[Rancid]

You can't consider those charges separately - Wisconsin's self-defense law works differently if the person alleging self-defense was breaking the law (the standard is more demanding).

I suggest you watch the video I posted. In WI you do not lose your right to self-defense even if you were committing a crime that put you in a position to have to defend yourself from others (including other criminals or non-criminals). The standard in WI is not as demanding as some other states.

As I said before, self-defense laws create funny situations where basically a bunch of criminals can claim self-defense, and legally be within their rights to claim self-defense. So yes, the other crimes that were dropped can be considered separate from the original crimes that gave raise to the situations where Rittenhouse was using his right to self-defense. These laws are weird like that.

[wat0n]

I suggest you watch the video I posted. In WI you do not lose your right to self-defense even if you were committing a crime that put you in a position to have to defend yourself from others. The standard in WI is not as demanding as some other states.

Right, but there is a higher standard in terms of having to exhaust all non-lethal means, being explicit about wanting to retreat in good faith, etc. I'd still like to see a full video of what happened before Rosenbaum was killed to know if that's what actually happened, not simply the few seconds showing when he was killed.

[Rancid]

Right, but there is a higher standard in terms of having to exhaust all non-lethal means, being explicit about wanting to retreat in good faith, etc. I'd still like to see a full video of what happened before Rosenbaum was killed to know if that's what actually happened, not simply the few seconds showing when he was killed.

Meh.. I disagree. Self-defense gets a lot of leniency in the US.

There will be no appeal from the state. It would be bad form to continue trying to go after someone that has been acquitted. There's also constitutional issues around that. As much of a dumbass as that kid is, and as much as I think he should have received some sort of consequence due to his poor decision making, I also do not want to live in a place where the state is constantly trying to go after everyone even after being acquitted. If the state can't get it done the first time, then that should be it.

The solution to inequities in the justice system is not to have it come down harder on white people, but to not have it come down as hard and unfairly as it does to non-white people. Hence why the state should back off this kid (and they will). The problem we should be working on is that the system treats even non-white people as it treated Rittenhouse here. That is, I do want a system that leans on the side defendant rights (regardless of race/religion/etc.).

Ideally, Rittenhouse's rights, are also my rights. We need to work on making sure that is true, even for me, a non-white.

[tomskunk]

@Rancid

The problem we should be working on is that the system treats even non-white people as it treated Rittenhouse here. That is, I do want a system that leans on the side defendant rights (regardless of race/religion/etc.).

Very well said and I agree.

[wat0n]

Meh.. I disagree. Self-defense gets a lot of leniency in the US.

There will be no appeal from the state. It would be bad form to continue trying to go after someone that has been acquitted. There's also constitutional issues around that. As much of a dumbass as that kid is, and as much as I think he should have received some sort of consequence due to his poor decision making, I also do not want to live in a place where the state is constantly trying to go after everyone even after being acquitted. If the state can't get it done the first time, then that should be it.

The solution to inequities in the justice system is not to have it come down harder on white people, but to not have it come down as hard and unfairly as it does to non-white people. Hence why the state should back off this kid (and they will). The problem we should be working on is that the system treats even non-white people as it treated Rittenhouse here. That is, I do want a system that leans on the side defendant rights (regardless of race/religion/etc.).

Ideally, Rittenhouse's rights, are also my rights. We need to work on making sure that is true, even for me, a non-white.

I don't disagree about your comments about treating everyone equally. I just think the state could appeal given the specifics of this trial, and I'm not undermining anything either as it's fully within the law.

Of course, if after reaching out to higher courts the appeal was denied then the issue does indeed end.

[Drlee]

Indeed, let's wait and see if the State chooses to.

For the umpteeth zillionth time. THE STATE CANNOT APPEAL A NOT GUILTY VERDICT FOR ANY REASON.

5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution AND the Wisconsin Constitution: ...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; ...

The state could have appealed the procedural decisions of the trial judge when they were made but not later. The state could have asked to stop the trial without prejudice though that would have been highly unusual and might have led the judge to dismiss with prejudice.

Though just about all of our civil rights have been eroded by right wing SCOTUS decisions in recent years, the prohibition against double jeopardy has stood so far.

Rittenhouse is done with this nonsense. It is possible he will face severe civil court action. It is possible that US Government could charge him with some kind of trumped-up civil rights charge but I think they won't.

It is time we start talking about what led up to this travesty and do something about that. We won't though. The Republicans will fight any kind of gun laws and the Democrats are afraid of their own shadow.

The self defense laws are now irrelevant to this case and there is no reason to discuss them. He was found not guilty and why the jury found this way is unquestionable and irrelevant from now on.

[ingliz]

@Drlee

Of course, it's irrelevant now. But if I was the state, and I am not talking about the state of Wisconsin, I would have made sure he was sent down. And if they had the death sentence, made sure he fried. I don't give a crap if, technically, he was innocent.

A message needed to be sent.

[ckaihatsu]

Rittenhouse is done with this nonsense.

WI: 'Guns win'.

[ckaihatsu]

(Cue up Pink Floyd.)

[ckaihatsu]

Listen son, said the man with the gun
There's room for you inside.

http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/u ... yrics.html

[ckaihatsu]

Yup, there's more.

Deaf, dumb, and blind, you just keep on pretending
That everyone's expendable and no-one has a real friend.
And it seems to you the thing to do would be to isolate the winner
And everything's done under the sun,
And you believe at heart, everyone's a killer.

