Kenosha

[Cascadia]

*

[twocoach]

So, the legal system is null and void if it disagrees with your personal notions of right and wrong? That’s a special kind of arrogance. Congrats!

It doesn't take arrogance to find your statement ignorant because it is flat out not true. You can break the law and a prosecutor can fail to successfully prosecute the case against you. It happens all the time.

And yet, legally, that person is not guilty and cannot face the same charges again.

Your simply trying to connect two dots that aren't related. There is the act of committing a crime, there is the act of investigating and arresting for the act, there is the act of charging for the act and there is the act of prosecuting for the act. They are all separate steps in the process. Failing to successfully prosecute does not mean that you didn't break the law. It can mean either you didn't break the law and that was proven, the prosecution didn't charge you with the right crime given the actions and the evidence (the Rittenhouse case), the prosecution didn't successfully prove beyond a reasonable amount that you committed the crime (even though you did) or that there were mistakes made in the process that broke the rules of the process, allowing you to go free whether or not you committed the crime.

If I shoot my neighbor and I get arrested but they fail prove that I shot my neighbor and I walk free on a Not Guilty verdict, it doesn't mean that I didn't break the law. It just means that I got away with breaking the law.

[JKLivin]

It doesn't take arrogance to find your statement ignorant because it is flat out not true. You can break the law and a prosecutor can fail to successfully prosecute the case against you. It happens all the time.

And yet, legally, that person is not guilty and cannot face the same charges again.

Your simply trying to connect two dots that aren't related. There is the act of committing a crime, there is the act of investigating and arresting for the act, there is the act of charging for the act and there is the act of prosecuting for the act. They are all separate steps in the process. Failing to successfully prosecute does not mean that you didn't break the law. It can mean either you didn't break the law and that was proven, the prosecution didn't charge you with the right crime given the actions and the evidence (the Rittenhouse case), the prosecution didn't successfully prove beyond a reasonable amount that you committed the crime (even though you did) or that there were mistakes made in the process that broke the rules of the process, allowing you to go free whether or not you committed the crime.

If I shoot my neighbor and I get arrested but they fail prove that I shot my neighbor and I walk free on a Not Guilty verdict, it doesn't mean that I didn't break the law. It just means that I got away with breaking the law.

So, does that then give your neighbor's family the right to seek revenge, since the legal system failed to deliver a verdict that they find satisfactory? Seems like a pretty tenuous line between civilization and anarchy if the answer is yes.

[JKLivin]

I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

I believe the correct answer is:

Kyle is white

#WokeGotcha

[twocoach]

And yet, legally, that person is not guilty and cannot face the same charges again.

Your simply trying to connect two dots that aren't related. There is the act of committing a crime, there is the act of investigating and arresting for the act, there is the act of charging for the act and there is the act of prosecuting for the act. They are all separate steps in the process. Failing to successfully prosecute does not mean that you didn't break the law. It can mean either you didn't break the law and that was proven, the prosecution didn't charge you with the right crime given the actions and the evidence (the Rittenhouse case), the prosecution didn't successfully prove beyond a reasonable amount that you committed the crime (even though you did) or that there were mistakes made in the process that broke the rules of the process, allowing you to go free whether or not you committed the crime.

If I shoot my neighbor and I get arrested but they fail prove that I shot my neighbor and I walk free on a Not Guilty verdict, it doesn't mean that I didn't break the law. It just means that I got away with breaking the law.

So, does that then give your neighbor's family the right to seek revenge, since the legal system failed to deliver a verdict that they find satisfactory? Seems like a pretty tenuous line between civilization and anarchy if the answer is yes.

Why are you even asking that dumb question? Of course not. Are you trying to make a point back to the Rittenhouse case? Did the family of one of his victims go after him?

