ADVERTISEMENT

NAACP reaction to Rittenhouse verdict

I got a different definition of judge, jury and executioner.

The penalty for rioting isn't death.
But, you must admit...rioting does place you in a more dangerous situation than staying at home. It is interesting all that the killed or injured individuals all had criminal records. You can mourn their loss but, perhaps you should be more concerned about the all damage the rioters did to innocent people.
 
Last edited:
You may have a point if they had gotten killed for rioting.

That’s not what happened though, is it?

You have really shown your ass over this trial.

So anyone that is scared should be able to shoot whomever they want and it is alright?

I'm an ass for thinking self defense doesn't work when you're the one with the gun? whatever dude.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
So anyone that is scared should be able to shoot whomever they want and it is alright?

I'm an ass for thinking self defense doesn't work when you're the one with the gun? whatever dude.
The people he shot were all criminals!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I got a different definition of judge, jury and executioner.

The penalty for rioting isn't death.
It is if you threatened and chase a guy willing to protect his/herself. This case just set precedence. If you are a mob then you don’t have a right to chase and kick, grab or point a gun at anyone without consequences. The right verdict got handed down today.
 
If you are physically and verbally threatening someone life it is possible to die from your actions no matter where you are.

So the only person with a gun had no other options than to shoot them?

So does everyone get this very lenient view of self defense or just the proud ones?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
So anyone that is scared should be able to shoot whomever they want and it is alright?

I'm an ass for thinking self defense doesn't work when you're the one with the gun? whatever dude.
You are distorting the truth on what happened then defending your distortion, If you watched the trial along with the videos you see that he didn't shot until they started calling him out and chasing him. He was knocked to the ground, a skateboard was swung at his head, one of the "victims" pointed a gun in his face but according to you he was only scared and fired indiscriminately.
 
It says you can't kill in self defense unless it is unavoidable. Rittenhouse was the only one with a gun so I don't think that qualifies.

A biased judge influenced the jury.
Where do you get your information? The surviving man shot by Rittenhouse admitted he put his gun in Rittenhouse's face before Rittenhouse shot him. The judge wasn't the best in my view but biased only that he believed a defendant was innocence until proven to be convicted. You better hope if you go to trial your judge takes the same position for you.
 
I feel like the point Anthony Huber's family made in response to the verdict is valid, especially this part:

"It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street."
That goes both ways. By not prosecuting the other two attackers, vandals or rioters sends the same message. While I agree it was a dumb move to show up at 17 to a protest/riot. He was still within his rights.
 
well, yea i'd love that judge if ever shoot 3 people and kill 2.
Just so you understand what self defense actually is.


self-defense
n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and ulrey
It says you can't kill in self defense unless it is unavoidable. Rittenhouse was the only one with a gun so I don't think that qualifies.

A biased judge influenced the jury.
I ordinarily don't waste my time replying to you but I'll make an exception in this case...

I realize it's DNC dogma..., but the reality is that just because you repeat a lie more than three times Doesn't make it truth (especially when it's a jury trial).

He wasn't the only one armed, the rest of universe is aware of that.

Sanity may well be returning to our country starting with this Verdict...
 
On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being super liberal and 10 being super conservative, I'd fall in at 3 or 4.

I can't make out what happened on the first person KR shot.
But the second and third are self defense. One aimed a gun at KR and the other
was hitting him in the head and neck area with a skateboard.

KR was extremely stupid to be there. He is no hero.

Hickory, you are wrong.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT