He was charged with (effectively) taking a sawn-off shotgun across state lines, which he didn’t do as it was a full-size rifle, and second degree murder, which requires homicide while committing another crime, but the other charge fell through, so there was no other crime. He probably would have been found guilty of something if he’d been charged with crimes he did rather than ones he didn’t, but the prosecutor fucked up, whether by incompetence or because they wanted to ensure he got off after nominally going through a trial so justice could be claimed to have been done.
Kyle Rittenhouse is probably the most textbook definition of self defense there has been. There was some good lawyering to get around the age issue, but at the same time I’m not sure I want someone facing a felony because they aren’t 21. That doesn’t change anything on the ACAB front.
Both things can be true. Bring guns and posters of him to protests. Make it difficult for anyone supporting ICE.
It’s not self-defence to shoot people if the only reason they’re approaching you is that you pointed a gun at them or someone else and they’re attempting to disarm you because it appears that you’re about to shoot someone or just shot someone. Otherwise anyone with a firearm can just point it at whoever and if they react at all, have free reign to shoot them. In fact, it’s illegal to point a gun at someone else in the first place unless they’re already attacking you (or in some states have entered your property), and Rittenhouse pointing a gun at someone else was the trigger for the whole incident. If he’d been charged for pointing a gun at people, then the second-degree murder charge would have stuck, as self defence isn’t a defence against second-degree murder (otherwise a home invader could claim self defence if they shot the homeowner when confronted).
The only time he pointed his gun at them was after they pursued him. One of them also had a gun pointed at him. He attempted to retreat which means the attackers were in the wrong.
He had already shot someone before the other person with a gun drew it and pointed it at him. You have not seen the unedited video from the beginning, or have forgotten what it showed.
Or more likely just arguing in bad faith and has no idea what they’re talking about.
I’ve been encountering a LOT of people who “know” what the videos of Renee Good and Alex Pretti show, and while I’m arguing specific points they get frustrated and say they haven’t watched any video and they know what they saw on the news.
I don’t think it was wreckless, but if you had to rationalise her doing something bad, maybe it was her accidentally hitting the murderer. She in no means meant to ram him unless she was simply trying to get away
Why won’t you consider that they pursued him in self-defense?
A dude enters a protest with the intent to agitate, points his rifle at people. Some people attempt to disarm him. He trips over his own feet while fleeing and decides his only option is to shoot some people.
You say he shot in self-defense, but you won’t say the protestors pursuing him were acting in self-defense. Why?
If someone has a rifle, they can shoot you from at least 100m. If you’re worried about that happening your options are either to find cover, or close the distance to mitigate the advantage of the person carrying the rifle.
He can run away fifty paces, turn around and shoot you whether you pursue him or not. Your best chance is to disarm him, especially if there’s a crowd of people he could potentially target and not just you.
I’m not even sure if this is true or not, I’m assuming it’s not, but can you explain to the class how it is that you can be okay with the people who are dead being victim blamed, all the while everyone on planet earth knows the piece of shit traveled there precisely to stir up trouble, and it’s not remotely far fetched to think he hoped for an excuse to kill? The result of him traveling there with the intent, to at-minimum agitate and intimidate, is dead people who would be alive today if he hadn’t made that decision.
I think to make an argument that a dead person deserves to be dead, you either have to stifle any ounce of empathy a human being normally has, or consider the dead to be unredeemable evil monsters. But maybe you can explain it differently?
People who defend rittenhouse always remind me of this woman I briefly dated in 2020. She is a lawyer and threw up a huge red flag by claiming that when Breonna Taylor was killed by police, they 100% followed all the policies perfectly. Fast forward a few months and courts decided precisely opposite of that conclusion, as I expected. Dodged a bullet breaking it off with that woman early on.
Genius: intentions don’t matter if the actions taken surrounding them are legal. I guess all the times that intent mattered in a legal context were completely in my imagination. Weird.
Not from what I’ve been taught and learned. Lesson 1 is never put yourself in a situation you would need to use lethal force to survive. As well he wasn’t hired by anyone to protect any property. The entire “self defense” argument falls apart at the start as he should have not been there at all.
Then comes the argument about “the protestors shouldn’t have been there at all” and that’s where I call them a CHUD, insult them further, then ignore them. Because they just showed expressing one’s first amendment rights isn’t a reason to be protesting.
I think the best way of putting it was “what he did was stupid, but it’s not illegal to be stupid”
Like yeah, he shouldn’t have been there, but hindsight doesn’t matter when you’re on the ground getting beaten with a skateboard and all you have to defend yourself is a rifle.
He was charged with (effectively) taking a sawn-off shotgun across state lines, which he didn’t do as it was a full-size rifle, and second degree murder, which requires homicide while committing another crime, but the other charge fell through, so there was no other crime. He probably would have been found guilty of something if he’d been charged with crimes he did rather than ones he didn’t, but the prosecutor fucked up, whether by incompetence or because they wanted to ensure he got off after nominally going through a trial so justice could be claimed to have been done.
Doesn’t this mean they can still charge him with the crimes he actually did commit?
In theory. I won’t be holding my breath, though.
