Not Guilty on all counts...

Albion said:

a member of the New York Yankees?

Click to expand...

I was thinking of a chain gang as the new job, supervised with a man armed with a an AK-15

RaymondG said:

I believe it was stated, under law, that he was too young to possess a gun at the time.

But he was smart enough to not cross state lines with a gun......He pick it up from a friends house in the state.

He went to a friends house, picked up a gun and brought it to to place where people were drinking burning and rioting.....and shot three of them. Not guilty.

Click to expand...

have you watched the videos of the three separate shootings, if not I suggest that you do, as it appears you were for a guilty finding by the jury

Commandment #6" You shall not kill

The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life.
NET translator's note.

RaymondG said:

I believe it was stated, under law, that he was too young to possess a gun at the time.

But he was smart enough to not cross state lines with a gun......He pick it up from a friends house in the state.

He went to a friends house, picked up a gun and brought it to to place where people were drinking burning and rioting.....and shot three of them. Not guilty.

Click to expand...

A pistol or short-barrelled rifle, not a rifle like an AK-47 or AR-15

RaymondG said:

I believe it was stated, under law, that he was too young to possess a gun at the time.

Click to expand...

This is untrue. The Media probably stated this. The Wisconsin hunting laws allowed him to have the gun he had. This is why this charge was thrown out.

But he was smart enough to not cross state lines with a gun......He pick it up from a friends house in the state.

He went to a friends house, picked up a gun and brought it to to place where people were drinking burning and rioting.....and shot three of them. Not guilty.

Click to expand...

You left out that he was being attacked and had a gun pointed at him.

pescador said:

Commandment #6" You shall not kill

The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life.
NET translator's note.

Click to expand...

The Hebrew word used there always refers to premeditated murder. Rittenhouse did not commit premeditated murder. If that was his intent he would have arrived, taken out his rifle, and started firing indiscriminately at the rioters. He did not do that until they started coming at him and even then he only fired at those attacking him. Ratsakh does not refer to self-defense. The Hebrew word for killing is harag. Ratsakh is as much the word for murder as our own english word is.

pescador said:

Commandment #6" You shall not kill

The verb רָצַח (ratsakh) refers to the premeditated or accidental taking of the life of another human being; it includes any unauthorized killing (it is used for the punishment of a murderer, but that would not be included in the prohibition). This commandment teaches the sanctity of all human life.
NET translator's note.

Click to expand...

"Lo tirtzach" means "Do not murder"

The word for killing is "hariga" a completely different verb.

A world of significance in this choice of words.

example of the latter,
Exodus 22:2.

Per Talmud,
If someone comes to kill you,
you must rise up and kill them first."


Why do countries have a defence system?

Original Happy Camper said:

have you watched the videos of the three separate shootings, if not I suggest that you do, as it appears you were for a guilty finding by the jury

Click to expand...

Have you watched the first shooting? If not, I suggest you do so. I did not believe they should have voted guilty after the case the prosecution brought.

I do, however believe that the He knew that he was going into a hostile environment...so he took a gun with him. Hard to say you are scared for your life when you went there with deadly force so you wouldnt have to be scared. Why would you be scared of you can just kill anyone who comes at you. You can demand that others stop rioting and if they choose to attack you for trying to give them orders....you can just kill them. no need to be scared. You did what you had legal right to do.....it would seem.

Im sure he felt that waving the gun around would stop others from attacking him, which is why he brought it there.....He also felt it would make others take his orders as well...... And because these turned out to not be the case, he had to kill a few people.......But I do not believe he went there to kill people....it was just a result of his plans going sour......people not being as afraid of ar-15s as he thought they should have been. He will have a better plan next time.

Yttrium said:

Yeah, I don't think the prosecution managed to prove their case.

Now it's time for the wrongful death lawsuits to kick in.

Click to expand...

He should be cleared on those, as well.

spiritfilledjm said:

A pistol or short-barrelled rifle, not a rifle like an AK-47 or AR-15

Click to expand...

Oh ok....that changes things...Thanks

pescador said:

Regardless of the jury's verdict he did kill people and will have to answer to God for taking human lives. God commanded us not to kill. Period.

Click to expand...

God commanded not to murder. Jesus himself instructed his disciples to sell their belongings and buy swords....for self defense.

Clizby WampusCat said:

This is untrue. The Media probably stated this. The Wisconsin hunting laws allowed him to have the gun he had. This is why this charge was thrown out.

Click to expand...

Does this hunting law include hunting humans? Do you believe he took the gun to the riot to hunt deer?

