The Rittenhouse Verdict

[Rigby5]

Just going by the facts that came out in the trials. That's the best, most complete source we have and in each case the verdict was not guilty.

Think about this - Zimmerman WAS minding his business. As neighborhood watch, it was his right and duty to know who was in the neighborhood. And Rittenhouse wouldn't have been armed in the streets if the rioters not been there. Why is he the only one criticized for being there?

Zimmerman most definitely was NOT Neighborhood Watch.
He went to one meeting and was refused because he was armed.
Neighborhood Watch does NOT allow arms.

Zimmerman did not have a right or duty to know who was living in his neighborhood, at all, in any way.

Rittenhouse was not criticized for "being there", but for bringing a dangerous weapon, and parading it to everyone he could.
That was deliberate intimidation.
Anyone there had the legal right to kill Rittenhouse to end the illegal lethal threat Rittenhouse presented.

 

[beagle9]

We prevent such nonsense and it applies to everyone. We already had a 17 year old stopped carrying an AR and 4 30 bullet mags. It was found later that he was headed for the middle school to break the record for mass shootings.

Well until the culture turns back to the light, all I can say is we best brace ourselves. It's only going to get worse.

Why do you think that this Chinese president has reversed course on some of the modern day culture in which had seeped into the Chinese culture now ? Undoubtedly he is trying to head off at the pass the very things in which he is now seeing go on around the world. Otherwise they are going into a different direction for a reason, but what is their reasoning ? Who knows. Could be military or being pro-worker or other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Anyone there had the legal right to kill Rittenhouse to end the illegal lethal threat Rittenhouse presented.

That's some funny stuff.

 

[beagle9]

Really STUPID video.
Arbury obviously was not a criminal trying to escape from a crime.
He had no stolen goods, no burglar tools, etc., and could not possibly have intended to commit a crime on foot like that.
When you are jogging, you do not want to stop.
If someone starts yelling at you, you do NOT want to talk to them and ruin the jog.
He likely kept jogging after these crazy people were chasing him, because he assumed they were just chasing him away.
If we were in the commission of a crime, then he would not have continued down the street, but instead would have gone overland, where they could not have followed in the vehicles.

Ok, that's your opinion of it, but are you sure about it ?

 

[Rigby5]

You're either flat-out lying, or just plain ignorant. Given that it is you, my guess would be both.

The 1992 riots started, not after Rodney “The Piñata” King got into a fight with police, and lost.

They started a year later after the four police officers had stood trial on trumped-up charges in connection with that incident, and a jury found them all “not guilty” of all charges.

There was never any testimony that King was fighting.
He was not punching or kicking.
They had no right to beat on him like that.
He was just rolling around on the ground in order to be harder to hit, as they kept illegally clubbing him.

 

[beagle9]

That's some funny stuff.

These issues have become so complicated, that it's exposing a lot of posters mental capacities or lack there of.

 

[Rigby5]

Ok, that's your opinion of it, but are you sure about it ?

Pretty much, because Arbury had absolutely nothing in his hands, pockets, etc., so there was not basis to suspect him of anything.
He was not running like someone nervous or escaping, but at the slow and even pace of a jogger.

While the video is short, according to the accused, there was nothing else.
No one saw Arbury leave the road and go onto private property at any time.

 

[beagle9]

There was never any testimony that King was fighting.
He was not punching or kicking.
They had no right to beat on him like that.
He was just rolling around on the ground in order to be harder to hit, as they kept illegally clubbing him.

I do agree that King was being delt some serious over reaction in the final attempt to arrest him. I saw the video, and yes I do agree that aggressive officer's need to be evaluated, and possibly retrained if not doing right in regards to the citizen's on these arrest, and this is regardless of their color be it cop or victim.

Oh yes, white folks get the same treatment at time's, but they don't have what the black's have when it comes to a group rallying behind them when it happens. White on white crime is under reported, and black on black crime is being under reported.

