event from time to time. Even if you advocate for a requirement of retreat, Rittenhouse meets the legal standard for retreating in each of the the three moments he fired his gun.

 

 

He wasn’t unlawfully carrying it either  

I thought he took the gun across state lines?