You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
George Floyd murder / Derek Chauvin guilty of murder
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
I do also wonder how much the NRA contributed to the defence costs
Just watched the end of "Dopesick" and it just amplifies how far from "justice" you can get with a hefty wallet behind
Not true is it -that wasn’t what happened.Shocking verdict for rittenhouse case , he did trumps bidding , striding around with his automatic gun extremely provocately (sp) and was clearly looking for a fight , we all know if he was black and shot three white men in that manner he would be in prison for life or executed , it fucking stinks
If he was black shooting white men he would be guilty
DrBlueBob
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Messages
- 6,686
- Team supported
- Need you ask?
He could still be given a jail term term of up to 30 years after being convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Sentencing in January.
Your knowledge of the case is what stinks.Shocking verdict for rittenhouse case , he did trumps bidding , striding around with his automatic gun extremely provocately (sp) and was clearly looking for a fight , we all know if he was black and shot three white men in that manner he would be in prison for life or executed , it fucking stinks
kaz7
Well-Known Member
I followed it when i first saw the video on cnn when it happened but thanksYour knowledge of the case is what stinks.
Well then you should know American citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms and a constitutional right to self defence. The law also grants the right to use lethal force if other options of escaping an attack aren’t there. The first attacker lunged at the defendant from short distance and the next attackers were armed themselves, one pointing a gun at the defendant, when he was on the ground after being chased by 3 of them in a car park.I followed it when i first saw the video on cnn when it happened but thanks
There is nothing “shocking” about the verdict, it was actually pretty straight forward and no surprise not a single member of the jury disagreed with the decision.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
He should never have been there, it was provocative , a white kid with a gun like that patrolling not in his district during a blm protest , trump congratulated him on his aquital, he went because trump put out a racist dog whistle , what could go wrongWell then you should know American citizens have a constitutional right to bear arms and a constitutional right to self defence. The law also grants the right to use lethal force if other options of escaping an attack aren’t there. The first attacker lunged at the defendant from short distance and the next attackers were armed themselves, one pointing a gun at the defendant, when he was on the ground after being chased by 3 of them in a car park.
There is nothing “shocking” about the verdict, it was actually pretty straight forward and no surprise not a single member of the jury disagreed with the decision.
With all due respect, what has any of that got to do with the verdict of the trial?He should never have been there, it was provocative , a white kid with a gun like that patrolling not in his district during a blm protest , trump congratulated him on his aquital, he went because trump put out a racist dog whistle , what could go wrong
Your problem is you’re looking at it through a lens of political bias. The only thing that matters here is what is his constitutional right and what the law says. In the eyes of both he did nothing wrong.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
The fact he did what he did with ZERO punishment is essentially a green light for anyone who has similar ideas for turning up at a protest with an assault rifle to 'help out'.With all due respect, what has any of that got to do with the verdict of the trial?
Your problem is you’re looking at it through a lens of political bias. The only thing that matters here is what is his constitutional right and what the law says. In the eyes of both he did nothing wrong.
The authorities should have at least considered that the lesser firearms offences he was initially charged with should have been upheld to act as a deterrent and to prevent further tragedies such as this.
What lesser firearm offences? Are you aware the attackers also had firearms?The fact he did what he did with ZERO punishment is essentially a green light for anyone who has similar ideas for turning up at a protest with an assault rifle to 'help out'.
The authorities should have at least considered that the lesser firearms offences he was initially charged with should have been upheld to act as a deterrent and to prevent further tragedies such as this.
Ofcourse. He is clearly guilty of that violation.He could still be given a jail term term of up to 30 years after being convicted felon in possession of a firearm. Sentencing in January.
But he won using the very same self defense claim against the murder and attempted murder charges someone here claimed would never happen for a black man.
It's pathetic the continuous recitation of claims that a simple Google search can debunk a hundred times over.
That's even besides the point. Trevor's asinine suggestion here is that a person who isn't guilty of any crime here, should nevertheless have been held guilty on some trumped up charge just so it serves "as a deterrent to others" who may act in a way that is lawful but not to the pleasure of folks like Trevor.What lesser firearm offences? Are you aware the attackers also had firearms?
This unfortunately is a very common way of thinking by some. And it's a detriment to us all :(
DrBlueBob
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Messages
- 6,686
- Team supported
- Need you ask?
I know Dax. I don't know how many didn't watch the vid so mentioned it in that context alone.Ofcourse. He is clearly guilty of that violation.
But he won using the very same self defense claim against the murder and attempted murder charges someone here claimed would never happen for a black man.
It's pathetic the continuous recitation of claims that a simple Google search can debunk a hundred times over.
As to whether that possibility (30 years) is overly punitive or reasonable is another discussion entirely.
