Rittenhouse Trial

[wilberforce15]

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.

You need to do some reading. Both privileges can only be done in favor of the defendent.

 

[wilberforce15]

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.

John Jay. The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Meaning: the prosecution and judge can quote the law and cite the law, but the jury has the right to decide if it IS the law.

The jury has full authority to say "ummm, that's not the law any more in this court."

This is used to defend innocent defendents who crossed bad laws.

 

[vantexan]

You need to do some reading. Both privileges can only be done in favor of the defendent.

You still haven't pointed to a law that states a jury can ignore the law. It's why we have judges. Defendants can even wave their right to a jury trial if they feel they won't get an impartial verdict. It rarely happens but a judge can set aside a jury verdict if he decides they ignored the law with their verdict.

 

[wilberforce15]

You still haven't pointed to a law that states a jury can ignore the law. It's why we have judges. Defendants can even wave their right to a jury trial if they feel they won't get an impartial verdict. It rarely happens but a judge can set aside a jury verdict if he decides they ignored the law with their verdict.

Does the first chief justice of the United States have a say in the matter?

 

[vantexan]

John Jay. The first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

"The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."

Meaning: the prosecution and judge can quote the law and cite the law, but the jury has the right to decide if it IS the law.

The jury has full authority to say "ummm, that's not the law any more in this court."

This is used to defend innocent defendents who crossed bad laws.

Can you name laws struck down by jury rulings? By the way John Jay and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees when they sued the Federal government. Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to pound sand and forcibly removed the Cherokees to Oklahoma.

 

[wilberforce15]

Can you name laws struck down by jury rulings? By the way John Jay and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokees when they sued the Federal government. Andrew Jackson told the Supreme Court to pound sand and forcibly removed the Cherokees to Oklahoma.

Laws are not struck down by juries. Their nullification only applies to that defendant in that trial. It doesn't undo the law. It gets the law off that one defendant in that case.

You really need to read something.

 

[wilberforce15]

Examples of nullification?

Thousands and thousands of them. How many not guilty verdicts are driven by jurors perceiving the punishment would be too harsh, or that the prosecution maliciously picked one guy instead of all offenders, or from a juror thinking the law was overly broad or doing wrong to the defendant? A ton of them. Those are all nullification- the jury recognizing that the defendant did was was alleged, and then still refusing to convict.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

I'd think Kyle Rittenhouse supporters would generally understand if an Antifa member or black militant shot a rioting right winger after they'd threatened to kill them twice and then chased them down, started hitting them in the head with a skateboard or pointed a gun at their head.

Maybe it's more of a hope on my part.

Antifa Protester Implicated in Killing of Trump Supporter in Oregon

Left-wing protest movement has resorted to violence in the past in opposition to right-wing extremist groups but has stopped short of lethal tactics

www.google.com

Where's the media circus? Where are the right wingers demanding justice?

 

[rod]

View attachment 359532

Cenk is a big d-o-u-c-h-e bag. .

 

[El Correcto]

The question to you is this; Is this Ritterhouse and vigilantism the new normal of the right and their white supremacists demands for Fascist government? The white supremacist are all on board the "self-defence" bandwagon because it allows them to dehumanize black people. The BLM protest were all a result of police killings of black men and 99% non-violent.

You do realize all white people were shot during this self defense case? Nice video, look at the silver car “ACAB” spray painted on the side of it, all cops are bastards. These weren’t protests, these were race riots orchestrated by leftists.

 

[El Correcto]

Also that video just further exonerates Kyle, dude was super close to him after chasing him down. Almost got his rifle, thank goodness Kyle shot that serial child rapist.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

He was a black man running down the road after he’d checked out a house under construction

Why?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Arbery wasn’t a thief.

He was convicted of shoplifting.
Which violated his probation for illegal weapon possession.

 

[El Correcto]

If some jackass was spray painting ACAB on the side of my car at night because some random rapist got shot by police while resisting I’d send some .300 blackout from my living room into their skull.

 

[MAKAVELI]

He was convicted of shoplifting.
Which violated his probation for illegal weapon possession.

The three men are murderers.

 

[MAKAVELI]

If some jackass was spray painting ACAB on the side of my car at night because some random rapist got shot by police while resisting I’d send some .300 blackout from my living room into their skull.

Calm down son.

 

[wilberforce15]

The three men are murderers.

They were within their rights to use force to detain him, and within their rights to defend themselves when he became a lethal threat.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

The three men are murderers.

That doesn't have anything to do with my post.
Ttku homie.

 

[Box Ox]

Cenk is a big d-o-u-c-h-e bag. .

And he's an Armenian Genocide denier whose news show shares its name with the Turkish political movement that was responsible for it.

The Young Turks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Young Turks - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You do realize all white people were shot during this self defense case? Nice video, look at the silver car “ACAB” spray painted on the side of it, all cops are bastards. These weren’t protests, these were race riots orchestrated by leftists.

I think the most plausible explanation I've heard for the left's reasoning that this was still a racist incident (which I don't agree with) is that the rioters Rittenhouse shot in self-defense were "black adjacent" allies of black people. So Rittenhouse must have had racist motives for shooting them. Since the video showing it was self-defense doesn't matter to them.

The media is following the Rittenhouse case because they know the likely outcome will further their dumb racial narratives. Rittenhouse will be found not guilty and they'll get to cry about how the "Asian food comment" judge is a racist and Rittenhouse is just another white guy who escaped justice.

The media isn't following the Abery case as much because they know what the likely outcome will be there too. It won't further their dumb racial narratives when those white men are found guilty for Arbery's killing.

Why?

Felt like jogging?

He was convicted of shoplifting.
Which violated his probation for illegal weapon possession.

Was that why those guys did what they did? They looked up his record? Because he wasn't a thief the day they cut him off on a public street and shot him.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Felt like jogging?

So you think he was out on a 14 mile jog?
Come on man that's a really silly left wing narrative.