(11-15-2021, 10:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]As my parents taught me, our justice system never declares anyone innocent. The options are "guilty" and "not guilty" and not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
Rittenhouse is not innocent. He's probably not guilty (we'll see) but he's also not innocent.
Your parents should have taught you how to use a dictionary.
From merriam-webster:
Quote:Definition of innocent (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: free from legal guilt or fault
Just as an example, what Rittenhouse did, openly carrying a loaded firearm and pointing it at people, is illegal in Florida. That's what I mean when I say he's not innocent.
(11-16-2021, 09:00 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2021, 10:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]As my parents taught me, our justice system never declares anyone innocent. The options are "guilty" and "not guilty" and not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
Rittenhouse is not innocent. He's probably not guilty (we'll see) but he's also not innocent.
Your parents should have taught you how to use a dictionary.
From merriam-webster:
Quote:Definition of innocent (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: free from legal guilt or fault
Pay attention to the last two words there.
(11-16-2021, 09:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Just as an example, what Rittenhouse did, openly carrying a loaded firearm and pointing it at people, is illegal in Florida. That's what I mean when I say he's not innocent.
(11-16-2021, 09:00 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Your parents should have taught you how to use a dictionary.
From merriam-webster:
Pay attention to the last two words there.
It must be exhausting being wrong all the time.
(11-16-2021, 09:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Just as an example, what Rittenhouse did, openly carrying a loaded firearm and pointing it at people, is illegal in Florida. That's what I mean when I say he's not innocent.
(11-16-2021, 09:00 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Your parents should have taught you how to use a dictionary.
From merriam-webster:
Pay attention to the last two words there.
Open carrying a rifle in Wisconsin in not illegal:
947.01 - "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried."
There is also no evidence except a digitally altered video that he pointed the rifle at any person prior to using it in self-defense. So you're wrong again. You should change your name to NeverRight, it's much more fitting.
(11-16-2021, 10:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2021, 09:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Just as an example, what Rittenhouse did, openly carrying a loaded firearm and pointing it at people, is illegal in Florida. That's what I mean when I say he's not innocent.
Pay attention to the last two words there.
Open carrying a rifle in Wisconsin in not illegal:
947.01 - "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried."
There is also no evidence except a digitally altered video that he pointed the rifle at any person prior to using it in self-defense. So you're wrong again. You should change your name to NeverRight, it's much more fitting.
You're missing my point, which is fine because I wasn't directing it to you anyways.
(11-16-2021, 10:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2021, 10:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Open carrying a rifle in Wisconsin in not illegal:
947.01 - "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried."
There is also no evidence except a digitally altered video that he pointed the rifle at any person prior to using it in self-defense. So you're wrong again. You should change your name to NeverRight, it's much more fitting.
You're missing my point, which is fine because I wasn't directing it to you anyways.
Lol, your point is wrong. Rittenhouse did nothing wrong and is innocent of whatever recriminations you are backwardly attempting to assign him.
(11-16-2021, 10:20 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2021, 10:17 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Open carrying a rifle in Wisconsin in not illegal:
947.01 - "Unless other facts and circumstances that indicate a criminal or malicious intent on the part of the person apply, a person is not in violation of, and may not be charged with a violation of, this section for loading, carrying, or going armed with a firearm, without regard to whether the firearm is loaded or is concealed or openly carried."
There is also no evidence except a digitally altered video that he pointed the rifle at any person prior to using it in self-defense. So you're wrong again. You should change your name to NeverRight, it's much more fitting.
You're missing my point, which is fine because I wasn't directing it to you anyways.
Learn to take an L and move on please.
(11-16-2021, 09:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Just as an example, what Rittenhouse did, openly carrying a loaded firearm and pointing it at people, is illegal in Florida. That's what I mean when I say he's not innocent.
(11-16-2021, 09:00 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Your parents should have taught you how to use a dictionary.
From merriam-webster:
Pay attention to the last two words there.
What is legal or illegal in Florida doesn't matter in this case. Also, the only time he "pointed it at people" was when he saw a threat.
Rittenhouse did nothing illegal and protected himself when threatened.
Liberal democrats like you just hate it when a "good person with a gun" wins a confrontation.
(11-15-2021, 11:51 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2021, 10:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]As my parents taught me, our justice system never declares anyone innocent. The options are "guilty" and "not guilty" and not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
Rittenhouse is not innocent. He's probably not guilty (we'll see) but he's also not innocent.
Ah... Mikesez... waxing poetic. Who is innocent, Mikey? Enlighten us. What does it even mean to be innocent. Guide us with your infinite wisdom.
