Rittenhouse Not Guilty on All Counts!! (Page 9): If I am not mistaken he borrowed the rifle. However, I believe he was legal age to purchase a "rifle" but not a handgun.

Watash

dlwhawaii wrote:

Purchased Legally? LOL. Rottenhouse was underage.

If I am not mistaken he borrowed the rifle. However, I believe he was legal age to purchase a "rifle" but not
a handgun.

usnpilot Loc: Ft Myers Fl

dlwhawaii wrote:

Purchased Legally? LOL. Rottenhouse was underage.

The law states that a minor can you own a weapon as long as the barrel is longer than 16 inches and Kyles rifle was longer than 16 inches therefore it was not an illegal weapon. And that is why the judge threw out illegal firearms charge. Look it up.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

FrumCA wrote:

Hope all goes well for your wife. If you wish to share it, what's the prognosis for her getting off the walker?

Thanks, it's going to be some time before she gets off the walker.

rcarol

DennyT wrote:

This no surprise given the obvious bias of the judge. In the trial proceedings . That combined when the circumstance themselves assured a not guilty verdict.

Interesting that the judge is a democrate.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

rcarol wrote:

Interesting that the judge is a democrate.

Spelled that wrong. It's Dumbocrat without a 't' on the end.

One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID

FrumCA wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rittenhouse-verdict-jurors-reach-decision-rcna5090

Let's hope the leftists don't revolt and start rioting over this verdict.

How come the whites didn't hit the street and burn the place down, I wonder? Just asking? Saw on the news that some blacks were trying to make it a racial thing when it doesn't have a thing to do with race it has to do with the law and the judicial system. Not everything that happens in this country revolves around race.

usnpilot Loc: Ft Myers Fl

One Rude Dawg wrote:

How come the whites didn't hit the street and burn the place down, I wonder? Just asking? Saw on the news that some blacks were trying to make it a racial thing when it doesn't have a thing to do with race it has to do with the law and the judicial system. Not everything that happens in this country revolves around race.

Tell that to the Democrats

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

FrumCA wrote:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rittenhouse-verdict-jurors-reach-decision-rcna5090

Let's hope the leftists don't revolt and start rioting over this verdict.

They did last night.
Democrats have a habit of violence and killing if they do not get their way starting with the Civil War through the KKK and now BLM.

usnpilot Loc: Ft Myers Fl

Architect1776 wrote:

They did last night.
Democrats have a habit of violence and killing if they do not get their way starting with the Civil War through the KKK and now BLM.

Rioters cleaned out the Louis Vuitton store on Union Square in San Francisco Friday night couldn’t happen to a better city

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

LinksUp wrote:

The rioting, I mean peaceful protests, may now commence.

It already has.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

IDguy wrote:

Yep. The Judge was biased to the rule of law. A foreign concept to the left.

Since the young man broke no laws, there was really no reason to try him. Was he stupid to have put himself in that position? Yes he was. And there must be people in the world who have never done anything stupid at age 17, but I am not among them.

Alafoto Loc: Montgomery, AL

Blurryeyed wrote:

Does not show bias, calling the decedent a victim ... (show quote)

"More fake news from NPR. Time to stop funding them."

YES!!!

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

WNYShooter wrote:

So you actually believe that use of the term "victim" would have made the Prosecutor's case successful???

So what are the deceased and injured to be called now... simply dead or maimed?

What a crock! The men and women of the jury are not legal scholars, so their understanding of the term victim would be what is in the dictionary, not a law book. Allowing the prosecution to use the term victim would separate those 3 people from the rest of looters and rioters. You can be the victim of name calling, which is not a crime. That pompous judge should get off his high horse.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

So what are the deceased and injured to be called now... simply dead or maimed?

What a crock! The men and women of the jury are not legal scholars, so their understanding of the term victim would be what is in the dictionary, not a law book. Allowing the prosecution to use the term victim would separate those 3 people from the rest of looters and rioters. You can be the victim of name calling, which is not a crime. That pompous judge should get off his high horse.

They are usually classified as either an assailant, a perpetrator or even an antagonist.

usnpilot Loc: Ft Myers Fl

JohnFrim wrote:

So what are the deceased and injured to be called now... simply dead or maimed?

What a crock! The men and women of the jury are not legal scholars, so their understanding of the term victim would be what is in the dictionary, not a law book. Allowing the prosecution to use the term victim would separate those 3 people from the rest of looters and rioters. You can be the victim of name calling, which is not a crime. That pompous judge should get off his high horse.

I’m really glad that you live in Canada not in the United States because you truly do not understand our laws. Here you are presumed innocent until proven guilty so there really aren’t any victims unless there is a proof of guilt. In this particular case the deceased were rioters but should the judge have allowed that?