True to the letter of the law ignoring the nuance. Its funny how maga is letter of the law when they like a decision, but ignore the outcome or disagree when dislike it. AKA EJC case. AKA falsifying business records. The fact of the matter is, Rittenhouse created the conditions for the event.
And yes, my acquittal would be true to the letter of the law,, because self-defense is a narrow enquiry. The legality of use of force in self-defense concerns itself primarily with the immediately adjacent circumstances. All the peripheral theater about crossing state lines etc etc, was irrelevant.
Thats why you are maga. You are willing to do mental gymnastics for a law that clearly wasnt intended for what this child got away with. Prove me wrong. Do you think the EJC case was justified in the indictment of DJT?
Why are you so insistent on dragging me into arguments about Donald Trump? He has nothing to do with this. I am not playing this game of whataboutism with you. I have no interest in the guy or his legal issues.
The self-defense law is what it is, and to reiterate, the judge had no authority to add a requirement to WI s.948.60 that was not there. In any ambiguous legislation, the rule of lenity would always ensure that the benefit went to the defendant anyway. How is that mental gymnastics?
What does MAGA have to do with it? Have I ever once expressed support for MAGA or Donald Trump? It is just a cop out for you people so that you can all rationalize views that don’t align with your own. How did Rittenhouse create the conditions for the incident? By existing? Crazy.
Would you allow your 17 yr old child to cross state lines with a gun to attend a riot he has no reason or cause to be part of? Even if he had cause? Would you allow it? If so, they need to go to DC. The republican wet dream of govt forces taking over city streets. Hed be justified now.
And to answer your question. No, I would not endorse my son to be at a riot. However, if he was at one and encountered a violent individual like Rosenbaum, I would support him defending himself against violence by any lawful means necessary. Wouldn't you?
If he were at one, youve failed as a father, especially in this case. He wouldnt need to defend himself if he werent a dipshit larping as an adult with a gun. It would have never happened. Just like Jan 6 would have never happened if Trump didnt lie about losing the election
Trump again, eh? 🙄
Yup. Dipshit army seems to follow Trump
Not sure. But the republican wet dream is upon you guys. The military taking over cities. Ive heard for 20 years how these white beta males would fight the govt if they took over. Crickets. Weird. Rittenhouse would have been morally correct standing up to the military occupying cities.
Again, you are lumping me in with Republicans. I get that it is easier to convince yourself of your own righteousness if you ascribe all opposing opinion to that of what you view as the source of all life's ills right now, but that is nothing to do with me. I dislike Trump as much as anyone.
Just having trouble wrapping my mind around a someone with morals while defending someone who did a grossly immoral act. Apologies.
Rittenhouse did not take the gun across state lines. He was already in Kenosha, as he had stayed at Dominick Black's place the night prior. Black was the owner of the rifles and kept them at his address. Rittenhouse's mother believed that he was hanging out with Black, she didn't "allow" anything.
What was your source for the Rittenhouse trial? Did you watch it or follow it through the media?
Both
It sounds like you relied more on the media news/reports.
I got more specific than the news. And i was still correct. He did a morally bad thing. Put himself in a bad situation where he had to use his "gun" to defend himself. If Mel Gibson from Lethal Weapon 3 had that sign on his body walking down the road and shot anyone who attacked him...same thing
You were wrong on several details regarding the trial. Why? It sounds like you relied more on legacy media. Morally wrong? 😂 -Cleaning graffiti. -Putting out fires. -Offering basic 1st aid. -Watching over a minority owned business. -Defending yourself against unprovoked attacks.
I wasnt. Morally wrong. Yes. He went there knowing hed probably be attacked. He wanted to be attacked so he could fire his weapon. If he didnt, well hes lucky he didnt win a Darwin award that day.
You had many details wrong. -You thought Kyle was in possession of an assault rifle. -You didn't know about Kyle's connection to Kenosha. -Weren't aware of the possession statute. -You thought Kyle crossed state lines with a firearm. You're also confusing being prepared with intent.
His messages prior to going is intent.
He posted beforehand on facebook and through texts about kenosha. He knee Kenosha hated proud boys. He knew prior to going carrying the firearm would likely spell trouble. He did it anyway. Im the one that cited the exact statute and the original intent of the statue as verified by said writers.
No i didnt. It is no different than an AR except by semantics. I own more guns thab you, I promise. A hair pin trigger and practice can make mode irrelevant. What makes you think i didnt know his connection to Kenosha? Because I dog walked you into saying something incorrect?
