The Rittenhouse Verdict

[JoeB131]

If my hypothetical kids were followed by a weirdo, I hope they'd be smart enough to run home while calling 911. Only a moron goes back to attack the weirdo after they already evaded the weirdo.
A thug moron.

Lead the weirdo back to your house where your younger sibling is? Yeah that makes sense?

Call 911? Um, yeah, because the cops are really sensitive to the concerns of black people. Calling 911 is a good way to get yourself shot.

No, they believed the only objective eyewitness who testified Martin was on top of Zimmerman hitting him “MMA Style”. And a seventeen year old isn’t a “child” by any objective standard. Especially one who had been expelled for possession of burglary tools and expensive women’s jewelry that he couldn’t account for.

Wow, you know what, he had a screwdriver. Looking in my home tool box, I have about six screwdrivers.
As far as the Jewelry goes, the police tried to link the items found to a crime and couldn't. But shit, Silly Darky, Rights are for White People.

So what you are telling me is that this is another case of a black child being treated like a criminal. Do you think a white child would have been expelled for having a screwdriver?

My kids never wandered around in the dark on a rainy night peering into windows, and they would never ambush and attack a stranger less than a hundred feet from their home.

I'm always amazed that people have forgotten how much bad judgement they demonstrated as teenagers.

The kid was walking home from the story, a creepy man is following him, and he decides to fight back. Bad judgement, sure. Worth being killed over because pudgy boy wasn't as tough as he thought he was, um, no.

 

[hadit]

Except in the case of Zimmerman or Rittenhouse, there is no doubt who did it. There was no gunman on the grassy knoll... They did it. That a racist justice system gave them a pass is nothing to be proud of.

Of course, we know who "did it". We also know that neither one was proven guilty of murder. Again, you have a handful of headlines while the prosecutors had physical evidence and sworn testimony. They could not prove guilt, and certainly you cannot either. Therefore, if you keep saying they are guilty of murder you are a raging hypocrite because you flat out stated that you can't accuse someone of a crime unless you prove they are guilty. You set it up and walked right into it. And yes, you can expect to be reminded of this inconvenient fact when you persist.

It simply doesn't matter what you believe, neither one was proven guilty of murder by people who had access to a whole lot more evidence and know a whole lot more about the law than you do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lead the weirdo back to your house where your younger sibling is? Yeah that makes sense?

Call 911? Um, yeah, because the cops are really sensitive to the concerns of black people. Calling 911 is a good way to get yourself shot.



Wow, you know what, he had a screwdriver. Looking in my home tool box, I have about six screwdrivers.
As far as the Jewelry goes, the police tried to link the items found to a crime and couldn't. But shit, Silly Darky, Rights are for White People.

So what you are telling me is that this is another case of a black child being treated like a criminal. Do you think a white child would have been expelled for having a screwdriver?



I'm always amazed that people have forgotten how much bad judgement they demonstrated as teenagers.

The kid was walking home from the story, a creepy man is following him, and he decides to fight back. Bad judgement, sure. Worth being killed over because pudgy boy wasn't as tough as he thought he was, um, no.

Lead the weirdo back to your house where your younger sibling is? Yeah that makes sense?

Smarter than attacking him and getting killed in self-defense.

Call 911?

Yes.

Um, yeah, because the cops are really sensitive to the concerns of black people.

Calling 911 is a good way to get yourself shot.

Thug life ain't easy.

As far as the Jewelry goes, the police tried to link the items found to a crime and couldn't.

He must have found it. Perfectly reasonable explanation, right?

But shit, Silly Darky, Rights are for White People.

Reparations!!!

So what you are telling me is that this is another case of a black child being treated like a criminal.

Just because he was.

I'm always amazed that people have forgotten how much bad judgement they demonstrated as teenagers.

Stupid hurts. Making excuses for it makes it worse. Sometimes it's fatal.

The kid was walking home from the story, a creepy man is following him, and he decides to fight back.

Last mistake he ever made.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course, we know who "did it". We also know that neither one was proven guilty of murder.

No, we just know courts failed. TRy not to spin it any other way.

So if you have enough money (or some sugar daddies), you can get away with murder in this country.... Not anything to be proud of.