 

[beagle9]

Pretty much, because Arbury had absolutely nothing in his hands, pockets, etc., so there was not basis to suspect him of anything.
He was not running like someone nervous or escaping, but at the slow and even pace of a jogger.

While the video is short, according to the accused, there was nothing else.
No one saw Arbury leave the road and go onto private property at any time.

Just hope that all evidence was considered, and it was handled correctly when it comes to the law. The result is what it is, but I'm not closed to other facts maybe coming to light, so it's interesting when getting the other angles on it.

 

[Rigby5]

If I punch you in the face and you punch me back, who started the fracas? (Hint: it wasn't you)

You can counter a punch with a punch, but you can not counter a punch with a rifle shot.
That is called escalation, and is totally illegal.
The judge was supposed to explain that you can only respond to violence in like kind and not escalate.
But he did not.
That means the judge was crooked.

{...

Proportional Response​

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
...}

Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to respond to what he perceived as a physical threat, with the lethal force of a firearm.
The defense that he was afraid the rifle could have been taken away from him and used on him, is not valid, because it was his fault for bringing the rifle in the first place. And you can not claim self defense for what you screwed up.

 

[Rigby5]

I do agree that King was being delt some serious over reaction in the final attempt to arrest him. I saw the video, and yes I do agree that aggressive officer's need to be evaluated, and possibly retrained if not doing right in regards to the citizen's on these arrest, and this is regardless of their color be it cop or victim.

Oh yes, white folks get the same treatment at time's, but they don't have what the black's have when it comes to a group rallying behind them when it happens. White on white crime is under reported, and black on black crime is being under reported.

I have trouble believing that cops or anyone could keep clubbing a person's bloody head like that?
Which then makes me suspect it was the color of his skin that caused them to have so little sympathy.
If I had seen someone club an animal like a dog or a horse like that, I would have shot them.

 

[beagle9]

You can counter a punch with a punch, but you can not counter a punch with a rifle shot.
That is called escalation, and is totally illegal.
The judge was supposed to explain that you can only respond to violence in like kind and not escalate.
But he did not.
That means the judge was crooked.

{...

Proportional Response​

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
...}

Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to respond to what he perceived as a physical threat, with the lethal force of a firearm.
The defense that he was afraid the rifle could have been taken away from him and used on him, is not valid, because it was his fault for bringing the rifle in the first place. And you can not claim self defense for what you screwed up.

Dude, you are really embarrassing yourself. Did you get to the party late ? Straighten up that tie, tuck that shirt in, and hide that liquor breath. Good grief. lol

 

[Dr Grump]

You can counter a punch with a punch, but you can not counter a punch with a rifle shot.
That is called escalation, and is totally illegal.
The judge was supposed to explain that you can only respond to violence in like kind and not escalate.
But he did not.
That means the judge was crooked.

{...

Proportional Response​

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If, however, the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, the claim of self-defense will fail.
...}

Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to respond to what he perceived as a physical threat, with the lethal force of a firearm.
The defense that he was afraid the rifle could have been taken away from him and used on him, is not valid, because it was his fault for bringing the rifle in the first place. And you can not claim self defense for what you screwed up.

You're preaching to the converted....

 

[beagle9]

I have trouble believing that cops or anyone could keep clubbing a person's bloody head like that?
Which then makes me suspect it was the color of his skin that caused them to have so little sympathy.
If I had seen someone club an animal like a dog or a horse like that, I would have shot them.

You think it was because of the color of his skin, because you have been conditioned to think like that, but no that is not the case in most that these officer's are dealing with out there. Crime is real, the dangers are real, and yes black and white have been treated equally in most cases when they act stupid putting everyone's lives in danger.

Yes we have cop's that hold racist thoughts, but they can be found in both races of our officer's. Then it depends on what they are exposed to daily, that could cause PTSD to set in, and it could cause racist thoughts to creep in depending on the type of area they are working in, and it depends upon how dangerous the area is, and if a majority in the area are of one race that are found in a majority within the area, and if crime is being committed by that majority in the area worked.

