Reactions to Kyle verdict define different views of the meaning of “justice.”

[BackAgain]

There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.

Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”

Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.

 

[Dragonlady]

There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.

Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”

Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.

Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”

Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.

I think it is a good verdict.......

Some may fear that this gives folks an open pass to go to protests or any crowd gatherings and hopefully provoke a confrontation to which you can shoot someone....

But...that has always been free for folks to try to do.....doesn't mean you will have a free pass to do it -- if you can't prove self-defense...

Some folks think that you can now just go to Alt-Right rally and shoot a guy with an AR-15 because you provoked him and he reacted...

 

[g5000]

We should start a pool for how long before the murder weapon shows up for auction on unitedgungroup.com

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

But most any yahoo can go anywhere with a weapon and intimidate others...it is legal to open carry in most states I believe....

This verdict doesn't really change much....you can intimidate anyone you like...as long as whoever feels intimidated don't try to attack you..

I just hope this means black kids can play in the park with toy guns in peace now....and not worry about being killed for "intimidating" anyone

 

[bendog]

There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.

Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”

Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.

But one cannot claim self defense if they instigate the confrontation. I think that is what those who don't like the verdict were thinking. No one would have threated Rittenhouse if he had not taken his rifle and driven to a sister state to protest protestors.

Frankly, I didn't pay much attention to the trial. I'm not really surprised at the verdict though. A little surprised that the shooting of the one surviving "victim" didn't get a conviction, but I didn't pay much attention. But if you shoot and kill someone who was obviously acting violently .. odds are in you're favor for acquittal. Who is gonna say they weren't threatening you. Better to stay home though, imo.

Back before no retreat laws, the thinking was if you shoot someone drag their body into an open window before the cops come. LOL

 

[BackAgain]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

What a load. Pure blather. He HAD a well established LEGAL right to be where he was.
He HAD a well established and PERFECTLY LEGAL right to carry that long arm rifle.
He wasn’t a “yahoo.” He got attacked by violent rioters. He had a right of self-defense. He had to resort to it.

An objective jury recognized all of the above. You don’t. They reached a verdict consistent with Justice. Your objection is predicated on your dislike of justice in this case because it conflicts with your partisan political emotionalism.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Based on the case presented by the prosecution the correct verdict was reached .

 

[tyroneweaver]

There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.

Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”

Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.

A vote was taken, the libs lost. Now they are showing their hypocrisy over a vote tally

 

[B. Kidd]

There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.

Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”

Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.

True justice hinges on the verdict being evidentiary based which this verdict is; as opposed to a verdict being politically based which this verdict is not.

 

[BackAgain]

True justice hinges on the verdict being evidentiary based which this verdict is; as opposed to a verdict being politically based which this verdict is not.

Agreed.

 

[ConserveGuy]

First Virginia takes a stand against the democrats. Now the verdict being NOT GUILTY restores our 2nd amendment.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

There is an old saw: are you rooting for one particular verdict or are you rooting for justice. I was rooting for justice and therefore was hoping for the acquittal.

Since the evidence was quite clear that Kyle was engaged in self defense, the people who were rooting for a conviction necessarily didn’t give a damn about “justice.”

Our society is very lucky that so many juries take their duties seriously and don’t cave in to mob pressure.

Sorry. The kid went to Kenosha looking for trouble, made it, killed two people, and got off. All this shows is that there really are two systems of justice
in this country. Hell, the judge may as well have telegraphed the verdict a couple of times during this trial. Again, he was lucky no one else that night
was motivated to put him down.

 

[Dragonlady]

What a load. Pure blather. He HAD a well established LEGAL right to be where he was.
He HAD a well established and PERFECTKY LEGAL right to carry that long arm rifle.
He wasn’t a “yahoo.” He got attacked by violent rioters. He had a right of self-defense. He had to resort to it.

An objective jury recognized all of the above. You don’t. They reached a verdict consistent with Justice. Your objection is predicated on your dislike of justice in this case because it conflicts with your partisan political emotionalism.

So everyone is entitled to their opinion, unless it differs from yours.

What this says is, if I see a guy walking down the street with an AR15 and I feel threatened by his presence, I can shoot him in the head and call it "self defense", because he had a weapon and I was afraid. All you have to say is "I was scared" and you can kill anyone.

 

[DBA]

But one cannot claim self defense if they instigate the confrontation. I think that is what those who don't like the verdict were thinking. No one would have threated Rittenhouse if he had not taken his rifle and driven to a sister state to protest protestors.

Frankly, I didn't pay much attention to the trial. I'm not really surprised at the verdict though. A little surprised that the shooting of the one surviving "victim" didn't get a conviction, but I didn't pay much attention. But if you shoot and kill someone who was obviously acting violently .. odds are in you're favor for acquittal. Who is gonna say they weren't threatening you. Better to stay home though, imo.

Back before no retreat laws, the thinking was if you shoot someone drag their body into an open window before the cops come. LOL

The guy that survived testified that he pointed a loaded pistol at Kyle and video shows him charging him while Kyle was on the ground.

 

[DBA]

So everyone is entitled to their opinion, unless it differs from yours.

What this says is, if I see a guy walking down the street with an AR15 and I feel threatened by his presence, I can shoot him in the head and call it "self defense", because he had a weapon and I was afraid. All you have to say is "I was scared" and you can kill anyone.

You clearly don't know the evidence in this case.

 

[yidnar]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

false ! but you are right on the fact Rittenhouse will have a tough time from here on out ! the left will demonize him and his family relentlessly because they didnt get the verdict they wanted ! Kyle is canceled ! thats why he should immediately sue the leftwing msm that falsely labelled him a murderer and a white supremacist !

 

[BackAgain]

Sorry. The kid went to Kenosha looking for trouble, made it, killed two people, and got off. All this shows is that there really are two systems of justice
in this country. Hell, the judge may as well have telegraphed the verdict a couple of times during this trial. Again, he was lucky no one else that night
was motivated to put him down.

Wrong. He didn’t go to the place his dad lived to look for trouble. The evidence disproves your contention.

I don’t buy the claim that there are “two systems” of justice. I do not deny that there is a public perception along those lines. I also understand that there is sometimes a difference between how some minority defendant and a “white” defendant may be treated. That’s wrong. But although it seems to be true, I don’t believe it is as common. The constant reiteration of the claim is mostly just more dishonest partisan propaganda.

The judge got cranky a couple of times. That’s perfectly common. You don’t seem at all concerned about the misbehavior of the main prosecutor. I wonder why?

 

[yidnar]

You could not be more wrong. This verdict says that any yahoo can go out with a deadly weapon and intimidate others, and if those people try to defend themselves against such an attacker, he can claim "self defense" when in fact, he put himself and others in danger.

This is the George Zimmerman case all over again. Kyle pursued trouble until he created the danger himself and then killed those seeking to defend themselves against HIM.

This isn't justice, and I seriously doubt that Rittenhouse will end up any better place than Zimmerman.

the rioting communist that got shot brought a gun ! a gun he was forbidden to posses because he is a convicted felon !

 

[BackAgain]

So everyone is entitled to their opinion, unless it differs from yours.

What this says is, if I see a guy walking down the street with an AR15 and I feel threatened by his presence, I can shoot him in the head and call it "self defense", because he had a weapon and I was afraid. All you have to say is "I was scared" and you can kill anyone.

I of course said nothing of the sort. But you go on doing what you do. Unwittingly, you underscore my point.