Rittenhouse Trial Outcome - Protests Emerge

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Rittenhouse killed two people who were nonviolent except in their defense against his heinous evil ass. His defense is he, the armed man, was "defending himself" against people who he killed that were unarmed.

What would have happened if Rittenhouse hadn't gone there with a gun or threatened anyone? No one would have died.

You still haven't addressed that we don't know the details of the initial engagement with everybody. The fact that they were chasing them isn't plain evidence that Rittenhouse threatened them. I'm not sure how you keep just talking over that.

[TGLS]

It is the second part I feel is a ludicrous statement. A person points a gun at you, you have a gun. Do not fire till that person shoots you is the defense you want there? That is a little off.

So if some guy's firing a gun all over and you have a gun, it's totally cool to blow him away?

[Nealithi]

It is the second part I feel is a ludicrous statement. A person points a gun at you, you have a gun. Do not fire till that person shoots you is the defense you want there? That is a little off.

So if some guy's firing a gun all over and you have a gun, it's totally cool to blow him away?

Is that not what the police are trained to do?

And that is not the question. The point is it is fine for a mob to chase a man down and attack him because he has a gun. But it is wrong for someone to shoot at someone actually pointing a gun at you. That is threatening with lethal force. Force that needs a finger twitch to achieve. And the argument was the man with a pistol had not fired 'yet'. That screams hypocrisy.

I am not saying this Rittenhouse character was right. But use the same rules for both sides please or the argument is pointless.

[Mickey_Rat15]

Rittenhouse killed two people who were nonviolent except in their defense against his heinous evil ass. His defense is he, the armed man, was "defending himself" against people who he killed that were unarmed.

The one person who did have a gun DIDN'T fire.

What would have happened if Rittenhouse hadn't gone there with a gun or threatened anyone? No one would have died.

's

What evil did Rittenhouse do, prior to Rosenbaum jumping him, and Huber beating him with a blunt instrutment? Put out a dumpster fire? Clean off graffiti? If you are violent towards someone who is openly carrying a gun (which, apparetly is legal in Wisconsin), then you can expect to be shot.

The one person who had a gun (Grosskreutz) testitfied that Rittenhouse did not raise his weapon at him until he pulled his (illegally possessed) handgun on Rittenhouse.

If Rosenbaum, Huber and Grosskreutz had not attended a riot, and Rosenbaum had not jumped Rittenhouse for apparaently helping douse the dumpster fire Rosenbaum started, then likely no one would have died. If the protesters, in general were not engaged in looting, arson and other violence aginst innocent people, no one would have died.

You are making assumptioms about Rittenhouse's nature and motivations that there was no evidence for.

[Frustration]

So a guy like Rittenhouse can run around killing people to protect property but people can't defend their fucking lives?

Rittenhouse WAS defending his life, from some idiots who charged him and tried to take away the fully loaded deadly weapon he was carrying.

The law, and common sense, are both on his side.

You really, REALLY need to cut back on those pills.

[TGLS]

So a guy like Rittenhouse can run around killing people to protect property but people can't defend their fucking lives?

Rittenhouse WAS defending his life, from some idiots who charged him and tried to take away the fully loaded deadly weapon he was carrying.

So the reason he need to employ lethal force was because he brought lethal force to begin with.

Welp, everything wrong with America in one terse sentence.

[Frustration]

There's no such thing as nonlethal force.

Maybe, just maybe, the people who got shot should have left him and the car dealership he was guarding alone? Especially since they were "nonviolent protestors against police brutality".

[CharlesPhipps]

A note that a Michigan school just had three dead in it today after another shooting.

Edit:

Even if I didn't believe Rittenhouse was a murderer and a spree killer, which I do, I point out the idea of valorizing some random guy living out his Division fantasies to go kill people he perceives as criminals is an utterly evil and vile idea.

He came there with intent and even if I believed that it was "protect property" which I absolutely do not, that is utterly a vile idea, and he killed people and stole their lives that are infinitely more precious.

And I believe the people who attacked him ABSOLUTELY believed their life was in danger and had a right to self-defense.

Because if you pull a gun on me and I try to disarm you, that is ABSOLUTELY on you. A drawn gun is an explicit threat as all cops know.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

What we have on camera is Rittenhouse walking about 100 yards away from the dealership. Then we have people chasing him. There is observably very little room, from visual and from testimony, to infer that Rittenhouse is the sole purveyor of engagement here.

When someone dies at the hand of another, there's a huge public obligation to scrutinize the details of the case to determine ANY culpability. I don't think any other crime is treated with such overt scrutiny. In the case of a fight, you start to add matter where there was none before and it develops its own gravity of legal connotation.

If Rittenhouse did provoke the physical confrontation, then we'd have SOMETHING, but you're basically watching several people one by one do the equivalent of walk into a lion's den by their own awareness. All the meanwhile, again, we don't see any real indication that Rittenhouse was putting people in imminent danger.