| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Don’t know if anyone has been following the story and regardless of whether you felt that he was guilty or not, what it does show is Americas gun laws are crazy.
It’s completely ****ing nuts isn’t it. It’s why I’m glad we don’t have gun ownership here. Seems like you can take a gun somewhere get yourself in an argument and shoot someone as self defence.Originally Posted by WJ99mobile
A caricature, of course. Shooting someone while engaging in an argument will get you life in jail, if you escape the death penalty. Shoot someone, however, who has already declared his intention to kill you should he find you alone, and finds himself in precisely that circumstance and is lunging at you; or who is kicking your head in or beating you about the head with a skateboard and is himself armed, well, then, you may act to prevent yourself from death or imminent bodily harm.
Is this not the law in Britain?
Clearly they didn't hit this prick hard enough with skateboard.
Here's another case, quite like the Rittenhouse case, which has not received much publicity but was resolved the same day. Interestingly, this one involved not just the alleged murder of a young black woman but also the alleged attempted murder of police officers. The accused, one Andrew Coffee IV, was acquitted by a Florida (Republican state) jury on all murder and attempted murder charges after making a self-defence argument. Unfortunately for Mr. Coffee he was a felon in possession of a firearm — always and everywhere a no-no in the United States — and so he was convicted on that charge. His attorney stipulated his guilt on the possession charge (circumlocution can stretch only so far) but had hoped the circumstances would merit some understanding.
https://www.wptv.com/news/region-ind...unty-swat-raid
They would have, of course, if Rittenhouse had just accepted further blows as presumably you would have done.
What if you’ve incited them though? Sets a very dangerous precedent IMO.
And the worst part is people can’t be objective about it because they already decided they’re “right” or “left” of shooting people because how vacuous politics and people have become.
Before making judgments, how many people have actually seen the video evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iryQ...icagoSun-Times
He was punched in the back of the head, and kicked while on the floor before he opened fire. The most blatant example of self-defence I have ever seen.
What happened before that though? It doesn’t seem to be anywhere near enough evidence in that.
What shocks me is someone watches that and thinks yeah those 2 lads deserved to be shot dead. Scares me that people can think like that.
I feel like people have picked a side based on their “politics” and will use anything to argue it. There no way that video shows me anything that means it’s ok for someone to be killed.
I can’t believe you’re calling someone a dangerous criminal based on it either. Are you serious?
What until the blokes that murdered Ahmaud Arbery get off. Then the shit will hit the fan.
And potentially kill him?
Surely that's condoning a different form of intententional and senseless violence ?
I don’t know the case well but wandering into another city with a gun on your back to argue with protesters then crying and shooting someone who attacked you and getting away with it scott free seems madness.
If someone wandered into canton wearing a Swansea shirt and shot and killed someone who beat them up would they deserve to get away with it?
Ridiculous gun laws and a case politicised beyond belief.
Of course they did not deserve to be shot dead, they made a foolish choice to chase down and punch/kick an armed individual, doesn't mean Kyle is therefore guilty of their murder does it?
It doesn’t mean he is completely innocent either though. You’re basing your whole opinion off that video without knowing what started everyone hitting him.
Seems you’ve made your mind up without wanting to see the full set of evidence. I seriously cannot believe you’re calling that guy a “dangerous criminal” based on that.
Wandering into a city win a gun looking for a fight then winding someone up into attacking you does not mean you should be able to shoot them without repercussion. That’s what sets the precedent. Get someone to attack and say you shot them in self defence because you feared for your safety. Dangerous, stupid and again something politicised that shouldn’t be.
Mad that the whole thing has almost boiled down to that guy is on my side so it’s ok for him to shoot someone.
Making your mind up just from that video and calling one of the people a dangerous criminal shows you’re already too biased to discuss it.
I am not sure why you keep emphasising 'dangerous criminal' I have not used those words in my posts, maybe you are quoting someone else?
The thing is that like it or not, he is allowed to wander into a city with a gun and open carry, because the law allows him too.
and in turn the jury was correct to accept his argument fo self defence because it clearly was.
I agree it is a bad precedent but you can not send the kid to prison when he acted within the law. You have to instead change the law
did i say kill mongo?
all parties could have walked away but what would you prefer to arm yourself with? a gun...or a skateboard.
Sorry “mentally ill criminal”. How do you get to that from that video?
Even within the law calling that self defence is bollocks. Unless he was just walking down the street with a gun and they started attacking him with no provocation , which you could never say from that video.
Yet you’re calling one getting shot a mentally ill criminal.
The verdict does indeed mean that he is completely innocent in the eyes of the law. Rittenhouse was presumed innocent from the moment charges were filed against him. The prosecution failed to overturn that presumption, therefore his innocence stands.
Of course, people are quite free to draw different conclusions in their private capacity.
It’s why my worse fear is being put in front of a jury. Almost a complete luck of the draw who you get.
America seems even more mad because of how politicised it is.
The MSNBC guy getting banned from the court due to following the jury is ****ing nuts too. How can a professional in the media do something like that.
How was Preston?
Apperantly, Joseph Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile and had just been released from a mental hospital but hadn't been taking his meds.
This isn't me passing any judgement on the case just clarifying that one of the victims was indeed a mentally ill criminal.
Fairplay i didn’t know anything about that, is it definitely true?
Im not sure it makes getting shot and killed ok but I don’t think I’ll ever agree with that law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...oting-victims/
The judge and jurors will be looking over their shoulders for a long long time, one of the news teams was caught following the jurors bus leaving the court on the previous night, I'd be surprised if the jurors were not doxed at some point, the pressure on them to convict must have been immense, meanwhile Ghislaine Maxwell starts on the 29th, squeaky bum time for the rich and famous.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote