Great result...

[RescueMe0007]

What surprises me is given the violence and deaths that have happened at protests I.e. charlottesville, that someone who intentionally goes there, with a weapon and them shoots person 1, doesn't think that others may try and stop him so while he may have acted in self defense surely it's of his own making that he was attacked in the first place.

If you look at any other shootings into groups of people most would say they wanted the shooter stopped

Largely, that was the proposition of the prosecution. The jury having heard all the testimony and reviewed all the other evidence, deliberated for three and a half days. They obviously determined that the proposition was incorrect and found for the defendant. Personally I have heard nothing to suggest that the jurors were anything less than diligent, thoughtful and considered in their opinion. Due process has been observed and a verdict rendered. All the rest is political ideology run rampant and contrary to the facts. If it had gone the other way the same commentators would be lauding the jurors and their decision. Clearly there is a great amount of division in the USA, cannot see it reaching equilibrium any time soon.

 

[norcan]

Not sure how many have to disagree before the Jury found him not guilty.
This is probably dependent on US state and maybe type of crime... I actually dont know.

But going by Hollywood standards, ALL of the Jurors would have to find him Guilty.
If only one disagrees, and finds him not guilty.. he is then Not-Guilty?

Please enlighten us..

 

[T.eddie]

Largely, that was the proposition of the prosecution. The jury having heard all the testimony and reviewed all the other evidence, deliberated for three and a half days. They obviously determined that the proposition was incorrect and found for the defendant. Personally I have heard nothing to suggest that the jurors were anything less than diligent, thoughtful and considered in their opinion. Due process has been observed and a verdict rendered. All the rest is political ideology run rampant and contrary to the facts. If it had gone the other way the same commentators would be lauding the jurors and their decision. Clearly there is a great amount of division in the USA, cannot see it reaching equilibrium any time soon.

Yeah 100% agree I'm not saying they are wrong I just wouldn't have come to the same conclusion

 

[Rewulf]

Yeah 100% agree I'm not saying they are wrong I just wouldn't have come to the same conclusion

Why not ?
The lad was lawfully walking up that street , using his 2nd amendment rights carrying a firearm.
He was even spoken to by the police attending , and told to carry on, as he was breaking no laws...
He was then attacked by the lawless crowd of RIOTERS, and you can say all you like about him not having to be there, and how he 'provoked' the crowd, but the fact remain , he wasnt breaking any laws, but the rioters were.
So what jury is going to find him guilty in clear cases of self defence ?

The rioters didnt have to attack him , if they had left him be , he would not have reacted with deadly force , as was his RIGHT, and 2 of them would still be alive.
I fail to see why you have an issue with this ?

Are we so numb in this country that we cower in our homes while the lawless roam the streets with impunity ?
We dont have a 2nd amendment, but we do have the right to defend ourselves with reasonable force, the problem is , we are petrified of our own laws being used against us as the victim , while the lawless criminals seem to have no fear of the same.
How did we get to this point ? Does it take a 17 year old kid to show us how weak we have become ?

 

[nun_hunter]

Yeah 100% agree I'm not saying they are wrong I just wouldn't have come to the same conclusion

Based on the limited facts you have been presented by the media. Had you been sat in the courtroom and had everything available to you from both the prosecution and the defence you would "probably" come to the same conclusion as the other 12 jurors. To say you'd definitely come to a different conclusion while not in possession of all the facts shows you're making a decision on prejudice and emotion.

At the end of the day there are plenty of situations we probably shouldnt put ourselves in but they aren't illegal so we do. Why he was there was irrelevant (or at least the prosecution couldn't prove he went there with the intent to murder) in this case and what he was tried for there was more evidence to prove self defence and that's it.

If you go hiking in bear country and take a gun for self defence and get attacked should you be found guilty of shooting a bear without a permit and sent to jail? After all you knew the risks so really it's your fault

 

[T.eddie]

Why not ?
The lad was lawfully walking up that street , using his 2nd amendment rights carrying a firearm.
He was even spoken to by the police attending , and told to carry on, as he was breaking no laws...
He was then attacked by the lawless crowd of RIOTERS, and you can say all you like about him not having to be there, and how he 'provoked' the crowd, but the fact remain , he wasnt breaking any laws, but the rioters were.
So what jury is going to find him guilty in clear cases of self defence ?

The rioters didnt have to attack him , if they had left him be , he would not have reacted with deadly force , as was his RIGHT, and 2 of them would still be alive.
I fail to see why you have an issue with this ?

Are we so numb in this country that we cower in our homes while the lawless roam the streets with impunity ?
We dont have a 2nd amendment, but we do have the right to defend ourselves with reasonable force, the problem is , we are petrified of our own laws being used against us as the victim , while the lawless criminals seem to have no fear of the same.
How did we get to this point ? Does it take a 17 year old kid to show us how weak we have become ?

Based on the limited facts you have been presented by the media. Had you been sat in the courtroom and had everything available to you from both the prosecution and the defence you would "probably" come to the same conclusion as the other 12 jurors. To say you'd definitely come to a different conclusion while not in possession of all the facts shows you're making a decision on prejudice and emotion.

At the end of the day there are plenty of situations we probably shouldnt put ourselves in but they aren't illegal so we do. Why he was there was irrelevant (or at least the prosecution couldn't prove he went there with the intent to murder) in this case and what he was tried for there was more evidence to prove self defence and that's it.