Who was born in a house full of pain.
Who was trained not to spit in the fan.
Who was told what to do by the man.
Who was broken by trained personnel.
Who was fitted with collar and chain.
Who was given a pat on the back.
Who was breaking away from the pack.
Who was only a stranger at home.
Who was ground down in the end.
Who was found dead on the phone.
Who was dragged down by the stone.

http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/d ... yrics.html

[ckaihatsu]

Pigs (Three Different Ones)

(Waters) 11:26

Big man, pig man, ha ha charade you are.
You well heeled big wheel, ha ha charade you are.
And when your hand is on your heart,
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost a joker,
With your head down in the pig bin,
Saying "Keep on digging."
Pig stain on your fat chin.
What do you hope to find.
When you're down in the pig mine.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.

Bus stop rat bag, ha ha charade you are.
You fucked up old hag, ha ha charade you are.
You radiate cold shafts of broken glass.
You're nearly a good laugh,
Almost worth a quick grin.
You like the feel of steel,
You're hot stuff with a hatpin,
And good fun with a hand gun.
You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry.

Hey you, Whitehouse,
Ha ha charade you are.
You house proud town mouse,
Ha ha charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street.
You're nearly a real treat,
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
.....! .....! .....! .....!
You gotta stem the evil tide,
And keep it all on the inside.
Mary you're nearly a treat,
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry.

http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/p ... yrics.html

[SpecialOlympian]

Even here the case may not be quite as straight forward as the Liberal media wants us to believe. Arbery seems to have had a criminal record, I can't establish how long or extensive. He also seems to have had violent mental health problems that caused his own mother to call the police on him. The judge ruled all this inadmissible on the basis that the defendants had no knowledge of any previous criminality. But again I'm not sure if this is true. I'm not sure if at least one of the defendants had seen CCTV footage of Arbery invading a relatives place.

Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

Jesus Christ, you are seriously trying to be a huge piece of shit with justifying a bunch of paranoid white suburbanites running down a man in their trucks and murdering him all because he walked through a home under construction. The fuck is wrong with you?

It is fucking foul and disgusting that you are trying to justify a racist murder that was so blatant and obvious that even the State of Georgia couldn't excuse it by shitting on the corpse of the victim. You are a turd person.

[SpecialOlympian]

You fucking disgust me rich. You are dumb as shit. Eat the turds out of my ass you brain damaged loser.

[Unthinking Majority]

You fucking disgust me rich. You are dumb as shit. Eat the turds out of my ass you brain damaged loser.

I have no issues with Rich, but this is post of the month.

[Rich]

As usual more than one person was not bright enough to properly read and comprehend my posts. First there is the question or how the liberal media presented these events. The liberal media may have deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented the events even if the trial was a hundred percent fair and right. I am not supporting vigilantism. However there is quite rightly a difference in public perception between

1 Law abiding citizen get killed by bigots going about his law abiding and rightful own business and

2 Career criminal gets killed attempting to commit burglaries in a residential area that is not his own and in which he has been spotted / caught on CCTV making one or more illegal home invasions.

Secondly at no point did I suggest that the killing of Arbery was or should have been a legal homicide. At no point did I suggest that the perpetrators of the Arbery killing should not have received serious prison sentences. What I am suggesting is that if one or more of the killers knew that Arbery was a habitual thief, and knew that he had made home invasions in their local area, this should have been taken into account in judging the severity of the illegal homicide.

[SpecialOlympian]

As usual more than one person was not bright enough to properly read and comprehend my posts. First there is the question or how the liberal media presented these events. The liberal media may have deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented the events even if the trial was a hundred percent fair and right. I am not supporting vigilantism. However there is quite rightly a difference in public perception between

1 Law abiding citizen get killed by bigots going about his law abiding and rightful own business and

2 Career criminal gets killed attempting to commit burglaries in a residential area that is not his own and in which he has been spotted / caught on CCTV making one or more illegal home invasions.

Secondly at no point did I suggest that the killing of Arbery was or should have been a legal homicide. At no point did I suggest that the perpetrators of the Arbery killing should not have received serious prison sentences. What I am suggesting is that if one or more of the killers knew that Arbery was a habitual thief, and knew that he had made home invasions in their local area, this should have been taken into account in judging the severity of the illegal homicide.

Keep digging that hole, moron.

[SpecialOlympian]

I am 100% sincere when I say this: the more you share your opinions on the Arbedy case the more everyone will respect you.

[Rich]

Keep digging that hole, moron.

Bigoted little fascist aren't you. Let's remind everyone that you were the poster that when I said I believed that the earth was an oblate spheroid, you responded so you are a flat-earther then. As always like so many liberals you constantly project your bigotry and ignorance on to others. This is the conceit of "Liberals" or progressives that they are intelligent, informed and un-bigoted and that anyone who disagrees with them must be unintelligent, ignorant and bigoted. This is different to say conservatives, whose conceits tend to be that they have more common sense and that they worker harder than those who ideologically oppose them.

You are a rude boorish right man who becomes enraged when others don't show due deference to your beliefs and opinions. In this respect you very much resemble the old establishment right wing bigots that you so despise. The right man complex is not confined to any particular part or parts of the ideological spectrum.

[Potemkin]

You are a rude boorish right man who becomes enraged when others don't show due deference to your beliefs and opinions. In this respect you very much resemble the old establishment right wing bigots that you so despise. The right man complex is not confined to any particular part or parts of the ideological spectrum.

The logic of your argument breaks down when the "right man" actually is right, @Rich....