all 52 comments

[–]SerpensInferna 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (33 children)

I am so relieved, I am crying with relief. This is huge.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (32 children)

I am crying with relief.

Though he literally broke several laws, killed two people, and got away with it. The trial was obviously a farce, by any standard. Next-up: copycat murders of other peaceful protestors.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

Another guy fired at cops and got off with self defence today.

https://www.wpbf.com/article/andrew-coffee-not-guilty-on-all-counts/38304640

That's US law. Rittenhouse didn't break any of it. Not even gun laws. They literally have the right to be an armed vigilante written into their constitution. You'd think they'd have noticed by now.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Read the 2nd Amendment, Jet. Here:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

James Madison wrote this especially to protect the People from the State and from EACH OTHER. It is explicitly against vigilantism, favoring instead a "well REGULATED militia," particularly when this is necessary to the secutiry of a free State. (Rittenhouse did not remain with a regulated militia, nor did he know how to behave like he was in one.)

Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGB7yTZEZE4

[–]jet199 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Doesn't matter, Rittenhouse's actions are covered fine by the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" part.

[–]socks 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The entire sentence is the amendment, not little phrases of the sentence. The context of the phrase you mention is the law, not the phrase itself. This is a very old argument with NRA activists. For James Madison and others, the context of the law - the full sentence - is the REASON for that law. If one could take phrases of laws out of their legal contexts on a regular basis, there would be very few effective laws. Moreover, it the amendment ware merely - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - then that's exactly what the amendment would state. The rest of the sentence would not be required. Absolutely no one wants vigilante justice, unless they're unaware of how that could backfire and get themselves killed.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

But you interpretation isn't the one that is in the law all around the USA.

Americans do indeed legally have the right to bear arms in every state.

So while you had have your opinion on it you and the people who agree with you have lost the argument time and time again.

In mean if you want to know how the constitution was meant to be applied just look how fun laws worked when it was written, they were actually much freer and unregulated back then and not just confined to militia. Surely the very generation who wrote and enacted the constitution knew what it meant better than us.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The entire sentence is the amendment, not little phrases of the sentence.

You make a very interesting point. I've never heard it put this way before, and it does matter. The debate about guns in the hands of citizens is as old as the country itself; the founding fathers disagreed on this as we do. Thus probably the entire sentence represents a way to keep the debate alive. The founders recognized the debate is a valuable one, and came up with a phrasing that gives each side enough to be able to keep them coming to the table. I've never thought of what you say here before. Thanks.

[–]Zapped 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

no fatalities

Rittenhouse missed his calling...

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

If the world were safe and no evil did not exist, mankind could lay down his weapons and spend all his free time exploring that which what makes us great.

Relevant video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyMVXIgV4kI

[–]socks 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

[–]Zapped 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

That series had such a good take on America, and David Walliams almost nailed that accent. Too bad there's not more.

[–]StillLessons 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'll start off with an honest question, because I'm curious what you mean. Which "several laws" did he break? If you're talking about the laws for which he just faced trial, he was just acquitted on those charges. Are there other laws you are talking about?

Beyond that, two things where I find your position flagrantly counter reality. "The trial was obviously a farce, by any standard." Three things stick in my mind from this trial:

1) The prosecution trying to use Rittenhouse's silence against him - this is so blatantly against every notion of US justice for the entirety of my lifetime (thousands of movies and true stories include in them "You have the right to remain silent") I see no honest reason for any prosecutor to attempt this line of questioning.

2) The prosecution alters video evidence before giving it to the defence team. Again, there is absolutely no believable justification for this. The prosecution's claim of "we don't know how that happened!" rings ABSOLUTELY false.

3) The prosecutor points a high grade weapon at people in the courtroom. This goes so far beyond reasonable I can't even fathom what the fuck the point of such a stunt would be.

In other words, what I see is a prosecution that was outrageously [ either maliciously or incompetently ] run. The only possible reason I can see that they would have done this is if they wanted the verdict they got. Could it be this was all set up so that people on the left WOULD riot afterward? If a farce, it was a farce designed by the prosecution, not the defence or the judge.