He must have found it. Perfectly reasonable explanation, right?

He found it. Someone sold it to him. He got it as a gift... whatever....

But enjoy your racism while we keep letting you get away with it. Heh, heh, heh....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, we just know courts failed. TRy not to spin it any other way.

So if you have enough money (or some sugar daddies), you can get away with murder in this country.... Not anything to be proud of.


He found it. Someone sold it to him. He got it as a gift... whatever....

But enjoy your racism while we keep letting you get away with it. Heh, heh, heh....

He found it. Someone sold it to him. He got it as a gift... whatever....

He stole it...

But enjoy your racism while we keep letting you get away with it.

Coming to get me bro?

 

[hadit]

No, we just know courts failed. TRy not to spin it any other way.

So if you have enough money (or some sugar daddies), you can get away with murder in this country.... Not anything to be proud of.


He found it. Someone sold it to him. He got it as a gift... whatever....

But enjoy your racism while we keep letting you get away with it. Heh, heh, heh....

Nope, they failed to prove either one was guilty, therefore if you continue to say they are, you are a raging hypocrite. Why didn't you send your links to the prosecutors? Obviously, they were missing the crucial pieces of evidence that you had access to and were forced to rely on fallible and shaky things like physical evidence and sworn testimony. They NEEDED links to the headlines you believe are more reliable than the outcome of a trial.

 

[JoeB131]

He stole it...

Nope, they failed to prove either one was guilty,

No, they failed to convict guilty guys...not the same thing.

Why didn't you send your links to the prosecutors?

Why bother... the racist courts in Jesusland was intent on acquitting those guys. We really aren't any better off than we were 50 years ago when the Klan lynched people... now the racists shoot them in the street and call it "self defense".

"Um, but they didn't have a gun and you started the fight..."

"SELF DEFENSE, DAMMIT!!!!"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Um, but they didn't have a gun and you started the fight..."

You're wrong 200%.

 

[hadit]

No, they failed to convict guilty guys...not the same thing.

Oh, it's absolutely the same thing. They had access to the physical evidence, you didn't. They took sworn testimony, you didn't. They had juries decide, you didn't. Basically, you made up your mind because of headlines and opinion pieces, they had a trial. They are authoritative, you are not.

Why bother... the racist courts in Jesusland was intent on acquitting those guys. We really aren't any better off than we were 50 years ago when the Klan lynched people... now the racists shoot them in the street and call it "self defense".

"Um, but they didn't have a gun and you started the fight..."

"SELF DEFENSE, DAMMIT!!!!"

The funny thing is how you're maintaining that the headlines and opinion pieces you read are more authoritative than the trials.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, it's absolutely the same thing. They had access to the physical evidence, you didn't. They took sworn testimony, you didn't. They had juries decide, you didn't. Basically, you made up your mind because of headlines and opinion pieces, they had a trial. They are authoritative, you are not.

Actually, if anything I had more information, because the judge ruled evidence "inadmissible".

So the didn't get to hear about how Zimmerman was on ADHD drugs that have hallucenations as a side effect.
Or how he broke a woman's leg once at a party
Or how he once punched a cop.
Or how he molested his cousin.

Because the judge decided all these things weren't admissible.

The funny thing is how you're maintaining that the headlines and opinion pieces you read are more authoritative than the trials.

All a trial proves who who has a more likable lawyer.

 

[hadit]

Actually, if anything I had more information, because the judge ruled evidence "inadmissible".

So the didn't get to hear about how Zimmerman was on ADHD drugs that have hallucenations as a side effect.
Or how he broke a woman's leg once at a party
Or how he once punched a cop.
Or how he molested his cousin.

Because the judge decided all these things weren't admissible.



All a trial proves who who has a more likable lawyer.

