• Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    54
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Law Self-Defense: The trial’s core issue was whether Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. The jury found him not guilty on all counts, implying that, legally speaking, his actions were in line with self-defense statutes in Wisconsin.

    Whelp time to pack it up everybody, the jury didn’t convict so that proves he did nothing wrong bootlicker

    PIGPOOPBALLS

    • @librechad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Thanks for your input. I understand that not everyone agrees with the jury’s decision. My point was not to say that the verdict inherently proves moral rightness, but rather that legally, according to the standards of the trial and the statutes in Wisconsin, his actions were deemed self-defense. We can discuss the moral implications separately, but from a legal standpoint, the verdict was clear.

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        571 year ago

        That’s completely inane. It’s literally just circular logic. You’re arguing that the jury’s decision proves that he was legally innocent, and that that proves the jury made the right call. By that logic, had the jury found him guilty, under the exact same circumstances, that would prove that he violated the law and that they made the right call. It’s literally just licking the boot of the legal system, your argument rests on the assumption that innocent people are never wrongfully convicted and guilty people never found innocent, which is blatantly false.

        • @librechad@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I understand your perspective. My intention wasn’t to argue that the justice system is infallible. Indeed, history has shown that both wrongful convictions and acquittals can happen. What I meant to highlight was that, given the evidence presented during the trial and the way the law is structured in Wisconsin, the jury arrived at that particular verdict. It’s crucial to differentiate between presenting a legal outcome and endorsing the inherent perfection of the system.

              • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                37
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Not a man (and neither is the bot you’re feeding our replies into)

                Obviously we already know that the jury didn’t convict. That’s one of the main things we’re criticizing. Pointing out that they didn’t convict as an argument to support them not convicting is the definition of circular reasoning.

                Find a smarter bot.

          • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            251 year ago

            Is it your honest opinion that the jurors sat down with grpah paper, checked to make sure they understood the laws and then did thr math to arrive at the final conclusion?

          • Egon [they/them]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Weak ass, you don’t understand shit but the taste of boot leather. You think you’re above it by using a chatbot to form your thoughts for you, but all it does is make you more of a cog in the machine. You are incapable of independent thought.

            • TreadOnMe [none/use name]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              5
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Also, chatbots are horrible at ‘the law’. They still don’t know how to judge and rank legal citations properly and likely never will.