Tune in at 9am to hear the verdict.
-
-
False alarm, they have requested to view a video again. -
He should be found not guilty since he was the one who was approached and attacked first, as the video evidence clearly shows. but this entire case has been little more than another partisan issue and another way to divide the country further.Comment
-
I dunno. I guess he felt the job couldn't be left up to the government to police its citizens. I mean, maybe he had a personal need to be in a riot zone and just knew it would be dangerous, even if a poetic need.
The government can't really make these lines clear.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want him to suffer. Maybe there will never be a riot again. But what happens if there is a next time and an armed militia shows up to put it down.
I guess that's just healthy fascism.Comment
-
I'm torn on this case, because if he hadn't showed up with that assault rifle, would there have been any provocation at all? Not that he begged those two guys to attack him, but I think an already riled up crowd who sees a guy parading around with an assault rifle is going to be afraid and perhaps act on that adrenaline/fear? I don't know.
Yes, he was defending himself in the end, so if that's all the jury has to deliberate on, I don't see murder being the conclusion. I haven't been following it super closely, but watched an hour last week and that prosecutor is terrible!
Comment
-
Rittenhouse had a gun pointed at him, too, so it is not like he was the only one armed.Originally posted by Deidre View PostI'm torn on this case, because if he hadn't showed up with that assault rifle, would there have been any provocation at all? Not that he begged those two guys to attack him, but I think an already riled up crowd who sees a guy parading around with an assault rifle is going to be afraid and perhaps act on that adrenaline/fear? I don't know.
Yes, he was defending himself in the end, so if that's all the jury has to deliberate on, I don't see murder being the conclusion. I haven't been following it super closely, but watched an hour last week and that prosecutor is terrible!
But I don't think the kid should have been out there in the first place. He is innocent, but I don't see him as some kind of hero like many on the Right do.
My opinion is... defend your family and property if it comes down to it, but don't go out on to the streets looking for trouble. Let the trouble come to you, then act accordingly.Last edited by Pressed_Rat; 11-18-2021, 11:15 PM.Comment
-
At the end of the day, Jim Breuer sums up this case the best...
Comment
-
Totally agree. In the actual moment, he was defending himself, but it kind of reminds me of George Zimmerman ...he also went looking for trouble and went way over the top in ''defending'' his neighborhood. In the end, he too was defending himself but if someone was following you relentlessly as you walked down the street, you might strike out because you’d be defending yourself. It’s not like you stumble upon an assault of another person already in progress, and then you jump in to rescue the victim. I don’t know...Originally posted by Pressed_Rat View Post
I wonder where the jury's collective mindset is at...are they deadlocked? Is it an even split? Is just one person holding out, either direction? Not sure what to make of it when a jury is out for more than a few days. I read recently that the longest jury deliberation was like 55 days. And they actually came to a verdict.Last edited by Deidre; 11-19-2021, 01:36 PM.Comment
-
NOT GUILTY! Justice was served to apedo, a woman strangled, beater and a thief!
well done jury, it was self defence!Comment
-
Sounds like it was the right verdict. Plus the defense presented a way better case than the prosecution. I think though it still leaves the question of why was a 17 year old there in the first place with an assault rifle? I don’t think the judge gave the jury instructions on how to reconcile that so maybe they only had to look at the actual act of self defense, and nothing beyond that.Comment
-
Free as fuck! LolComment
-
this dude is not smart enough to not get in trouble later in life....remember the stand your ground asshole in florida?..they eventually fucked that over legally....nra wont be there next time to supply lawyers.....i hope anywayComment
-
So basically you don't care about facts -- just your own political bias? Makes sense.
Like I said, the kid is no hero, nor should he be treated as one. There is no reason a 17 yr old should have been out at that time of night under those conditions, but that is not what this trial was about.Last edited by Pressed_Rat; 11-19-2021, 08:05 PM. -
Pressed_Rat rolling there was never in a situation he had to get himself out of in order to survive while being attacked. *rolls eyes*. In Canada you can’t own a gun for self defence for the most part, especially rolling, not even for hunting due to his criminal record.
-
-
With What Little Background I Have Read
It Sounds Like The Correct Verdict Was Handed Down....
Cheers Glen.Comment
-
Now the Ahmaud Arbery trial is a different story. Those guys are clearly guilty, but I am waiting to see what the verdict might be considering the location and jurors.Comment
-
Pressed_Rat i did not mention facts or dispute them...i said the popo will get the dude later in life because he is too stupid to stay out of trouble..
..
Comment
Comment