What do you base that on? It's also a judge's right to set aside a verdict if the judge feels that the jury got it wrong. Of course the judge would have to most likely justify his position to an appeals court if appealed. The problem we've seen in recent years is juries ignoring the law in order to free someone for no other reason than he looks like them. There is no law that says juries have a fundamental right to ignore the law so it's up to the judge to either set aside a verdict or let it stand. If there's an angry mob outside that agrees with the jury it's highly likely the judge will let it stand. That has caught on and now we have mob rule in many instances. Don't like that a kid defended himself with deadly force at a riot over a police shooting? Threaten to take pictures of jurists with the implied intent of bodily harm if they don't reach the right verdict. Fly in a Congresswoman who implies there will be violence if they don't get what they want. It's only a fair trial if the mob standing outside says so.
Rittenhouse Trial
- Thread starter El Correcto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- saint
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Yes, Rittenhouse's only problem is that he lives in a society run by stupid, evil, and insane people.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
And what do those same Rittenhouse supporters think about the Arbery case?
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Jury nullification is as old as the republic itself. The jury is free to ignore a lwa that requires conviction. If the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the law exists and was broken, the jury is still free to declare not guilty even acknowledging the offense was done.
In turn, the judge can often set aside a shady or malicious guilty verdict.
Both of these are in the system and can only be used in favor of the defendent as an extra layer to protect the good or innocent.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
No charges should be filed. They were restrained, orderly, and easily within the law.
Dunno about the Trumpees on here but I think those idiots are definitely guilty of the charges.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Need I say more?
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
If you can find two black guys trying to detain a white thief, and then defending themselves from the white thief, I'll be happy to side with the black guys.
MAKAVELI
Well-Known Member
Arbery didn't commit any crime and the three had no reason to try to detain him. It was a modern day lynching and the three should be put to death.
Arbery wasn’t a thief.
Arbery wasn’t a thief. He was a black man running down the road after he’d checked out a house under construction (as I have many times) and was cut off and threatened by armed Georgian rednecks who thought they had a shot at playing hero that day.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Yes, he was.
What did he steal?
Homeowner: Nothing stolen before Ahmaud Arbery was shot
The owner of a house under construction that played a role in the deadly shooting of a black man in Georgia says nothing was stolen from the house.
GA prosecutors: No evidence Arbery stole anything before he was killed
In Georgia on Friday, Nov. 5, 2021, prosecutors in the Ahmaud Arbery case painted for jurors an image of a terrified Black man running for his life for at least five minutes as he was chased down and ultimately shot to death last year in a Glynn County neighborhood. Defense attorneys...
Verdict based on what?
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Lots of things.
And besides, even if he's not a thief, reasonable detainment under that suspicion is still legal, which means they had every right to stop him and point guns at him, even if he ultimately wasn't a thief.
So, he was a thief. But even if he wasn't, the guys didn't break the law.
Don’t forget the folks who tried to sweep it under the rug.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Nothing to sweep. No laws were broken, except by arbery.
wilberforce15
Well-Known Member
Cam we get back how innocent Rittenhouse is? Instead of innocent the Georgia rednecks are?
Show me where it's a fundamental right in the law to ignore the law? Yes they can ignore the law but where actual law comes in is the judge setting aside their verdict if he feels they haven't ruled within the law. What's become prominent lately is we've moved beyond woke mob rule on social media cancelling people to actual mobs threatening violence if they don't get the verdict they want. Look at the prominent cases and resultant riots in recent years. Look at Ferguson, MO before and after Officer Wilson was declared not guilty. Mobs burned the place down in spite of numerous black witnesses corroborating Wilson's account of events. People still refused to believe his account even after an Eric Holder run DOJ investigation proved the forensics upheld Wilson's account. Why? Because Michael Brown's friend said Wilson executed Brown in the street in spite of Brown on his knees with his hands up pleading "stop, don't shoot!" People believe what they want with preconceived biases. Those biases may very well be based on many actual instances of police misconduct but we are supposed to set aside those views with each case to give an impartial hearing. But prosecutors are trying to get biased juries seated to win their often politically motivated cases. And now with angry mobs outside the door don't count on a fair and impartial verdict if you ever get entangled in a newsworthy event where you defended your life from attackers who are a woke approved minority. If you're white better hope your attackers are white to have a legitimate chance of being declared innocent at this point.
Similar threads