You had some opinion pieces and headlines. They had physical evidence and sworn testimony, which you ignore in favor of your headlines. There are reasons why things are not allowed as evidence in a trial. First, there was no evidence Zimmerman was suffering hallucinations that night. In fact, everything he reported was true. There WAS a young man he didn't know walking the streets of the neighborhood, and he DID hide when he noticed someone was paying attention to him. All those other things have nothing to do with what happened that night, any more than one of Rittenhouse's attackers being a pedophile had anything to do him getting ventilated. You don't have evidence; you have opinion pieces based on things somebody else said. It was the prosecution's job to present your twisted view of what happened and the defense's job to present their view of what happened and the jury's job to decide who is right, and the whole thing came down to, guess what, you can't say Zimmerman is guilty of murder from your own standard.

You set the standard, now you have to live with it.

 

[Batcat]

Nope, that’s just an excuse.


If shooting someone who attacks you without provocation is murder, so be it. Call it what you will but I will kill to defend me and mine.


Looks like we’re paying either way, so what difference does it make?

I agree with your basic premise however my objective if I ever have to shoot someone to defend my life or health or my family is to stop their attack — not kill them.

 

[hadit]

I agree with your basic premise however my objective if I ever have to shoot someone to defend my life or health or my family is to stop their attack — not kill them.

That may be your objective, but when you're in the situation and using a firearm, it's not like the movies where the hero puts a bullet in the bad guy's leg, stopping him for the police to take away while the hero kisses the girl. You would be surprised at how difficult it can be to just "stop" someone without killing them. It's why a firearm is serious business, as Alec Baldwin can attest.

 

[JoeB131]

There are reasons why things are not allowed as evidence in a trial. First, there was no evidence Zimmerman was suffering hallucinations that night.

Well, that was because no one bothered to drug test him at the time to see what the fuck he was on... That's the point.

All those other things have nothing to do with what happened that night, any more than one of Rittenhouse's attackers being a pedophile had anything to do him getting ventilated.

Wait, now, the fact that he was prone to use violence (punched a police officer, broke a woman's leg at a party when acting as a bouncer) wasn't relevant to whether or not he overreacted when he shot an unarmed black child? I would think those things are VERY Relevant.

It was the prosecution's job to present your twisted view of what happened and the defense's job to present their view of what happened and the jury's job to decide who is right, and the whole thing came down to, guess what, you can't say Zimmerman is guilty of murder from your own standard.

Sure I can... The judge tied the prosecutions hands and the jury never got to learn what an absolute piece of shit Zimmerman is. (Since his acquittal, he's been arrested for beating his wife and girlfriend). They just got to listen to the defense demonize the child.

If you put Zimmerman with a jury of six black moms, you wouldn't have gotten the same result.

 

[Flash]

Nope, they failed to prove either one was guilty, therefore if you continue to say they are, you are a raging hypocrite. Why didn't you send your links to the prosecutors? Obviously, they were missing the crucial pieces of evidence that you had access to and were forced to rely on fallible and shaky things like physical evidence and sworn testimony. They NEEDED links to the headlines you believe are more reliable than the outcome of a trial.

The Leftists like this Joecommie dipshits are low information. They get all their information from the talking hate mongering heads on CNN and MSNBC.

That is why we see Joecommie parroting these ridiculous lies. These Moon Bats like him ain't very smart.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I agree with your basic premise however my objective if I ever have to shoot someone to defend my life or health or my family is to stop their attack — not kill them.

If attacks happened in slow motion I might align more with this thinking, but these kinds of situations almost never afford us time for such considerations to develop a plan of defense.

I will say though that if somehow I can avoid shooting and warn the person off, I'll do so. At the same time we have to remember that if a person chooses to attack to do harm, they essentially forfeit their own life and safety.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Well, that was because no one bothered to drug test him at the time to see what the fuck he was on... That's the point.



Wait, now, the fact that he was prone to use violence (punched a police officer, broke a woman's leg at a party when acting as a bouncer) wasn't relevant to whether or not he overreacted when he shot an unarmed black child? I would think those things are VERY Relevant.



Sure I can... The judge tied the prosecutions hands and the jury never got to learn what an absolute piece of shit Zimmerman is. (Since his acquittal, he's been arrested for beating his wife and girlfriend). They just got to listen to the defense demonize the child.

By the same standard, George Floyd was a piece of shit too. So?

You can't have it both ways; if you want to use past bad behavior as a character barometer in such cases then you better be prepared to have it used against your moral props.

