Everyone is acting like people are now going to go out and shot protestors for no reason 
. In all this none sense what justice do those minority business that have been burn down have? What do process are they going to get? Most of these riots and looting happens in the poorest areas including the one rittenhouse was at. These people are so driven by ideology and the racial justice while burning minority communities for the actions of criminals. All they wanted was a guilty verdict not justice or due process
1 Like
The reason people are acting like “People are now going to go out and shoot protestors for no reason” is because that’s exactly what Rittenhouse did.
You then go on to blame poor people and suggest they don’t deserve justice because they’re all burning down businesses. It’s like you’ve regurgitated what Fox News have told you to think.
1 Like
Except that isn’t what happened.
At the time I didn’t think Ahmaud Arbery case would lead to a guilty verdict but glad it came to be.
Some can’t read 
Whoever does this has a simple ideology: Whoever is stronger is right. Why do they need justice and fairness? The law of the jungle works 
This case I did follow. The prosecution did a great job imo. The defense also relied on this very troubling citizens’ arrest law (which was repealed recently). Using something like that as a defense means they’d have to show the defendants satisfied each little part of making a citizens’ arrest and it was pretty clear that they didn’t.
There was also some pretty shameful behavior from one of the defense attorneys but having been involved with cases where there’s bad or rude behavior from attorneys, jurors don’t care about that at all imo.
2 Likes
That citizen’s arrest angle was all they had, and they must have known it was a shaky argument too.
It was totally bullshit but sometimes cases go to try with defenses that are totally bullshit.
Did they play self defence argument?
I thought that could be something they would rely heavily on since Arbery tried to get hold of the gun.
Their theory was that the encounter started because the victim was committing a felony which gave the defendants license under Georgia’s citizen arrest law to pursue and arrest the victim. It was only after the defendants started that encounter/pursuit that the self defense argument comes into play. The defendant who fired the shot was saying (a) I had the right to chase this dude and start the confrontation and (b) once I got into a confrontation with this guy where I had a gun, I had the right to shoot him because I was afraid he’d take my gun.
If the shooter (not the other two, because they were charged with felony murder) fails to convince with his first argument (about the citizens’ arrest law) it doesn’t matter whether he’s arguing self defense. At that point he’s just some guy chasing a total stranger with a gun.
2 Likes
Excellent. Someone(most likely @Jules ) did argue that with me last year. I am glad that person was correct.
You could see a situation where that citizens’ arrest argument made some headway. I just don’t think they had anything to work with.
1 Like
I looked up the case and It was a poor argument as they did not see him committing any crime.
When you can’t argue the law, argue the facts.
If you can’t argue the facts, just pound on the table and yell.
Poor judgement. To hunt a man down and kill him for no reason whatsoever. Poor judgement…
He said poor argument
Ah, that’s what I get for reading stuff quickly. My apologies.
I don’t understand was someone pounding a table?
No, just an expression. If you can’t argue the law or the facts, your best bet is to muddy the waters, make a lot of noise and that’s basically what their lawyer did. That defense was a loser from the jump.