If you go hiking in bear country and take a gun for self defence and get attacked should you be found guilty of shooting a bear without a permit and sent to jail? After all you knew the risks so really it's your fault

Had the rioters been walking with a weapon as per 2nd amendment rights and opened fire on him as they felt threatened by him carrying his weapon I'd imagine people would be up in arms but would expect those to be prosecuted, as would I. That's why I don't agree with the decision
It is possible that seeing whatever the jurors had seen could sway me but as it stands with what I've been able to see I would disagree with them

 

[gixer1]

Had the rioters been walking with a weapon as per 2nd amendment rights and opened fire on him as they felt threatened by him carrying his weapon I'd imagine people would be up in arms but would expect those to be prosecuted, as would I. That's why I don't agree with the decision
It is possible that seeing whatever the jurors had seen could sway me but as it stands with what I've been able to see I would disagree with them

If he had attacked the rioters for no reason and they shot him then the outcome should be the same…

In the videos numerous rioters were seen firing pistols in the air…absolute trumpets.

 

[Rewulf]

Had the rioters been walking with a weapon as per 2nd amendment rights and opened fire on him as they felt threatened by him carrying his weapon

That would not be self defence would it ?
If you walk down the street and a man looks at you funny, do you go over and punch him because you feel threatened, how would you fancy your chances of avoiding conviction there ?

If he had attacked the rioters for no reason and they shot him then the outcome should be the same…

Exactly.

 

[User00053]

Think it’s what they do

If he had attacked the rioters for no reason and they shot him then the outcome should be the same…

In the videos numerous rioters were seen firing pistols in the air…absolute trumpets.

yes. Think it’s just what they do over thar, when they get excited. Yeee ha.

 

[T.eddie]

That would not be self defence would it ?
If you walk down the street and a man looks at you funny, do you go over and punch him because you feel threatened, how would you fancy your chances of avoiding conviction there ?


Exactly.

That's how it seems to have happened to me, I'm not trying to convince anyone on my opinion just stating that I disagree with it

 

[User00053]

as an aside think the young fella kept his cool, and managed to place some accurate shots in difficult circumstances, regardless of verdict. Could have a bright future in law enforcement, leading to perhaps a career in politics.

 

[plonker]

The world has gone mad!!
The guy is a victim of attempted assault/murder and defends himself and people disagree that he had the right to defend his life and he should be found guilty

 

[User00053]

The world has gone mad!!
The guy is a victim of attempted assault/murder and defends himself and people disagree that he had the right to defend his life and he should be found guilty

And Those that hold that view, may have done, or be asked to do jury service. Just goes to show how opinions based on the same facts can differ, but verdict not guilty so that is it for me.

 

[Rewulf]

 

[Lateral]

He wasn’t exacting his own personal justice….he was defending himself.

The reason he was there was the same as hundreds others - to prevent damage to property by the mob pushing flaming skips around trying to wreck everything!

I'm sorry, you're deluded !

QUESTION: Had he have been there, no rifle, would he have been attacked ?

If you can't comprehend why his actions, incited people to react the way they did, there's no helping you !

 

[T.eddie]

Would be interesting to get peoples views on the case of the Ahmaud Arbery case

 

[Lateral]

You say you had an open mind.
You further state that you googled, then watched the video.
And yet you are of the opinion that the Jury, all 12 of them, who have sat through weeks of evidence which included detailed examination and dissection of Rittenhouses movements and actions on that night from witnesses and several videos, have got it wrong?

YES, I had no pre conceived ideas.

Are YOU suggesting this never happens ?

If, for example, he was Black, or, the people he shot normal law abiding citizens, do you think the verdict would have been the same ?

 

[bobthedug]

I'm sorry, you're deluded !

QUESTION: Had he have been there, no rifle, would he have been attacked ?

If you can't comprehend why his actions, incited people to react the way they did, there's no helping you !

I know you are addressing your response to gixer1 but I'd like to respond.
With regards to Rittenhouses actions. You make a huge assumption there I'm afraid.
During the period of unrest or put better, BLM "protests" which were actually riots, 25 people were killed. Only one by security services. That is 24 murdered.
I wonder how many of them brought that upon themselves and "incited" the mob.

 

[Franchi Matt]

Struggling to see how he got off. White youth, travels to another town, with a firearm, knowing there is rioting going on, to "protect property"..............................REALLY !

The not guilty verdict is a bloody joke, racist driven, and indicative of the race issues in the US. In the same way he was there in the first place.

Just seen the video of him strutting around with his AR15, I think the verdict is a bloody travesty !

Me too..... just goes to show what a fkd up place America is these days.

 

[Rewulf]

QUESTION: Had he have been there, no rifle, would he have been attacked ?

Thats like saying , If you wear a Rolex on the street you deserve to have it robbed off you ?
Is it illegal to wear the Rolex , or is it illegal to steal it ?

If you can't comprehend why his actions, incited people to react the way they did, there's no helping you !

If, for example, he was Black, or, the people he shot normal law abiding citizens, do you think the verdict would have been the same ?

You talk about incitement, but to incite someone to commit a crime isnt an argument for the crime, as in the Rolex argument, Ill think youll find the law is pretty clear on this .
And to bring race into the argument , particularly in this context is both tacky and totally inaccurate , are you saying theres a different law for black people ?