Please don't encourage him. We might get more than we bargained for.
(11-16-2021, 05:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2021, 09:04 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Just as an example, what Rittenhouse did, openly carrying a loaded firearm and pointing it at people, is illegal in Florida. That's what I mean when I say he's not innocent.
Pay attention to the last two words there.
What is legal or illegal in Florida doesn't matter in this case. Also, the only time he "pointed it at people" was when he saw a threat.
Rittenhouse did nothing illegal and protected himself when threatened.
Liberal democrats like you just hate it when a "good person with a gun" wins a confrontation.
The prosecutor is guilty as they have a law like that also but it doesn't say anything about being loaded. He won't charge himself though. Yes it is illegal to point a gun at someone to threaten them but generally you need to read the whole law to understand it. You cannot just pick one part, that's what they did when they charged him with illegally having the gun. 1 part says it is illegal but the other part says it doesn't apply if it is a long barrel and then he has to violate 2 other parts, which he did not.
Personally I think he will struggle to get off all charges on the first shooting (Rosenbaum) but likely left off against the other two. Anyone else care to guess?
(11-16-2021, 07:56 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I think he will struggle to get off all charges on the first shooting (Rosenbaum) but likely left off against the other two. Anyone else care to guess?
Acquittal is the correct verdict, but I suspect we'll get a hung jury.
(11-16-2021, 07:56 PM)lastonealive Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I think he will struggle to get off all charges on the first shooting (Rosenbaum) but likely left off against the other two. Anyone else care to guess?
There might be a full acquittal on one or two charges, but a hung jury on others.
The jury fear for their lives. This is no longer a just country.
(11-16-2021, 10:12 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The jury fear for their lives. This is no longer a just country.
Supposedly 2 jurors afraid of the mob. Judge sends them home and tells them you can discuss anything in the morning if only 10 of you are here. If someone doesn't show up or gets sick, we will use an alternate. That is standard language for the most part but usually you don't have the # of people showing up and get sick part. I wonder if he gave them an out since they are afraid and cannot make an impartial decision.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(11-16-2021, 09:00 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (11-15-2021, 10:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]As my parents taught me, our justice system never declares anyone innocent. The options are "guilty" and "not guilty" and not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
Rittenhouse is not innocent. He's probably not guilty (we'll see) but he's also not innocent.
Your parents should have taught you how to use a dictionary.
From merriam-webster:
Quote:Definition of innocent (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: free from legal guilt or fault
The legal system is about the prosecutor proving guilt.
Hence, not guilty does not equal innocence, it is just that, not guilty.
Innocence doesn't even feature in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
(11-16-2021, 06:49 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2021, 05:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]What is legal or illegal in Florida doesn't matter in this case. Also, the only time he "pointed it at people" was when he saw a threat.
Rittenhouse did nothing illegal and protected himself when threatened.
Liberal democrats like you just hate it when a "good person with a gun" wins a confrontation.
The prosecutor is guilty as they have a law like that also but it doesn't say anything about being loaded. He won't charge himself though. Yes it is illegal to point a gun at someone to threaten them but generally you need to read the whole law to understand it. You cannot just pick one part, that's what they did when they charged him with illegally having the gun. 1 part says it is illegal but the other part says it doesn't apply if it is a long barrel and then he has to violate 2 other parts, which he did not.
The possession charge got dropped because it did not follow state laws as they are written. This is no longer a point to even argue anymore. It will just be remembered as another blunder by the prosecution.
(11-17-2021, 12:37 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ] (11-16-2021, 09:00 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Your parents should have taught you how to use a dictionary.
From merriam-webster:
The legal system is about the prosecutor proving guilt.
Hence, not guilty does not equal innocence, it is just that, not guilty.
Innocence doesn't even feature in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Innocence and it's presumption is the bedrock principle of Western Law. You are innocent until proven otherwise, there is no special third condition based on your fantasy.
(11-16-2021, 10:12 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]The jury fear for their lives. This is no longer a just country.
Been that way for a while.
Some could argue it never really was.
(11-17-2021, 07:07 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (11-17-2021, 12:37 AM)captivating Wrote: [ -> ]The legal system is about the prosecutor proving guilt.
Hence, not guilty does not equal innocence, it is just that, not guilty.
Innocence doesn't even feature in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Innocence and it's presumption is the bedrock principle of Western Law. You are innocent until proven otherwise, there is no special third condition based on your fantasy.
For some the confusion stems from the different levels of proof required for a guilty finding in civil versus criminal actions (Though I don't believe that's the case here.)