[Newsbot]

Title: Kyle Rittenhouse is found NOT GUILTY on all counts | Daily Mail Online
Category: World
Posted By: Zipperfish
Date: 2021-11-19 10:47:06
Canadian

[Zipperfish]

Quel surprise. Queue the shitstorm.

[housewife]

Dam

[DrCaleb]

The judge literally made that verdict happen. Things like barring the defence from calling the people killed as 'victims'. they could only be called 'rioters' or 'vandals'. Some such.

The more I read on that trial, the more obvious this would be the verdict.

[DrCaleb]

You shall not pinch to zoom: Rittenhouse trial judge disallows basic iPad feature

https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1458889358715482120

[rickc]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The judge literally made that verdict happen. Things like barring the defence from calling the people killed as 'victims'. they could only be called 'rioters' or 'vandals'. Some such.

The more I read on that trial, the more obvious this would be the verdict.

How are they "victims" when they are the ones doing the attacking?

[llama66]

How is this justice when the verdict was guided?

[Thanos]

rickc rickc:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The judge literally made that verdict happen. Things like barring the defence from calling the people killed as 'victims'. they could only be called 'rioters' or 'vandals'. Some such.

The more I read on that trial, the more obvious this would be the verdict.

How are they "victims" when they are the ones doing the attacking?

True. The one trying to cave KR's head in with a skateboard and the one armed with his own firearm who got shot, before he could shoot KR first, kind of turned this into a clear cut self-defense situation. Maybe an unusual self-defense moment given that Rittenhouse was out roaming the streets, but as he was obviously & blatantly under attack the rules for self-defense do apply to him.

The jury also took four days to reach this conclusion. That means they spent a huge amount of time reviewing numerous videos that showed Rittenhouse under attack, and also how the attack began & developed, as well as making sure that the self-defense exemption clearly applied. If it had been a joke jury with a political axe to grind, like the OJ Simpson jury obviously was, they would have been back in an hour and then taken Rittenhouse out for beers. So this jury did their job IMO, and did it well.

[Zipperfish]

I understand the jury's conclusion within Wisconsin's laws for use of force in self-defence. But I remain convinced that Rittenhouse was a wannabe proud boy intent on trouble. As were those that attacked him. My only regret is that Rittenhouse didn't end up dead with the rest of them.

[Thanos]

There are no good guys in any of this disintegration happening to the US. Rittenhouse isn't a hero or a good person - he got found not guilty because the law as written says he is. He's still morally responsible for the lives he took, and his family now has to go to court again for the inevitable civil lawsuit trials that could possibly bankrupt them.

Keep in mind that both sides, Proud Boys and Antifa alike, are full of absolute scum in their ranks. Seriously, most of last year's riot damage was caused by Antifa, and not BLM. They're total shitheads and genuine villains themselves. You can't swing a dead cat in an Antifa crowd without hitting someone who has some serious charges on their personal record, e.g. the one piece of shit Rittenhouse killed was a convicted sex offender and the other deceased was a wife-beater. And the one who survived the shooting has been constantly busy, even after getting shot, with "I've still got my gun and I'm coming to get you" threats aimed at anyone who confronts him on Twitter.

There's one way what's happening in the US nearly mirrors exactly what happened in Germany during the 1920's and early 30's. The street fights and rioting and destruction are being committed by absolute two-legged garbage on both sides.

[llama66]

Thanos Thanos:

rickc rickc:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The judge literally made that verdict happen. Things like barring the defence from calling the people killed as 'victims'. they could only be called 'rioters' or 'vandals'. Some such.

The more I read on that trial, the more obvious this would be the verdict.

How are they "victims" when they are the ones doing the attacking?

True. The one trying to cave KR's head in with a skateboard and the one armed with his own firearm who got shot, before he could shoot KR first, kind of turned this into a clear cut self-defense situation. Maybe an unusual self-defense moment given that Rittenhouse was out roaming the streets, but as he was obviously & blatantly under attack the rules for self-defense do apply to him.

The jury also took four days to reach this conclusion. That means they spent a huge amount of time reviewing numerous videos that showed Rittenhouse under attack, and also how the attack began & developed, as well as making sure that the self-defense exemption clearly applied. If it had been a joke jury with a political axe to grind, like the OJ Simpson jury obviously was, they would have been back in an hour and then taken Rittenhouse out for beers. So this jury did their job IMO, and did it well.

Don't at all disagree, the Jury deliberated and did what they thought was right, based on the evidence the judge allowed to be heard.

My problem lies with the weak prosecution and the judge who, to me, was absolutely biased.

[DrCaleb]

rickc rickc:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The judge literally made that verdict happen. Things like barring the defence from calling the people killed as 'victims'. they could only be called 'rioters' or 'vandals'. Some such.

The more I read on that trial, the more obvious this would be the verdict.

How are they "victims" when they are the ones doing the attacking?

How are they 'looters' or 'vandals' when that has not been established?

[DrCaleb]

llama66 llama66:

Don't at all disagree, the Jury deliberated and did what they thought was right, based on the evidence the judge allowed to be heard.

My problem lies with the weak prosecution and the judge who, to me, was absolutely biased.

^^^

Seemed to me from the beginning, that someone who brings a rifle (illegally) to a protest is looking for trouble.

[Thanos]

llama66 llama66:

Don't at all disagree, the Jury deliberated and did what they thought was right, based on the evidence the judge allowed to be heard.

My problem lies with the weak prosecution and the judge who, to me, was absolutely biased.

I have a hard time taking the media's word for it with this incident. The talking-head morons at CNN have been saying shit that amounts to little more than "what's so wrong with smashing someone in the back of the head with a skateboard if you're doing it in the interests of social justice?". And they've also been deliberately altering video (or showing only selected clips) that allegedly showed the one who got shot in the arm with empty hands when he clearly was pointing a handgun at Rittenhouse. As such I have difficulty accepting their cued-up chorus labelling the judge as a crank, or as some kind of MAGA hack who wrecked the trial from the beginning to make shitheads like Trump and the alt-right happy.

[llama66]

I saw the video, I do think he was defending himself. HOWEVER, he legally couldn't own that gun, his mother drove over state lines, and he shot people. There should have been some repercussions for that.