In Barbados airport at the moment and it’s all over the American news channels. It’s not the last we’ll hear of this.
+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
In Barbados airport at the moment and it’s all over the American news channels. It’s not the last we’ll hear of this.
He was obviously a bit of a tosser and a bit of a narcissistic dreamer. Because no normal person would have turned up there that night.
But when you watch what happened, he was pretty much attacked by a load of people trying to do him serious damage/kill him. It does fit self defence. The 2 people he shot were violent lunatics with histories of violence and molesting kids.
I actually hoped they'd find some weapons charges to put on him. I hate the idea of idiots like him walking around with guns and I hoped he'd get a few years for weapons violations. No sane person could consider it murder instead of defence after looking at the 2 situations he ended up in
I agree, this has the potential to get very nasty.
Seems the judge had a novel way of going about his business as well.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nosha-shooting
I wonder what would be the outcome if he was black surrounded by white men. With the same defence.
I can't see a murder charge sticking or being deserved. I full agree that 17yr olds shouldn't be wandering around with guns. Also seems pretty conclusive that the level of threat he was under could reasonably be considered life threatening
Quite a good write up by CNN's crime reporter.
Laura Coates, CNN senior legal analyst and former federal prosecutor, said she was not surprised*the jury acquitted Kyle Rittenhouse*on all charges because of the jury instructions and the execution of the prosecution's argument.
The prosecutors were trying to make a case about an active shooter, arguing that everyone else who responded to Rittenhouse's actions that night were actually the one's acting in self-defense. Coates said, in the end, it wasn't compelling.
"That proved unpersuasive it seems to this*particular jury for two*reasons.*One, Wisconsin is a place that has a gun*culture that's not synonymous with*criminal activity.*The idea of saying you want to*alienate a gun owner would not*have been persuasive enough.*The idea of saying, hey, they*were acting in self-defense*might have been compelling,*except for the jury instruction," Coates explained.
She said the jury instruction said jurors had to look at the case through the eyes of then 17-year-old Rittenhouse, not in hindsight. The jurors had to access the reasonableness of Rittenhouse's actions and decide whether it was his belief that he had to use self-defense.
"When you saw him take the stand*and explain why he himself*thought he was in lethal danger*at that point, that probably was*the one that tipped the needle," Coates said.
"He believed that it was*reasonable to do so and now the*burden went back to the*prosecution where it always*should stay to say, hey, we have*proven that he was not*reasonable in his belief, that*he was in a kill or be killed*scenario," she added.
Wisconsin law requires that when a self-defense claim is raised, prosecutors must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, not the other way around as it is in other jurisdictions, Coates explained.
In order for the prosecution to successfully make its active shooter argument, attorneys would have had to present evidence that disproves Wisconsin's self-defense threshold, according to Coates.
"Of course, the two people*who were killed might have been*in a position to do so, but they couldn't testify, they were dead," she said, adding that the third person who was shot,*Gaige Grosskreutz*testified that Rittenhouse fired when Grosskreutz aimed his gun at him.
The whole trial was set-up as a gun grab (IMO) and their 2nd amendment was at stake, was always going to be a big ask to convict him especially in view of the prosecution who were essentially caught tampering with evidence, I watched quite a bit of this trial, he seemed to come across as a wanna be Rambo but it came on top with a mob who were about to kill him, and he had to make an instant decision, his travelled distance to Kenosha was half the distance of one of the guys he killed, I think the turning point of the trial was when the person he injured admitted to pointing his gun at the Kid 1st, the prosecution lawyer had his hands covering his face in astonishment.
All isn't lost however, CNN and co. are stoking up the riots as a consolation prize.
The kid will soon be one of the richest 19 year olds in Merica
Bobs headline sums it up. Bonkers country.
Asshole republican feckwit idiot rednecks
Guns don't kill people
American idiots walking around with guns kill fecking loads of people 🙄
It’s sad (and mad) how divided America is over guns, innit.
The real question is why does a member of the public need an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? It’s like saying that America is a war zone, so that’s why they need to be carrying.
Regardless of this case, any country that lets a 17 year old walk around with a gun is bonkers.
The 2nd amendment is a joke. Written in a time where the deadliest weapon was a musket that took half a minute to reload and was as accurate as Ken Zohore’s left foot now allows people to walk around with military grade machine guns.
Bonkers
even if he's cleared of murder, surely taking an automatic weapon and entering a town where there are riots ongoing is reckless enough for him to be guilty of something?
I think If you look deeper into the USA Black's and Whites , Republicans and Democrats they all carry guns tol defend and kill each other with .
If the second amendment is so bad why doesn't the Democrats grow a pair and get rid if it ??
Obama was in power for quite some time and Biden is there now, hypocrisy is the word to use In the USA .
It's their issues let them live with it , our opinion isn't going to effect matters.
I'm so glad and proud of our country and its standards even with all its faults.
mozzer rhymes almost with tosser defending the little cnut in 4,3,2,1
USA, the Land of the Free: more like the Land of the Apocalypse.
You can see it from both sides but I suppose protests/riots like that are the "perfect" opportunity to use your right to bear arms.
Bonkers place.
Always reminds me of family guy https://youtu.be/RpeUznIhgLU
I must admit, I thought Rittenhouse would be found guilty of manslaughter, and get off with a short sentence, but anyone thinking he was going to go down for murder had obviously not read anything about the circumstances.
The problem here is that an awful lot of people had been fed a line by the media, about a violent white racist who 'crossed state lines' to deliberately cause trouble, when the reality was far from that. When the truth came out, there's been an awful lot of back-pedalling by people who should have done their own research, before leaping to conclusions (and that includes the press and tv). They seemed all too keen to jump on a story without really looking into the detail. Once the evidence came to court, it was always going to be a case of self-defence.
And now they've turned the story around. It's no longer a murder case, it's a racist one, with the cry being "What if he'd been black? White man's privilege, etc". Thing is, he wasn't, and neither were any of the other people involved.
Okay, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I'm not saying anyone deserved to die, and I also think Rittenhouse should shoulder part of the blame. But the way the media has twisted and used this whole affair - not once, but twice - and how the various factions of the US media have chosen to present it for their own purposes - that's the real story here.