Anyone been watching this one? From what I've seen the case has not been going well for the prosecution at all. This is good because the entire incident was caught on video and it appeared to be clear self defense to me
Rittenhouse Trial
Posts
Total:
189
-->
@thett3
The evidence presented to a jury is very different than the evidence state media presents to the public.
Anyone who thinks it wasn't self defence is insane.
-->
@Bones
I think a lot of people simply haven't even watched the videos that were available online within 24 hours of the incident, and the media has intentionally done a poor job portraying the case. But yeah the state should know better, it's appalling that it ever came to a trial
-->
@thett3
I was surprised to see even mainstream conservatives bringing up the case and rooting for him. I think he has a very good shot (no pun intended)
Defense is going to win hopefully, thank God
Didn't an actual lynch mob chase after him leading up to him discharging his weapon?
-->
@thett3
Why shouldn't someone that shoots someone, be tried.
Isn't that a basic requirement of the Law.
AH...Silly question....We're talking U.S. here.
-->
@zedvictor4
Have you watched the videos of the incident that have been publicly available for over a year? If so, what do you see happening?
The only way to stop a bad guy with fists is a good guy with fists. This is basic logic.
Because in some instances it's legal to shoot someone. The fact that the British don't care if they're victims of a crime is not our problem.
-->
@Reece101
Can you please be more specific? Are you saying you believe he should be convicted? If so, why?
-->
@thett3
The prosecutor complained to the jury that someone used their 5th amendment right. The judge was about to toss the case out.
-->
@zedvictor4
Why shouldn't someone that shoots someone, be tried.Isn't that a basic requirement of the Law.AH...Silly question....We're talking U.S. here.
The prosecutor doesn't always have to bring charges. I think in obvious self-defense cases, they can just not charge you for it. They generally do, though.
There was a lot of "reee-ing" that George Zimmerman wasn't charged initially. He wasn't charged because he had grass stains on his back and lacerations on his head from being attacked, so it was obviously self-defense. No need to waste court time on it.
-->
@Greyparrot
I saw that. If I were the judge I would have dismissed the case with prejudice and told the prosecutors to never show their face in my courtroom again. But that’s why I don’t have the temperament to be in law lol
free my man
-->
@thett3
So what are they trying to prosecute him on? Just the shooting incident?
This case shouldn’t even be here in the first place. It was a clear act of self-defense.
The Prosecutor should be ashamed of himself for his actions in court today
Sounds like everyone's agreeing it was legally self defense. But what about moral culpability? He shouldn't have been there that night and was looking for trouble... So he bears some moral responsibility. Its like if someone goes on a safari and messes wit the lions then has to shoot one. Yes it's self defense but ya shouldn't have been messin wit da lions to begin wit
There were no victims in that BLM riot.
-->
@Greyparrot
Apart from the property owners of course.
-->
@Reece101
In a systemically racist country where everyone and no one is an oppressor, there can be no individual victims.
-->
@Greyparrot
Can you please explain further?
-->
@thett3
What happened is irrelevant, in regard to the point I was making.
You implied that someone shouldn't be tried, for killing another person.
Which from a British perspective, seems a rather shoddy application of law.
Surely the facts need to be ascertained in a Court of Law.
Perhaps you're only interested in selective and biased justice.
-->
@zedvictor4
You implied that someone shouldn't be tried, for killing another person.Which from a British perspective, seems a rather shoddy application of law.Surely the facts need to be ascertained in a Court of Law.Perhaps you're only interested in selective and biased justice.
Self defense is legal in British law. I don’t think you’re familiar with the case, because there is no ambiguity whatsoever. There were videos from multiple angles showing the entire incident, and in each one it is clear that he was fleeing from his pursuers and only fired after they attacked him. Why should there be a trial when the defendants innocence is beyond a reasonable doubt simply from the videos?
-->
@n8nrgmi
But what about moral culpability? He shouldn't have been there that night and was looking for trouble... So he bears some moral responsibility. Its like if someone goes on a safari and messes wit the lions then has to shoot one. Yes it's self defense but ya shouldn't have been messin wit da lions to begin wit
Don’t agree at all. There shouldn’t have been a riot for him to go to to begin with. You should probably familiarize yourself with the case before posting, it’s been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason his initial attacker (Rosenbaum) went after him is because he was putting out a fire. Putting out fires and rendering medical aid is “looking for trouble?” Does someone “looking for trouble” flee upon the first sign of confrontation and only fire after being cornered?
Your position is the abrogation of citizenship itself. Every role must be bureaucratized and there is no right for the citizenry to put out fires or render medical aid to people attacked by rioters because the police and fire departments have abandoned their posts. This is “looking for trouble”
-->
@thett3
Well said. Typical progressive ignorance of all factors involved, aka cherrypicking.
-->
@thett3
But what about moral culpability? He shouldn't have been there that night and was looking for trouble... So he bears some moral responsibility. Its like if someone goes on a safari and messes wit the lions then has to shoot one. Yes it's self defense but ya shouldn't have been messin wit da lions to begin witDon’t agree at all. There shouldn’t have been a riot for him to go to to begin with. You should probably familiarize yourself with the case before posting, it’s been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason his initial attacker (Rosenbaum) went after him is because he was putting out a fire. Putting out fires and rendering medical aid is “looking for trouble?” Does someone “looking for trouble” flee upon the first sign of confrontation and only fire after being cornered?Your position is the abrogation of citizenship itself. Every role must be bureaucratized and there is no right for the citizenry to put out fires or render medical aid to people attacked by rioters because the police and fire departments have abandoned their posts. This is “looking for trouble”
I thought you said Rittenhouse's actions were "not to be emulated" and "when trouble comes, don't be there"? What changed for you since last year?
-->
@Castin
I learned more about the case. Namely, that he actually did put out several fires, clean up graffiti, and administered medical aid to at least two people. When I wrote that I had seen those defenses of him but personally didn't believe it. Having watched the trial, the evidence is clear that he really was doing those things before he was attacked. I also did not know that his first attacker, Rosenbaum, had twice threatened to kill him for doing those things. I also did not know that his father lived in Kenosha, and bought into the narrative that he came from out of town, as opposed to essentially being a local
People should still avoid these events, but that's not because he did anything morally wrong, but because these riots were state sanctioned and they will throw the book at anyone on the wrong side that they can.
-->
@thett3
I thought that was probably it. It was a revelation to me as well, definitely changed things for me. I still think he should have left the illegally possessed AR-15 behind and just brought the fire extinguisher and the medkit. To that extent I agree with 2020 thett. Sorry, 2021 thett.