If you thought the gun laws in the US are mental

It was always likely he'd get off I'm afraid given their bizarre interpretation of self defence. The Stand Your Ground law basically gives you the right to kill anyone who you claim you thought was going to attack you or even rob you.
Parts of that country are as medieval in their thinking as the taliban.

 

Not guilty was probably the correct verdict - but that's the whole point of the thread shirly? To point out what a backwards country it is with the weirdest justice system in the world.

 

I think that is exactly the point.

I can’t comment suggesting he was guilty in the context of what the laws are there.

But I can sure as hell give my view that he should be guilty.

Compare it say, to a kid that goes out with a huge knife to ‘protect himself’ in this country.

He gets cornered by two or three who start hitting him. He pulls the knife, stabs and kills one. He’d be found guilty - of at least something if not murder - yet in America a kid can go out looking for trouble and get away with killing multiple people, because the people there who had a different view to him took exception to him going round with a massive deadly weapon and tried to disarm him.

It’s the laws and the system which are backward and wrong, the not guilty verdict it was made to deliver was legally right but in no other way right.

 

I suppose its hard for us not to judge it agaisnt our own standards and sensibilities.
Many Americans for example would find it astonishing that here ij the UK if someone breaks into your home you can only use reasonable force against them.

 

I dare say if America hax a vote on the issues of gun use and self defence they would probably vote to keep things as they are. It's very Alien to us but it's ingrained into society in America.
It feels wrong to me I agree, given it is the law in America though you have to question the judgement of people going after a armed person in the street. Likely a result of mob mentality.

 

That is exactly my point.

I’m not arguing that their courts made the correct decision based on their law, I’m suggesting their laws are clearly mental.

 

I’m thinking of bringing a tank to Oakwell next Saturday and if anybody touches it I’m going to blow anyone in the vicinity of it to Timbuktu.

Self defence and that.

 

Tank turnstiles. Need to get @adam hinchcliff on the case!

 

Make sure you are facing away from the west stand walls.

 

Remember the bloke in Hackney shot dead by police for carrying a table leg in a bin bag.?

 

Got to say despite my anti gun views Rittenhouse was innocent . The bigger crime here is how the media has behaved on the run up to the trial , dressing the whole incident as something it wasn't .
Anyhow I'll leave a quick video below explaining what happened below to make your own mind up . Only 10 mins long and made about 6/7 months ago so the information was there all along not that you d know it with the behaviour of some news outlets .

 

So not my fault for bringing my tank next weekend.

 

That's a pretty poor analogy:

1. Tanks aren't legal
2. Someone touching your tank wouldn't be sufficiently threatening to justify use of force

 

I actually think it’s a great analogy.

Assault weapons (War guns really) aren’t legal in the majority of law abiding countries in the world. It was unlawful in the state where he shot and killed people.

Point 2. If I didn’t have my tank I couldn’t use it to kill people. I’ve been to many games at Oakwell and as yet I have never been threatened. My tank though might make people act more violently to me though as people see it as a threat to them. A threat that wouldn’t be there in my usual attire.

 

Was it unlawful though? Because from what I read it was lawful which is why the charge of having an unlawful weapon was dismissed by the judge or something along those lines.

 

He was underage to own or carry that weapon in the state he was in.

 

I think you are wrong on that I have been following it from start to Finnish most of the evidence was never allowed to be stated the judge a Trump appointee was a racist and referred to the 1 and only African American on the jury as That Black, at one stage the Judge started singing to the murderer and his attorney and they actually started to dance, this country America is a country where you can walk down the street with an automatic rifle shoot at will killing people at random and get away with it my god and some people think he was in order,

 

But I thought that the reason that the charge was dropped was because he wasn't due to the length of the rifle. Over 16 inches or something makes it a different class of weapon which he was allowed to carry at his age.

 

He got off it because he was found not guilty by a jury who looked at the facts, not the media rhetoric. Sky hasn't done that.