Thankfully the jury had no such intentions and managed to view the charges purely as to whether the defendant was guilty of committing them.That's even besides the point. Trevor's asinine suggestion here is that a person who isn't guilty of any crime here, should nevertheless have been held guilty on some trumped up charge just so it serves "as a deterrent to others" who may act in a way that is lawful but not to the pleasure of folks like Trevor.
This unfortunately is a very common way of thinking by some. And it's a detriment to us all :(
I guess so much of this comes from what side of "the pond" you live.That's even besides the point. Trevor's asinine suggestion here is that a person who isn't guilty of any crime here, should nevertheless have been held guilty on some trumped up charge just so it serves "as a deterrent to others" who may act in a way that is lawful but not to the pleasure of folks like Trevor.
This unfortunately is a very common way of thinking by some. And it's a detriment to us all :(
To many on this side, the whole of 2A and all that goes along with it is just an alien and outdated concept. yet it is something that as part of the whole Constitution, Americans hold sacred.
I was trying to think of any situation over here that was even reasonably close and the only thing I could think of was the "self defence" shooting by Tony Martin of the burglar. Tony was defending bis property in that instance whereas rittenhouse was defending his colleagues property.
It is just so alien to our minds over here and white or black it still feels "wrong2 that someone has lost their life and nobody appears to have been held accountable.
Hell probably get the mandatory 5 years. But he is liable for up to the 30. You are right.I know Dax. I don't know how many didn't watch the vid so mentioned it in that context alone.
As to whether that possibility (30 years) is overly punitive or reasonable is another discussion entirely.
Using an illegal gun to defend yourself wouldn't net him the most extreme possiblity in most jurisdictions though.. Had he gone out and attempted another felony and stuck someone up with the gun or killed someone in a felony manslaughter case,then yeah he might get the full 30 for the charge on possession alone Plus whatever else he'd have been guilty of.
DrBlueBob
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jul 2008
- Messages
- 6,686
- Team supported
- Need you ask?
Interesting, cheers. Obviously we will have to wait and see but five years seems a lot fairer than pretty much a life sentence.Hell probably get the mandatory 5 years. But he is liable for yo to 30.
Using an illegal gun to defend yourself wouldn't net him the most extreme possiblity. Had he gone to attempt another felony and stuck someone up with the gun or killed someone in a felony manslaughter case,then year he might get the full 30 for the charge on possession alone Plus whatever else he'd have been guilty of.
I agree many who aren't from here may see 2A as barbaric, and that's fine. It is what it is. There are things that happen over the pond that we shake our heads over too.I guess so much of this comes from what side of "the pond" you live.
To many on this side, the whole of 2A and all that goes along with it is just an alien and outdated concept. yet it is something that as part of the whole Constitution, Americans hold sacred.
Some of that is just cultural differences in what we'd tolerate. But I'm not sure 2A can be said to be what's at issue here...
You've hit on it. Self Defense is what's at issue. And as funny as it might seem, the idea of self defense comes from Common Law. Meaning we originally got it from you guys long before we enshrined it in any of our Statutes. So really in a round about way, this is your thing :)I was trying to think of any situation over here that was even reasonably close and the only thing I could think of was the "self defence" shooting by Tony Martin of the burglar. Tony was defending bis property in that instance whereas rittenhouse was defending his colleagues property.
To continue my point above, not only did we get it from you, but a quick perusal of your laws suggests your self defense laws may even be broader than what you'd find in most Statutes in American States.
When you put it that way it sounds wrong: But allow me to run a hypothetical scenario by you and then tell me if you still feel the same way:It is just so alien to our minds over here and white or black it still feels "wrong2 that someone has lost their life and nobody appears to have been held accountable.
1. A 16 year old girl sneaks out at night in her Mom''s party clothes and makeup.
2. Goes to a rough bar in the neighborhood where she parties, drinks, flirts, makes out with a few men happily.
3. As she's about to leave for the night, one of the men who bought her drinks through out the night tries to get her to stay longer, but she declines as she stumbles out laughing and giggling joyfully after having had a great night.
4. As she stepped out onto the main road, that same guy is suddenly behind her jumps on her back and fights her to the ground. As she hits the ground he sits up for a second, smile on his face, this gives her enough time to retrieve a knife in her purse, and she sticks him in the neck with the knife.He collapsses on top of her and it took her a while to drags herself out from underneath him before 911 ( oe is that 999 for you guys?)
5. By the time the cops arrive, the man had died..Video Cameras from the parking lot sort of corroborates her claim.
The Girl's parents are called and she is sent home with them. And the case is closed.
Now here's the question for you:
Does it still feel wrong that someone has lost their life and no one has been held accountable?
And if it still does, who'd you suggest be held accountable for the loss of life?
Last edited:
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Possession of a dangerous firearm by a person underr18 years of age and failure to comply with an emergency order from State or local government.What lesser firearm offences? Are you aware the attackers also had firearms?
(apologies, browser playing up).