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

[Darkwind]

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.

It says no such thing. That is a political and biased view brought about by fear and a desire to squash political opponents.

 

[BackAgain]

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

Kyle did not instigate the violence against him. So much for that red herring.

 

[Circe]

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

I was LITERALLY taught that in a gun class long ago.

By a lawyer who volunteered to give the classes.

He was dismissive of me --- (most of the class was male and hearty-looking) and my little gun, which didn't make enough noise when you slid the slide, the one noise he felt was guaranteed to scare off 90% of burglars, if you had a decent gun. (He meant it had to weigh 17 pounds, I think.) He was dismissive of ME because he said it didn't matter what I did, whether the guy was diving back out the window, running back down the stairs, whatever, no law would ever convict me of shooting a strange male home invader in my house.

I found that heartening, but fortunately, I've never had to test it.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

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?

Sure, you run with that. LOL. Sheesh.

 

[Flash]

This isn't justice,

Stop being butt hurt. The jury will disagree with you.

 

[yidnar]

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..

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

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

were the dozen people that were murdered by leftist rioters last year all carrying rifles ?

 

[Flash]

God bless The Kenosha Kid!

 

[g5000]

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

Actually, the evidence shows he was not protecting the business he supposedly went to Kenosha to protect.

Instead, he was roving all over the city looking for trouble.

His story is horseshit.

Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings (Published 2020)

Footage appears to show a teenager shooting three people during protests in Wisconsin. We tracked his movements that night.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Calypso Jones]

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.

and THIS ^^^ is the reason it is very important to know the particulars before you open your maw about a legal situation.

 

[Flash]

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

The filthy ass police will keep Kyle's AR. However, there are several organizations that will be gifting Kyle's new ARs. I contributed to one of them a little while ago.

 

[bendog]

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.

That's why I like living in city where black on black murders are more frequent on a per capita basis than Chicago or New Orleans. Kyle wouldn't have gotten a trail here. White supremacists look elesewhere to raise their heads. Wisconsin. hah. Bunch of mommy boys. And down here, if you go out at night, you carry. And when you get home after dark, you better have an attached garage with a door opener. That closes real quick after you get in. (sarcasm, but not totally untrue)

 

[Flash]

Kyle is a great American hero.

Anybody with two Communist KIAs and one WIA is a great hero.

The Marines should enlist him and make him an Officer and put him in charge of close quarter combat.

 

[BackAgain]

JackOfNoTrades

Sure, you run with that. LOL. Sheesh.
View attachment 566117

I said it and stand by it. You seem to be grunting some disagreement. LOL. Sheesh.

Your rhetoric is always dull and plodding.

Try something new for you. Try something factual. I’ll start:

If we had two systems of justice — as you “liberals” so often contend — then people of color would never be acquitted. But we know that people of colors do get acquitted. It happens on a regular basis. So, it can’t be true that there are “two systems” of justice.

I look forward to seeing from you a reasonable and factually-based effort at rebuttal.

 

[bendog]

The filthy ass police will keep Kyle's AR. However, there are several organizations that will be gifting Kyle's new ARs. I contributed to one of them a little while ago.

Well he can raffle those off then. And why wouldn't the cops give the kid his rifle back? And who the hell lets a 17 year old drive to an out of state protest with a rifle? THAT's when I stopped paying attention. Those folks are the ones who need jailing.

 

[Resnic]

I wanted to see justice and it was. Because this was justice and nothing more, testimony, witnesses, video, it all showed he acted in self defense. There was no shred of anything but that the entire trial.

I did a bit of satisfaction at seeing all those who lied about him, even the president, called him a murder, threatened to riot and so on get their noses rubbed in it.

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

You admitted you didn't pay attention to the trial so anything you had to say isn't valid, even the few assumptions you made were wrong.

Atleast dragonlady paid attention to the trial. Even though they are still batshit crazy and saying everything they say out of spite and just purely to piss people off. Atleast your remarks can be rooted in ignorance.

 

[22lcidw]

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.

This was not a casual walk down the street. This was a possible hostile situation by urban insurrectionists. And there has been evidence from the endless other urban insurrections that being careful is logical. Any Non Prog that does not have to do business in blue cities, should avoid them just on principle if they do not have to. No perfection in that is needed. But the political class is not your friends.

 

[bendog]

I wanted to see justice and it was. Because this was justice and nothing more, testimony, witnesses, video, it all showed he acted in self defense. There was no shred of anything but that the entire trial.

I did a bit of satisfaction at seeing all those who lied about him, even the president, called him a murder, threatened to riot and so on get their noses rubbed in it.



You admitted you didn't pay attention to the trial so anything you had to say isn't valid, even the few assumptions you made were wrong.

Atleast dragonlady paid attention to the trial. Even though they are still batshit crazy and saying everything they say out of spite and just purely to piss people off. Atleast your remarks can be rooted in ignorance.

if you could read, you'd notice I didn't make assumptions or opine on the verdict. But thanks for sharing.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Rittenhouse was out there trying to help people from your people looting, and burning the town down. Those three thugs attacked him and they got what they deserved.

 

[Flash]

Well he can raffle those off then. And why wouldn't the cops give the kid his rifle back? And who the hell lets a 17 year old drive to an out of state protest with a rifle? THAT's when I stopped paying attention. Those folks are the ones who need jailing.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The rifle was never taken out of state. It was always in Wisconsin.

The filthy Prosecution is using it as evidence in the Dominic Black case, the one that bought the rifle for Kyle.

 

[Maxdeath]

There are going to claim that the verdict is wrong because they tried the case even before seeing any evidence. There are going to be those that feel the verdict is right because they tried the case even before seeing the evidence. For some all it took was a gun mentioned at the case was open and shut. Then there are those that actually looked at the evidence and did what the jurors did and decided the case on the merits of the evidence to those that tried the case on the merits of the evidence well done.