Rittenhouse Trial Outcome - Protests Emerge

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

In a completely irrelevant fact, Rittenhouse fanboys ruined one of my favorite video game songs. Far Cry 5's "Keep your Rifle by Your Side" was a parody of apocalyptic murder cultists and was overwhelmed by Rittenhouse fanboys when he was acquitted.

https://youtu.be/v0sdR-UdYzg

So now it's back to the MGS 2 theme, correct?

[goodperson25]

Rittenhouse is a killer

I believe the thing is question is weather or not said killing was JUSTIFIED...

And the attempt by the US Justice system to question whether or not it was justified is also under questioning in this thread. And that Rittenhouse is a killer and did kill his victims may be necessary to repeat in that context.

The jury determined that the men Rittenhouse killed were not proven to be his victims. He had made a case that he had prevented himself from being their victim.

That is an excellent example of something that should be heavily questioned and why that context was needed. Thank you for providing it.

[CharlesPhipps]

Also, "Yes, Rittenhouse joins OJ Simpson as murderers who the government chose not to punish."

Yes, Rittenhouse was attacked. Rittenhouse had a gun out. Yes, that is illegal. But all sensible gun owners, myself included, know if you draw a gun in public then PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO USE IT.

And he did.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Also, "Yes, Rittenhouse joins OJ Simpson as murderers who the government chose not to punish."

Yes, Rittenhouse was attacked. Rittenhouse had a gun out. Yes, that is illegal. But all sensible gun owners, myself included, know if you draw a gun in public then PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO USE IT.

And he did.

Just having a gun drawn out isn't really a legal reason to charge someone and take it from them. Unless you're talking about aiming at people that weren't already coming at him.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Rittenhouse is a killer

I believe the thing is question is weather or not said killing was JUSTIFIED...

And the attempt by the US Justice system to question whether or not it was justified is also under questioning in this thread. And that Rittenhouse is a killer and did kill his victims may be necessary to repeat in that context.

The jury determined that the men Rittenhouse killed were not proven to be his victims. He had made a case that he had prevented himself from being their victim.

De Facto is not De Jure, and De Jure is not De Facto.

My issue is the premeditation. He came with the intent to shoot protestors, and he achieved his goal.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Some people might also say that it's not delivery... but DiGiorno.

Also I'm assuming that it wasn't legally established that he had a motive/intention to kill people unprovoked?

[CharlesPhipps]

Also, "Yes, Rittenhouse joins OJ Simpson as murderers who the government chose not to punish."

Yes, Rittenhouse was attacked. Rittenhouse had a gun out. Yes, that is illegal. But all sensible gun owners, myself included, know if you draw a gun in public then PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO USE IT.

And he did.

Just having a gun drawn out isn't really a legal reason to charge someone and take it from them. Unless you're talking about aiming at people that weren't already coming at him.

The assumption he's going to fire should be on the man with his drawn gun. If I was a juror and someone had gunned down Rittenhouse then, I would have said it was self-defense.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Also, "Yes, Rittenhouse joins OJ Simpson as murderers who the government chose not to punish."

Yes, Rittenhouse was attacked. Rittenhouse had a gun out. Yes, that is illegal. But all sensible gun owners, myself included, know if you draw a gun in public then PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO USE IT.

And he did.

Just having a gun drawn out isn't really a legal reason to charge someone and take it from them. Unless you're talking about aiming at people that weren't already coming at him.

The assumption he's going to fire should be on the man with his drawn gun. If I was a juror and someone had gunned down Rittenhouse then, I would have said it was self-defense.

It's pretty well understood that there were people there to protect property. All you're saying here is that "his gun was drawn." Out of context that doesn't really describe a solid foundation for ultimatums like "if you have a gun drawn then you better be willing to use it," or "-you better be ready for a good samaritan to shoot you in the face in pretty non-specified self defense."

[CharlesPhipps]

It's pretty well understood that there were people there to protect property. All you're saying here is that "his gun was drawn." Out of context that doesn't really describe a solid foundation for ultimatums like "if you have a gun drawn then you better be willing to use it," or "-you better be ready for a good samaritan to shoot you in the face in pretty non-specified self defense."

If a person appoints himself to guard "Property" without police training or authorization, he should be immediately arrested. If he's waving a gun around, he should have been disarmed by the police by force or treated as an active shooter threat.

I mean, to quote Ron Burgondy, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. You don't let people assume the authority of police on the idea they are "protecting property." It also applies in reverse.

Any and all people should have considered taking Rittenhouse down protecting LIFE against a potential terrorist.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Some people might also say that it's not delivery... but DiGiorno.

Also I'm assuming that it wasn't legally established that he had a motive/intention to kill people unprovoked?

I doubt that Judge Rittenhouse Fanboy would have allowed any evidence of that kind.