Finally, peaceful protestors. Fuck off with that one. Just fuck off. You will convince nobody with a functioning brain stem that these were peaceful protestors. The people who are about to riot don't even think they were peaceful protesters; they think of them as comrades in arms. BIG difference there. What was happening that night was NOT peaceful protest. The peaceful protesters from earlier in the day were long gone well before the events for which Rittenhouse just faced trial, and you damned well know it. Just fuck off with the attempt to gaslight at that level.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Which "several laws" did he break?

You know what he was charged with. Yes, the prosecution was ridiculously incompetent. The judge was also biased. The trial was a sham.

[–]Popper 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

attack a teenager and you might get shot. a good lesson to learn.

[–]Carnate 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Broke no laws.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

If so, the trial would not have been possible. Also, look at the charges.

[–]Carnate 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Accused of breaking laws does not equate to breaking laws. Name a single law he broke that you have proof of. There's video evidence of the whole night.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You cannot accuse someone of breaking a law if there is no evidence that the person broke the law. And you cannot hold a trial without sufficient evidence that a law was broken. Let's pick "reckless endangerment" and the multiple shots that killed Rosenbaum (one of which in the back). One can shoot in if one's life is in danger, but - after - Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the hand, did he have to keep shooting Rosenbaum? There are of course laws against reckless endangerment that result in homicide. Rittenhouse broke at least one of them. If the prosecution could not effectively clarify the way in which that law was broken, and if the jury was not convinced of the arguments (as they weren't), then Rittenhouse had to walk, even if he technically broke that law.

[–]Carnate 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

"You cannot accuse someone of breaking a law if there is no evidence that the person broke the law." Lol, just lol. I can't tell if you're trolling or ate too many paint chips.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you've not understood what I've written....

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Your reasoning is flawed.

What does a "Not Guilty" verdict mean? According to your logic, it means he is guilty but the jury says they won't convict him.

But "Not Guilty" means exactly what it says. The question put before a jury is: With the evidence the state has that the state says shows the person to have done what he/she is charged with, do you the jury believe the person did what the state says they did? When the jury states "Not Guilty", they are saying that the defendant did not do what the state accuses them of doing. The defendant did not break the law that the state is accusing them of having broken. That is the meaning of "Not Guilty". The person didn't do what they are accused of.

Trying to split hairs the way you are doing flies in the face of what it means to be found not guilty of a charge. A person who is not guilty committed no crime and broke no law. Otherwise the words have no meaning.

[–]socks 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A "not guilty" verdict does not change the law. The jury interpreted the law, they did not say that the law is itself not a law. That same law will still apply to other cases of reckless endangerment that lead to homicide. It's an important law, obviously.

[–]StillLessons 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why so deep in the weeds? The OP for this exchange is Carnate saying "[Rittenhouse] Broke no laws". Saying Rittenhouse is Not Guilty means the jury declares Rittenhouse did not break any of the laws for which he was tried. Our system gives the jury that responsibility. What the jury declares becomes 'fact' insomuch as fact exists. No discussion of the meaning of the law comes into this at all. The interpretation the jury engages in is of Rittenhouse's actions, not the law itself. The jury declared that Rittenhouse broke none of the laws he was accused of breaking.

[–]socks 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

To be more specific:

US law states that the defendant is considered innocent until PROVEN guilty. The jury's job is to consider the evidence and the facts, and determine if the defendant has been appropriately proven guilty by the prosecutor.

The defendant cannot be charged if the defendant did not appear to break any laws. The laws in this case do not change.

The jury determines if prosecutor has provided sufficient proof that the defendant broke a law.

The jury argees or disagrees with the prosecutor's arguments, based on which the defendant is acquitted or found guilty.

When this happens, the jury is NOT saying that the defendant did not break the law. The law is a matter for the State and the Judge to apply. The jury does not apply the law. The jury ONLY determines if the facts are sufficient for a guilty verdict. There are many cases where the law was indeed broken by the defendant, but there was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt. There are also cases where the defendant did not break the law but the jury determined that he/she was guilty of the charge, given the evidence presented as proof at the trial.

[–]AmericanMuskrat 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You cannot accuse someone of breaking a law if there is no evidence that the person broke the law

I have been. Cops have discretion to arrest you, DA has discretion to charge you. Evidence doesn't really factor in. They can bully people into pleas, much easier than having pesky evidence.