Clizby WampusCat said:

You left out that he was being attacked and had a gun pointed at him.

Click to expand...

The case is closed on the legality of the killings. We are just talking in general now. Soldiers and police go into hostile situations knowing that they can be met with deadly force and are prepared with equal deadly force.

Unless you are saying that he intended to shoot and kill people he knew only carried fists and knives, he was aware that the job he went their to do, could be met with deadly force, and he was going to be prepared to use the same deadly force.

He was prepared for it....so we cant act like it was a surprise....unless we believe he thought he was going to be the only one there with a gun, and was going to use it to make everyone else, without guns, do what he went there to make them do.

All Im saying is that I believe one should face some repercussions for trying to do police work without police training.....especially when it results in the deaths of others.

Oompa Loompa said:

God commanded not to murder. Jesus himself instructed his disciples to sell their belongings and buy swords....for self defense.

Click to expand...

He also instructed us to turn the other cheek and not to render evil for evil. But it is much easier to buy the sword than to turn the other cheek.....so we follow one and forget the other.

Clizby WampusCat said:

It is their right to have a gun while protesting.

Click to expand...

Yes , now every thug can carry a gun, while rioting. And kill more Rittenhouse. Lesson learned. This is the world you want. So good. It's the best population control.

GoldenBoy89 said:

The prosecutor should find a new job.

Click to expand...

He was the only one that they could get. From what I heard, this case was turned down by any other prosecutor that was asked.

This is a turning point, a game changer and hopefully the pendulum has swung as far as it can and is swinging back.

This young man is going to be rich when he sues all the media that slandered him.

spiritfilledjm said:

The Hebrew word used there always refers to premeditated murder. Rittenhouse did not commit premeditated murder. If that was his intent he would have arrived, taken out his rifle, and started firing indiscriminately at the rioters. He did not do that until they started coming at him and even then he only fired at those attacking him. Ratsakh does not refer to self-defense. The Hebrew word for killing is harag. Ratsakh is as much the word for murder as our own english word is.

Click to expand...

Where in the world can a child go, and try to order men around with a gun in their hand, and not get attacked? He underestimated the amount of fear he would be able to put in the mob..... unfortunately, this underestimation cost others their lives. But at least he doesnt have to pay for it.

JacksBratt said:

He was the only one that they could get. From what I heard, this case was turned down by any other prosecutor that was asked.

This is a turning point, a game changer and hopefully the pendulum has swung as far as it can and is swinging back.

This young man is going to be rich when he sues all the media that slandered him.

Click to expand...

I dont think he has to sue.....he can get rich off of appearances alone. Or continue the fundme page that raised the money for the bail. He is set.....I think going back into the courts to "rub it in" would hurt his earnings.

RaymondG said:

Does this hunting law include hunting humans? Do you believe he took the gun to the riot to hunt deer?

Click to expand...

No, he took it there to defend himself. The fact is the laws allows him to have it. You should have a problem with the law not someone following the law.

The case is closed on the legality of the killings. We are just talking in general now. Soldiers and police go into hostile situations knowing that they can be met with deadly force and are prepared with equal deadly force.

Unless you are saying that he intended to shoot and kill people he knew only carried fists and knives, he was aware that the job he went their to do, could be met with deadly force, and he was going to be prepared to use the same deadly force.

He was prepared for it....so we cant act like it was a surprise....unless we believe he thought he was going to be the only one there with a gun, and was going to use it to make everyone else, without guns, do what he went there to make them do.

All Im saying is that I believe one should face some repercussions for trying to do police work without police training.....especially when it results in the deaths of others.

Click to expand...

Then advocate to change the current laws.

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

Yes , now every thug can carry a gun, while rioting. And kill more Rittenhouse. Lesson learned. This is the world you want. So good. It's the best population control.

Click to expand...

Now every thug "can" carry a gun? LOL.... every thug could carry a gun before.. and always have.. They don't care, don't follow laws and won't be deterred by any.

It is the constitutional right for every US citizen have and bear arms.

Why should it only be for those that don't follow the laws?

It is also a fundamental God given right to protect yourself, your property and your family with whatever force is necessary.

God made every human of equal value and an equal right to live.... If it takes a gun to bring things back to an equal fight... so be it.

In the end... if you don't pull and point your gun at someone.. you stand an infinitely better chance of not being shot at than if you pull and aim your gun at someone.

Out of curiousity everyone, since the victim ALSO had a gun pointed at him, if THAT victim had shot and killed rittenhouse, then he would ALSO be innocent right? I mean, they are BOTH acting in self defense as far as I can tell.