[JKLivin]

Your simply trying to connect two dots that aren't related. There is the act of committing a crime, there is the act of investigating and arresting for the act, there is the act of charging for the act and there is the act of prosecuting for the act. They are all separate steps in the process. Failing to successfully prosecute does not mean that you didn't break the law. It can mean either you didn't break the law and that was proven, the prosecution didn't charge you with the right crime given the actions and the evidence (the Rittenhouse case), the prosecution didn't successfully prove beyond a reasonable amount that you committed the crime (even though you did) or that there were mistakes made in the process that broke the rules of the process, allowing you to go free whether or not you committed the crime.

If I shoot my neighbor and I get arrested but they fail prove that I shot my neighbor and I walk free on a Not Guilty verdict, it doesn't mean that I didn't break the law. It just means that I got away with breaking the law.

So, does that then give your neighbor's family the right to seek revenge, since the legal system failed to deliver a verdict that they find satisfactory? Seems like a pretty tenuous line between civilization and anarchy if the answer is yes.

Why are you even asking that dumb question? Of course not. Are you trying to make a point back to the Rittenhouse case? Did the family of one of his victims go after him?

Not yet. But the WokeMob around here seems to be very hopeful that it will happen.

[jhawks99]

I expect Kyle will end up in civil court at some point.

No one here except psych is hopeful for more violence.

[twocoach]

So, does that then give your neighbor's family the right to seek revenge, since the legal system failed to deliver a verdict that they find satisfactory? Seems like a pretty tenuous line between civilization and anarchy if the answer is yes.

Why are you even asking that dumb question? Of course not. Are you trying to make a point back to the Rittenhouse case? Did the family of one of his victims go after him?

Not yet. But the WokeMob around here seems to be very hopeful that it will happen.

So once again you are fearmongering over something that isn't actually happening. Got it.

Do we agree that "not guilty" does not equal "did not commit the crime"?

[twocoach]

I expect Kyle will end up in civil court at some point.

No one here except psych is hopeful for more violence.

Agreed on both points.

[JKLivin]

Why are you even asking that dumb question? Of course not. Are you trying to make a point back to the Rittenhouse case? Did the family of one of his victims go after him?

Not yet. But the WokeMob around here seems to be very hopeful that it will happen.

Do we agree that "not guilty" does not equal "did not commit the crime"?

In cases like that of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake, yes, I agree. I disagree that Rittenhouse broke the law, regardless of what the WokeMob says.

[ProudBoy]

Some straight gold medal-worthy mental gymnastics going here today.

[Cascadia]

Some straight gold medal-worthy mental gymnastics going here today.

JK's a special kind of dumb.

[twocoach]

Not yet. But the WokeMob around here seems to be very hopeful that it will happen.

Do we agree that "not guilty" does not equal "did not commit the crime"?

In cases like that of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake, yes, I agree. I disagree that Rittenhouse broke the law, regardless of what the WokeMob says.

That's a different conversation entirely.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

[JKLivin]

I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

Please forgive me. Do you feel "not guilty = did not break the law" is or is not true?

[twocoach]

I wonder what is the difference between Kyle and OJ?

Um, aside from the fact that O.J. was an adult, was a serial spousal abuser, and brutally murdered two people in cold blood who were no threat to him whatsoever? Nothing, I guess.

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

He's tap dancing around what he now likely recognizes was a dumb comment.

[JKLivin]

TIME OUT!!!!
What am I missing here? Did you not post "Not guilty = Did not break the law" ?
Is brutally murdering two people not breaking the law?

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

Please forgive me. Do you feel "not guilty = did not break the law" is or is not true?

Technically, yes. In practice, no.

However, I go back to my original assertion, which was that Rittenhouse did not break the law.

[Cascadia]

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

Please forgive me. Do you feel "not guilty = did not break the law" is or is not true?

Technically, yes. In practice, no.

However, I go back to my original assertion, which is that I have a mancrush on Rittenhouse

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Sure, but last I checked, he’s walking around free, casing golf courses all over Southern California for the “real killers”.

Please forgive me. Do you feel "not guilty = did not break the law" is or is not true?

Technically, yes. In practice, no.

However, I go back to my original assertion, which was that Rittenhouse did not break the law.

He did break at least one law and the Judge didn't give a shit and dismissed it.