[–]package 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Evidence that suggests that a person broke the law is not evidence that a person broke the law. That’s the whole point of a trial, but I’m sure you know that. Almost impressive how consistently disingenuous you are in every singe comment you post.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why the personal attacks, package? You made your point in the first two sentences. Also, learn what 'disingenuous' means. It's as if you're accusing me of making comments that I don't believe or don't want to make.

[–]package 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Not a single personal attack in my comment, but since you asked it's because you're a massive faggot. And literally the definition of disingenuous as you say absolutely moronic shit that you or anyone with a functioning brain would know is wrong, like you can't have a trial without someone having broken a law.

[–]socks 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you haven't a clue...

[–]soundsituation[M] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please don't drag down discussion with name calling.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

broke several laws

He did no such thing. The "illegal gun across state lines" thing was straight up fake news (gun was always stored in Wisconsin), the curfew violation charge was thrown out because it was found to be unconstitutional, the underage weapon possession charge was thrown out because possession of a rifle or shotgun (unless it's a short-barrel) is actually legal in wisconsin for 16-17 year olds, and the other 5 charges were all homicide, attempted homicide, and a reckless endangerment charge because the first guy he shot had someone else ~30 feet behind him in the line of fire.

All of the remaining charges that actually made it to the jury deliberation phase of the trial have self-defense as an affirmative defense, which is why the jury came back as not guilty on all counts. Everything that happened that night is on video, and Kyle never provoked anyone. Hell, the guy that jumped him initially did so in part because Kyle had put out a fire he started earlier, and jumped him when he was trying to put out a different fire.

This is kind of an aside because he couldn't have known this at the time he shot them, but I think it's rather telling that all 3 of the people that attacked him that night had notable criminal records. One was a convicted child rapist that had sexually abused 5 boys between the ages of 9 and 11, another had multiple domestic violence convictions for hitting his grandma, and the third had burglary and DUI convictions, and unlike Kyle was illegally carrying that night, because you need a permit to carry concealed, his permit had been either revoked or had expired (still not clear on this), but he was carrying a pistol concealed anyways.

I don't think what happened that night was a good thing, but I think it's inaccurate to say he "got away with it". You may not like the laws, but everything he did was legal.

[–]Rob3122 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

[–]forscher 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Did he shoot sme ? Or were his supposed "victims" only white supremacists whith guns that wanted to "craniate" him?

His only victims were idiots. He warned them. They died. It is quite simple.

[–]Popper 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

I wonder if the jury which had black men on it just supported him killing pedos in self defense

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Don't the stats show black people tend to be more lenient on juries?

The idea they can push through dodgy convictions with all black juries seems to be yet another one of the woke's delusions.

[–]Popper 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

true, this isn't an all black jury, mostly white though it does have reportedly a few black people on it. White people would be more likely to be woke and care about a half hispanic kid killing jewish pedos tha tattacked him. But they likely had no choice in this verdict after seeing the video showing clearly what happened.

[–]ofthepeople 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I have inside info, the whole jury was black. That's why they love a white boy killing other whites bc of some nigger. Look at the handwriting of the jurers, it's all black people writing. Can barely form a sentence and switch between cursive.

[–]forscher 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

I wonder if i should maybe pay him money just to wear his face. Black men clearly are unsuitable for this one.

[–]Popper 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

is that a pizzagate reference

[–]ofthepeople 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's all fake. Nobody tries a guy on obvious self defense.

[–]IkeConn 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Now the butt hurt lefty people have the excuse they wanted to destroy Kenosha.

[–]Eleg 4 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Kyle defends Kenosha again, and the cycle continues.

[–]RedEyedWarrior 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is spectacular news.

[–]Brewdabier 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Sorry but no rioting, no blacks were harmed.

[–]PassingTraveller 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

It's like 9/11 for the lefties.

[–]Tiwaking 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

PassingTraveller 3 insightful - 2 fun - 1 day ago It's like 9/11 for the lefties.

Nah that was January 20th, 2017

[–]Rob3122 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

[–]GST893 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Happy justice was served.

Happy to see the salt flow!