Kyle Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[Kooky]

So you're saying that the judge and all 12 jurors had the same intention.

It would be quite a trick to set something like that up.

Please stop putting words into my mouth that I did not say, thanks.

EDIT: Overall, the pattern of nationally publicized self defense trials in the US (specifically Zimmerman and Rittenhouse) has been one of vindicating vigilantism. You may be deaf to that message, but I am rather positive that its audience is hearing it loud and clear.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So you're saying that the judge and all 12 jurors had the same intention.

It would be quite a trick to set something like that up.

To be fair, in a country where 74 million people voted for a second Trump term, the idea that 12 people and a judge could be prejudiced or unable to issue a sound verdict doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.

That's not to say they were necessarily wrong or had ulterior motives in this case; it's just that I don't find the above scenario impossible.

 

[Quagmire]

Please stop puting words into my mouth that I did not say, thanks.

I think you mean, "Please stop holding me responsible for the implications of my own words. Hell I don't".

Sorry, I'm still going to.

 

[esmith]

Interesting.

I have to wonder whether you're having a moment of refreshing honesty, or if you don't know what "projecting" means.

It all depends on what you meant by "projecting"?
Are you using it as in a psychology term?
If so, what traits I have depends on how one construes those traits. If you disagree with them they are negative to you but may be positive to others.
As far as my emotions go it all depends on how you see those emotions. In this case I see them as positive because I don't suffer idiots.
Then to some "projecting oneself" means unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
In this case the only trait or emotion I exhibited was again I don't suffer idiots and I don't consider that unwanted.
Satisfied?

 

[Revoltingest]

Of course, you're free to distort other people's statements any way you like, it's your forum after all.

 

[esmith]

Then let's not pretend that we believe killing to be wrong, and violence to be abhorrent.

No, I do not believe killing is wrong under certain circumstances, and as far as violence goes my answer is whatever it takes to get the job done.

 

[Quagmire]

To be fair, in a country where 74 million people voted for a second Trump term, the idea that 12 people and a judge could be prejudiced or unable to issue a sound verdict doesn't seem too far-fetched to me.

That's not to say they were necessarily wrong or had ulterior motives in this case; it's just that I don't find the above scenario impossible.

The post I was responding to was implying that there were some sort of concerted group effort behind the verdict. Something akin to a conspiracy.

Hence the use of the word "intention".

 

[Kooky]

No, I do not believe killing is wrong under certain circumstances, and as far as violence goes my answer is whatever it takes to get the job done.

Indeed. The hubbub about BLM "riots" had nothing to do with the violence involved, only with the violence being applied by the incorrect group of people against an incorrect category of targets.

 

[Kooky]

The post I was responding to was implying that there were some sort of concerted group effort behind the verdict. Something akin to a conspiracy.

Hence the use of the word "intention".

You're reading something into my statements that I neither intended nor implied, and are being needlessly confrontational about it.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The post I was responding to was implying that there were some sort of concerted group effort behind the verdict. Something akin to a conspiracy.

Hence the use of the word "intention".

Yeah, I don't think we can speak with any certainty about the intentions of the judge and 12 jurors. Maybe we could speculate on the former's competence or impartiality, but the latter are too many for such a thing to be accurate at all.

At this point any comments on the intentions of the jury seem to me mostly a combination of opinion and guesswork. Nothing more.

 

[Quagmire]

Of course, you're free to distort other people's statements any way you like, it's your forum after all.

Lol! Claiming oppression by "the man" in order to avoid having to take responsibility for yourself.

Not exactly original.

 

[Quagmire]

You're reading something into my statements that I neither intended nor implied, and are being needlessly confrontational about it.

Bull.

 

[Kooky]

Bull.

Nope, cow.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It portends that anyone who wants can carry around semi automatic weapons at any public gathering and be able to decide what constitutes danger and when it is reasonable to use deadly force with zero training unlike police who have many hundreds of hours of training and still can't get it right some times. It means don't go to demonstrations in states where any idiot can walk around in public waving an AR-15, kill two people and walk off scott free. No gun control anywhere, anytime for any reason. That's the new Merica.

Not *any* idiot. Only white right wing idiots.

The Wisconsin that let Kyle Rittenhouse off scot-free is also the Wisconsin that's trying to convict Chrystul Kizer of first-degree murder for killing her rapist and trafficker.

Chrystul Kizer, sex trafficking victim accused of killing alleged abuser, wins appeal

 

[esmith]

Why would they be required to do that?
Is that not infringing on their constitutional right to do whatever with their precious boomstick?

The refernce was to a "child" which I consider under the age of 18, and I approve of my State's law governing those under the age of 18. Which is:
It is unlawful for any person under the age of eighteen (18) years to possess or have in possession any weapon, as defined in Idaho Code, unless he or she:

• Has the written permission of his or her parent or guardian to possess the weapon; or
• Is accompanied by his or her parent or guardian while he or she has the weapon in his possession.

Idaho Code § 18-3302E.

It is unlawful for a minor to possess or to provide a minor with a handgun, fully automatic weapon or sawed-off shotgun regardless of parental consent except as specifically provided.

Exceptions to these general prohibitions are listed in Idaho Code § 18-3302F, including participating in a class or competition, on private property, or lawfully engaged in hunting.

As far a attending a NRA safety course Idaho law says:
A hunting license is required at 10 years old for unprotected game and the child must take hunter education to get the license.

Therefore I think any child between 10-18 should pass a hunter education class. I use NRA approved classes as the gold standard.

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah, I don't think we can speak with any certainty about the intentions of the judge and 12 jurors.

Oh come on: the very idea that they had some sort of mutual intention makes this a completely different conversation.

Maybe we could speculate on the former's competence or impartiality, but the latter are too many for such a thing to be accurate at all.

At this point any comments on the intentions of the jury seem to me mostly a combination of opinion and guesswork. Nothing more.

I think it's fair to assume that out of 12 random people you're going to be able to find one who's intention is to come to a fair verdict.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Not *any* idiot. Only white right wing idiots.

The Wisconsin that let Kyle Rittenhouse off scot-free is also the Wisconsin that's trying to convict Chrystul Kizer of first-degree murder for killing her rapist and trafficker.

Chrystul Kizer, sex trafficking victim accused of killing alleged abuser, wins appeal

We're talking about the kinds of states that oppose vaccine mandates on grounds of "freedom" but have little issue banning elective abortions. Consistency isn't exactly high on their list of priorities; only ideological pandering seems to be.

 

[Quagmire]

Nope, cow.

That would have been my second guess.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think it's fair to assume that out of 12 random people you're going to be able to find one who's intention is to come to a fair verdict.

Agreed. I don't know how juries work in the U.S., though, so I have no idea how much impact one or two people out of 12 could have on the verdict (assuming only one or two intend to be fair).

 

[Quagmire]

Agreed. I don't know how juries work in the U.S., though, so I have no idea how much impact one or two people out of 12 could have on the verdict (assuming only one or two intend to be fair).

A jury's decision has to be unanimous here. Otherwise it's a "hung jury" and results in a retrial.