michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 20, 2021 22:29:40 GMT
To me it was more that he came to a riot armed with a rifle 'to defend people', in the end it might have been self defence but he arrived there with an intention to 'defend' at any cost. I would hope that would at least come out as manslaughter in the UK. So if you question his 'motivation' for being there, you also have to question the 'motivation' of the rioters who attacked him. I'm not sure that balance ends up going in the prosecutions favour, when there are threats being made against the kids life. The cold, hard fact is that the kid was there LEGALLY, and he was entitled to defend himself against those attacks. Must be a first but admit I'm starting to side with eurasian69's view here...
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Nov 20, 2021 23:37:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2021 23:45:37 GMT
The Americans should be careful about getting the society they wish for as they come close to creating precedents for anyone out with their gun to shoot anyone who looks at them in a funny way. Oh dear. Did you even watch the videos, or read the evidence? Your fantasy scenario about 'being looked at in a funny way' bears no resemblance whatsoever to the reality that the Jury were asked to consider.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 21, 2021 7:23:10 GMT
... I'm no lawyer but it does surprise me that deliberately and unnecessarily inserting yourself into a situation that results in you "having to" defend yourself with lethal force in a premeditated fashion, isn't materially different from simply using lethal force in a premeditated fashion. It's just contrived. ... This.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,619
Likes: 4,191
|
Post by agent69 on Nov 21, 2021 10:26:46 GMT
To me it was more that he came to a riot armed with a rifle 'to defend people', in the end it might have been self defence but he arrived there with an intention to 'defend' at any cost. I would hope that would at least come out as manslaughter in the UK. The cold, hard fact is that the kid was there LEGALLY, and he was entitled to defend himself against those attacks. How can you say he was there legally without knowing his motives?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Nov 21, 2021 11:44:36 GMT
for me 1 case is clear cut ( Or under US law it is )
Rittenhouse was carrying a Gun slung across his chest, the "victim" draws his Gun points it at Rittenhouse and moves towards him, ( that makes it self defence )
The Left wing media neglect to mention that before the incident he'd helped clean graffiti from buildings and had administered first aid to injured protesters.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 21, 2021 13:08:51 GMT
So if you question his 'motivation' for being there, you also have to question the 'motivation' of the rioters who attacked him. I'm not sure that balance ends up going in the prosecutions favour, when there are threats being made against the kids life. The cold, hard fact is that the kid was there LEGALLY, and he was entitled to defend himself against those attacks. Must be a first but admit I'm starting to side with eurasian69's view here... To expand, assuming the references here are broadly correct, the objections seem mostly to do with american gun law - i.e. that this kid was running around with an assault rifle miles from his home. But that is all legal over there so I don't see why it is at all relevant to his guilt. In fact my understanding is its legality is precisely born out of some ancient right to defend oneself. Assuming someone else "started it" by pointing a weapon at him then self-defence seems to be the right course. In the UK it would probably be murder/manslaughter but also could be self defence (minimum carrying an offensive weapon/gun)
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,822
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 21, 2021 13:32:34 GMT
i.e. that this kid was running around with an assault rifle miles from his home. But that is all legal over there Except it's illegal for an under-18 to be in possession of a "dangerous weapon", and he was charged with that. But the judge agreed with the defence that the charge should be dropped because an automatic assault rifle isn't "dangerous", due to the length of the barrel, so the jury never got to rule on that. Neither of the people he killed were armed.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Nov 21, 2021 14:05:24 GMT
Undisputed facts, expressed as neutrally as I can... --- The jury found him not guilty of all charges, accepting that he acted entirely in self-defence. You can see why not everybody might agree with that verdict... And, of course, the subtext and context that I left out of that precis... The man who was shot was black, just a few months after the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, after months of BLM protests and counter-protests, and in the run-up to the presidential election. Rittenhouse aligned himself with white-supremacist groups, both before and in the immediate aftermath of the shootings. Personal opinion? He went looking for trouble, and he damn well found it. Self-defence, my furry buttocks. I watched all the video he was getting chased by first guy and shot were fired behind him. He turns and man attacked him he stopped it. He ran and fell other guy started beating him with skateboard he stopped that. What do you want him to be killed . If someone ran within 30ft of Uncle Joe Biden he would be dropped with hail of fire even if he was only wearing briefs. All were to blame for riots no excuse to destroy innocent people’s property. Nothing outside evidence of attack matters no matter how empathetic to BLM should be considered by jury and it was not and correct verdict was reached.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Nov 21, 2021 14:14:06 GMT
"Self-defence, my furry buttocks"Were you there? Have you seen the video footage of the actual shootings? Stroppy boy goes looking for trouble, tooled up for trouble, finds trouble. He complains it's sooo unfair. At the very least, surely he was absolutely slam-dunk guilty of the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon? Actually, I was incorrect in my summing-up. The defence asked the judge to dismiss that charge late in the trial, and he agreed. The jury never got to consider it. Because, apparently, an automatic assault rifle isn't "dangerous" if the barrel is longer than 16", as his was. abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031Your first line indicated you made a judgement based on bias whether he was stroppy, mother beater all round bad person has no bearing on whither he was being attacked or not. It is emotional personal bias that is the big challenge for the law. It might not seem right but even bad people have to be protected by law or we all are doomed. That is why we have 12 or more jurors to try and filter out bias. I suggest everyone on here watch “12 Angry Men” before commenting negatively on jury decision.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Nov 21, 2021 14:29:17 GMT
Hi all please check this out before commenting on jury decision. link
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 14:58:06 GMT
I'm neither interested in this or feel that my input on the laws on a single state in the USA will make any change to anyone in the world.
However, I don't intend to fight hard to stop you guys arguing with each other.
If I was french I'd say it another way ;-)
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 21, 2021 15:46:34 GMT
i.e. that this kid was running around with an assault rifle miles from his home. But that is all legal over there Except it's illegal for an under-18 to be in possession of a "dangerous weapon", and he was charged with that. But the judge agreed with the defence that the charge should be dropped because an automatic assault rifle isn't "dangerous", due to the length of the barrel, so the jury never got to rule on that. Neither of the people he killed were armed. Have to admit even though I shouldn't that made me laugh.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 20:01:53 GMT
Your first line indicated you made a judgement based on bias whether he was stroppy, mother beater all round bad person has no bearing on whither he was being attacked or not. It is emotional personal bias that is the big challenge for the law. It might not seem right but even bad people have to be protected by law or we all are doomed. That is why we have 12 or more jurors to try and filter out bias. I suggest everyone on here watch “12 Angry Men” before commenting negatively on jury decision. Indeed. I find it quite terrifying that there are politically motivated fanatics out there now questioning the very concept of trial by jury because a decision didn't go their way.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2021 20:16:56 GMT
But the judge agreed with the defence that the charge should be dropped because an automatic assault rifle isn't "dangerous", due to the length of the barrel, so the jury never got to rule on that. The judge ruled that way because THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYSYou may not like the law, but Rittenhouse was within the law as written. Hence he was there legally. It really is that simple. It may not fit your own little personal definition of 'moral' or 'fair', you may not like Rittenhouse, but that has no bearing on the law as written.
|
|