A deprogramming or an evaluation of the officer in order to assess his or her mental state, should be frequent if working in a high crime area, and especially if the make up of the area is predominantly one racial make up. Keeping a racial unity prep program that is delivered in the briefing room every morning is something that needs to occur before any officer is dispatched to his or her area. A questionnaire needs to be passed out every morning, and answers given on the paperwork before the officer's leave to go out into the field. This can hopefully give an idea on where the officer's head is at along with the other briefing before leaves the station.

Just ideas is all.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Self-defense law requires the response to match the level of the threat in question. In other words, a person can only employ as much force as required to remove the threat......Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to respond to what he perceived as a physical threat, with the lethal force of a firearm.

Cool story bro.

Post the law that supports your claim........unless it's the 1907 Geneva Conventions.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If I punch you in the face and you punch me back, who started the fracas? (Hint: it wasn't you)

What is your point here? Rosenbaum attacked first. You know this, right?

And, why do you say the witnesses are dodgy?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

We prevent such nonsense and it applies to everyone. We already had a 17 year old stopped carrying an AR and 4 30 bullet mags. It was found later that he was headed for the middle school to break the record for mass shootings.

There were armed people all over the fucking place in Kenosha that night - rioters and non-rioters alike. Everybody saw them out and about and paid no attention to them. There was no reason for anyone to think Kyle was a potential active shooter or that he, more than the other armed people, was a particular threat.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There was never any testimony that King was fighting.
He was not punching or kicking.
They had no right to beat on him like that.
He was just rolling around on the ground in order to be harder to hit, as they kept illegally clubbing him.

The remedy, of course, would be to charge those officers with crimes, and put them on trial, and let a jury decide if they acted illegally or not Too bad that wasn't done.

Oh, wait. It was done, exactly, and the jury came back with “Not guilty”. The evidence presented at the trial simply does not match up with the story that you are no trying to tell thirty years after it happened.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Rittenhouse did not have the legal right to respond to what he perceived as a physical threat, with the lethal force of a firearm.

In this case, yes, he absolutely did. Your opinion does not override established law regarding self-defense. He was attacked with potentially deadly force, so he absolutely had the right to employ deadly force to defend himself.

That he happened to be in possession, at the time, of a better weapon than the one with which a subhuman criminal piece of shit was trying to attack him does not, in any way, diminish his right, under those circumstances, to use that weapon to defend himself.

 

[Rigby5]

You think it was because of the color of his skin, because you have been conditioned to think like that, but no that is not the case in most that these officer's are dealing with out there. Crime is real, the dangers are real, and yes black and white have been treated equally in most cases when they act stupid putting everyone's lives in danger.

Yes we have cop's that hold racist thoughts, but they can be found in both races of our officer's. Then it depends on what they are exposed to daily, that could cause PTSD to set in, and it could cause racist thoughts to creep in depending on the type of area they are working in, and it depends upon how dangerous the area is, and if a majority in the area are of one race that are found in a majority within the area, and if crime is being committed by that majority in the area worked.

A deprogramming or an evaluation of the officer in order to assess his or her mental state, should be frequent if working in a high crime area, and especially if the make up of the area is predominantly one racial make up. Keeping a racial unity prep program that is delivered in the briefing room every morning is something that needs to occur before any officer is dispatched to his or her area. A questionnaire needs to be passed out every morning, and answers given on the paperwork before the officer's leave to go out into the field. This can hopefully give an idea on where the officer's head is at along with the other briefing before leaves the station.

Just ideas is all.

I obviously can not be sure because the video of the beating did not show how it started and only showed the continual clubbing of a writhing body on the ground.
But it was clear they were aiming mostly at his head, and I know for sure I could never hit someone on the head with a club.
It would be bound to cause too much permanent damage, like to teeth, eyes, nose, jaw, brain, etc.
I do not understand how anyone could have done that?