I didn't have to watch the televised trials this week to know...

Kyle Rittenhouse was not guilty and should never have been charged; and...

Those hillbillies in Goergia were guilty of murdering that man.

Who's with me?

 

I agree with the three hillbillies in Georgia. In the other case I think if the judge hadn't been so biased that it could possibly have turned out differently. We'll never know.

 

So I take that to mean you disagree with the Rittenhouse verdict. Can you elaborate? Thank you.

 

Biased? The judge could’ve thrown the case out multiple times for misconduct in the courtroom from the prosecution. It was embarrassing.

You’d have to be deaf dumb and blind not to realize it was self defense. Let me guess. Everything you know about the case you got from CNN?

 

100%

 

50%. Kyle should be in an adjoining cell

 

Kindly explain your position. Thank you. Be specific.

 

Reasonable people who are able to view the facts objectively come to this conclusion. Seems both juries were comprised of such people.

 

I think the judge was beyond accommodating to the idiot prosecutor who didn't even know the laws of the state he presumably represents. Or if he did know them, he willingly ignored them. Were I the judge, I would have sent the jury out and tossed his sorry ass out of my courtroom after muzzle-sweeping the chamber with an uncleared weapon and a finger on the trigger. I was shocked not one of those deputies made a move, frankly.

 

Rittenhouse had no authority to be there in the first place. His attackers might very well have taken him for an Active Shooter who lost his nerve and that still might very well have been what actually happened.

 

He was in public. We dont need 'authority' to be in public...

 

What? Dude, this isn't Soviet Russia. You don't need authority to be in Wisconsin. Even if your laughable argument were correct, you do not waive your right to self-defense. It goes with you.

There is no evidence to support this preposterous speculation - nor was any such evidence presented during the trial. But even if you are correct, you are condoning one person's vigilantism while at the same time presumably condemning someone else's.

That said, you do not waive your right to self-defense. Rittenhouse's actions were consistent with Wisconsin law. Any objective person who has actually taken the time to understand the law and impartially review the facts can draw no other conclusion.

 

Yet.

 

In accordance with law does not always equal right

 

People have a Right to protect property and themselves. That has been a Right for thousands of years.

 

I agree with the not guilty (Kyle). I think there should have been other charges, but apparently in the US it's cool to run around at night with a gun at a riot when you're 17.

Contrastingly, I don't think all of the hillbillies should have got life.

So I guess my disagreement is about the Law and the interpretations of them in the US. There seems to be to a fine line between killing people through recklessness and not being accountable at all - and being an unwitting accessory to murder and going to prison for life.

 

It is an amazing phenomenon to me how many people are so unable (or unwilling) to disconnect themselves from the spun narrative of "their side" to be able to arrive at reasonable truth, and admit it.

 

I agree with the OP.

 

They were in a court of law, not on Judge Judy. Courts focus on law. Your "feelings" do not nullify anyone's rights under the law.

 

Yet came to two opposite verdicts for the same thing. You're the first one to mention "feelings"

 

Moving the goalposts. The topic here is what is "in accordance with the law."

 

Careful, though. The laws of most states make a distinction between protecting property and protecting life when it comes to lethal force. It is critical that a person know those laws inside and out if they choose to carry a firearm.

 

That’s a lot of “mights”. The American legal system doesn’t work on that concept.

 

good points. I’m also not sure why the driver got same sentence as the killer

 

I think you're in a different country? So I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but it sounds like you misunderstand some of the fundamental principles of law in this federal republic of ours. There are 50 states. Each state has the authority to make its own laws under the federal Constitution, providing those laws don't violate it (ironically, some states' gun laws do violate it and every now and then a person with standing sues one of those states to correct the law). In Wisconsin, a person may possess and carry a long gun at the age of 16. In other states (Illinois, for example), a 16-yr-old may not carry a firearm of any kind in public. So if this had occurred in K.R.'s home state of Illinois, he would have indeed been in violation of the law - at least with regard to carrying, not necessarily with regard to self-defense. There was a great moment in the trial when K.R. was being cross-examined by the idiot prosecutor (who apparently did not know the laws of the state he presumably represents) when the idiot prosecutor asks, "why did you decide to carry an AR-15 rifle instead of a pistol?" K.R.'s very circumspect reply: "Well, sir, it would be illegal for me to possess a handgun because I was only 17 at the time."

I would argue that their actions qualify them for the death penalty. Their depraved acts exceeded the bounds of what we expect from our fellows in a civilized society. They terrorized and literally hunted another human being with utter disregard for human life. They are the worst among us, and their actions deserve - in my view - the worst of our lawful consequences.

I assume you are referring to K.R.. Again, you may not understand the law in Wisconsin, but an individual has the right to defend their life with lethal force if they can articulate reasonable fear of imminent death, GBH, or sexual assault. K.R. in no way acted recklessly with respect to the discharge of his firearm. In fact, his restraint shown in only firing the number of rounds required to neutralize his aggressors, and ceasing to fire immediately upon the cessation of the threat is a textbook defensive shooting scenario and the exact outcome required by law. He fired far fewer rounds than a police officer would have, for example.

Nothing unwitting. You refer to the guy who was filming I presume. He should have left the scene immediately and called 9/11 from a safe distance. By not doing so, he became a willing participant in what became a depraved act of homicide.