Did you see the footage of that 'kid' (Kyle Rittenhouse) who got acquitted of murder after shooting three people (killing two)? He was on the streets to protect people apparently.
Did you see the footage of that 'kid' (Kyle Rittenhouse) who got acquitted of murder after shooting three people (killing two)? He was on the streets to protect people apparently.
Maybe that explains some (all?) of Priti by name, ugli by nature's decisions.
Yes I did see that Steve. If he had been local to the area there could at least have been potential mitigation that he was protecting his property. He had travelled hundreds of miles armed with an assault rifle. Apparently one of the people killed was trying to stop him because they thought he was a terrorist. To my mind they were correct in that belief.
Oh the irony of a politician discounting information because it came from anonymous, unsubstantiated sources. Most information from politicians is put out that way.
I couldn't believe it when he got away with it. And the people protesting outside saying he was only using his American right to defend himself. Yeah, ok with that then.
As for the politicians, it's become the norm for the leaks to be put out there to judge public reaction '....next week, Boris will announce...'. But they want all their anonymous, unsubstantiated crap to be given front page and get on The Six O'Clock news.
The judge had his mind made up before the trial started.
Just add the American legal system to the reason I'm glad I live in the UK. I know we are far from perfect but corruption in the US legal system seems to be pretty endemic, particularly in the southern states. It has only been in recent years that the prosecution and police have to hand over all evidence to the defence. Historically they were able to suppress any evidence which didn't suit their case. I watched a programme recently where a guy was finally cleared after 25 years when investigators got hold of information withheld by the prosecution which showed not only that the person charged with the offence was not responsible, but that the prosecution actually had evidence of who was responsible. That was 'one of their own', and protecting their reputation was far more important than justice.
Something similar did happen in the UK back in the 80s where a man was tried and convicted of murdering a woman on the M50 in 1988. I was working as a civilian employee of a police force when the verdict was overturned. One of the old police officers wasn't happy as, in his words "He's scum and deserved to go down". No concern that the actual killer was still out there.
As someone put it: "If you fly to Africa and walk into a lion's den dressed in a steak suit you can't claim self defence if you have to kill the lions when they attack you".
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
Posts
Yes I did see that Steve. If he had been local to the area there could at least have been potential mitigation that he was protecting his property. He had travelled hundreds of miles armed with an assault rifle. Apparently one of the people killed was trying to stop him because they thought he was a terrorist. To my mind they were correct in that belief.
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.