If you put Zimmerman with a jury of six black moms, you wouldn't have gotten the same result.

No shit. But that would only prove that they are just as biased as you claim the white jury was.

 

[beagle9]

Here's the thing, guy, Police Officers kill 1000 Americans every year. About 30% of them are black, even though blacks are only 13% of the population.

The cases that people get worked up about are not the ones where some idiot came after a cop with a gun or a knife.

They are the cases where a cop escalated a petty offense like shoplifting (Mike Brown), passing a fake $20 (Floyd), breaking into a truck (Laquan McDonald), or playing with a toy in a park (Tamir Rice) into a lethal use of force. And then you have Botham Jean, shot in his living room because some bimbo cop was too distracted sexting her boyfriend to notice she was on the wrong floor.

And usually, when you look into the perpetrators, you wonder why they were ever allowed to get into that position to start with.

Timothy Loehman had been fired from another police department for emotional instability.
Jason van Dyke had 20 prior complaints of excessive force, including one where Chicago paid out $375,000
Darren Wilson had been fired from his previous job when the entire police department was found to be so corrupt it had to be disbanded.
Chauvin had numerous previous incidents of excessive force, including one where he nearly choked a 14 year old to death.

Again, you deflect from the entrenched culture of drugs, crime, and murderous activities found in the stricken susceptible hoods in which uses for excuses the accusations of race and other propaganda in which you and your co-conspirators constantly twist and spew in an attempt to lay blame in a very racist manor be it here, and/or anywhere else that is or becomes the nation's hot spots where crime is so rampant and out of control.

 

[beagle9]

If attacks happened in slow motion I might align more with this thinking, but these kinds of situations almost never afford us time for such considerations to develop a plan of defense.

I will say though that if somehow I can avoid shooting and warn the person off, I'll do so. At the same time we have to remember that if a person chooses to attack to do harm, they essentially forfeit their own life and safety.

Batcat needs to watch a number of episodes of "I survived", and then get back to us. I do agree that my goal is to preserve life also, but that's only if I have the chance in doing so.

 

[hadit]

Well, that was because no one bothered to drug test him at the time to see what the fuck he was on... That's the point.

And why would they? Obviously he wasn't acting like he was on anything and he had just been assaulted by a violent young man. We don't typically drug test victims unless there's a need to.

Wait, now, the fact that he was prone to use violence (punched a police officer, broke a woman's leg at a party when acting as a bouncer) wasn't relevant to whether or not he overreacted when he shot an unarmed black child? I would think those things are VERY Relevant.

And here's where the details again demolish your narrative. You seem to forget that at the time Zimmerman shot the young man, the young man was in the process of smashing Zimmerman's head into the concrete. As you are known to say, "I would think those things are VERY Relevant". And it's funny that you continue to call Trayvon a child, despite the fact that he was a fully grown man. That's not a factual argument, it's an emotional argument and doesn't help your case.

Sure I can... The judge tied the prosecutions hands and the jury never got to learn what an absolute piece of shit Zimmerman is. (Since his acquittal, he's been arrested for beating his wife and girlfriend). They just got to listen to the defense demonize the child.

If you put Zimmerman with a jury of six black moms, you wouldn't have gotten the same result.

That depends. Let's make it a jury of black moms who have had young daughters raped, impregnated and abandoned or murdered in drive by shootings by young men like Trayvon. Still think you'd get an automatic guilty verdict? See, here's the point. You don't put a defendant in front of a jury hand-picked by the prosecution. That's not justice and is why the both the defense and the prosecution are involved in picking jurors. It's also why you don't get away with playing "what if" games. "If only I could have picked the jury, he would have been found guilty", or "If only I could have controlled what was entered into evidence, he would have been found guilty" doesn't cut it.

Now, I know what you're doing. You're attempting to re-argue the case with cherry-picked bits of sketchy information in a vain attempt to prove that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon so you can keep calling him a murderer without being a raging hypocrite. Doesn't matter. You set the standard and you have to live with it. No one was able to prove murder in either Zimmerman's or Rittenhouse's case, and if they couldn't with access to all the physical evidence and sworn testimony, you can't with your collection of headlines and opinion articles.