Maybe but not really. It would be an easy 5th amendment challenge for Rittenhouse if the state wanted to try and bring charges against him.
Kyle Rittenhouse is probably the most textbook definition of self defense there has been. There was some good lawyering to get around the age issue, but at the same time I’m not sure I want someone facing a felony because they aren’t 21. That doesn’t change anything on the ACAB front.
Both things can be true. Bring guns and posters of him to protests. Make it difficult for anyone supporting ICE.
It’s not self-defence to shoot people if the only reason they’re approaching you is that you pointed a gun at them or someone else and they’re attempting to disarm you because it appears that you’re about to shoot someone or just shot someone. Otherwise anyone with a firearm can just point it at whoever and if they react at all, have free reign to shoot them. In fact, it’s illegal to point a gun at someone else in the first place unless they’re already attacking you (or in some states have entered your property), and Rittenhouse pointing a gun at someone else was the trigger for the whole incident. If he’d been charged for pointing a gun at people, then the second-degree murder charge would have stuck, as self defence isn’t a defence against second-degree murder (otherwise a home invader could claim self defence if they shot the homeowner when confronted).
The only time he pointed his gun at them was after they pursued him. One of them also had a gun pointed at him. He attempted to retreat which means the attackers were in the wrong.
He had already shot someone before the other person with a gun drew it and pointed it at him. You have not seen the unedited video from the beginning, or have forgotten what it showed.
Or more likely just arguing in bad faith and has no idea what they’re talking about.
I’ve been encountering a LOT of people who “know” what the videos of Renee Good and Alex Pretti show, and while I’m arguing specific points they get frustrated and say they haven’t watched any video and they know what they saw on the news.
The Renee good video also shows that at most, her wreckless driving away was self defence. She did not deserve to be executed for that.
I saw nothing reckless about how she was driving in any of the videos I have seen, including the murderer’s phone camera.
I saw a normal person driving away normally and then a thug jumped in her way.
I don’t think it was wreckless, but if you had to rationalise her doing something bad, maybe it was her accidentally hitting the murderer. She in no means meant to ram him unless she was simply trying to get away
Please post the full video.
Why won’t you consider that they pursued him in self-defense?
A dude enters a protest with the intent to agitate, points his rifle at people. Some people attempt to disarm him. He trips over his own feet while fleeing and decides his only option is to shoot some people.
You say he shot in self-defense, but you won’t say the protestors pursuing him were acting in self-defense. Why?
You can’t pursue someone in self defense, at least normal people can’t. Cops get away with that level of bullshit, but that’s not relevant here.
Showing up to a protest with a gun is fine. According to the trial he didn’t point at anyone until after he was chased.
If someone has a rifle, they can shoot you from at least 100m. If you’re worried about that happening your options are either to find cover, or close the distance to mitigate the advantage of the person carrying the rifle.
He can run away fifty paces, turn around and shoot you whether you pursue him or not. Your best chance is to disarm him, especially if there’s a crowd of people he could potentially target and not just you.
I’m not even sure if this is true or not, I’m assuming it’s not, but can you explain to the class how it is that you can be okay with the people who are dead being victim blamed, all the while everyone on planet earth knows the piece of shit traveled there precisely to stir up trouble, and it’s not remotely far fetched to think he hoped for an excuse to kill? The result of him traveling there with the intent, to at-minimum agitate and intimidate, is dead people who would be alive today if he hadn’t made that decision.
I think to make an argument that a dead person deserves to be dead, you either have to stifle any ounce of empathy a human being normally has, or consider the dead to be unredeemable evil monsters. But maybe you can explain it differently?
Stir up trouble against the other people stirring up trouble and looting?
Nah he took a semi automatic weapon across state lines for “self defense only”. lmao
Goddammit I’m so sick of people defending that piece of fucking shit. He sought to murder and he did. Not even slightly self defense.
This. A plastic bag with a couple grocies being thrown was not met with equal response via bullets.
People who defend rittenhouse always remind me of this woman I briefly dated in 2020. She is a lawyer and threw up a huge red flag by claiming that when Breonna Taylor was killed by police, they 100% followed all the policies perfectly. Fast forward a few months and courts decided precisely opposite of that conclusion, as I expected. Dodged a bullet breaking it off with that woman early on.
How is it self defense when we chose to go to the protest to start shit?
Being present there was legal. You can think the choice is stupid, but being stupid isn’t a crime.
Genius: intentions don’t matter if the actions taken surrounding them are legal. I guess all the times that intent mattered in a legal context were completely in my imagination. Weird.
Making stupid choices most certainly can be a crime
That is a laughably bad textbook, then.
Not from what I’ve been taught and learned. Lesson 1 is never put yourself in a situation you would need to use lethal force to survive. As well he wasn’t hired by anyone to protect any property. The entire “self defense” argument falls apart at the start as he should have not been there at all.
Then comes the argument about “the protestors shouldn’t have been there at all” and that’s where I call them a CHUD, insult them further, then ignore them. Because they just showed expressing one’s first amendment rights isn’t a reason to be protesting.
I think the best way of putting it was “what he did was stupid, but it’s not illegal to be stupid” Like yeah, he shouldn’t have been there, but hindsight doesn’t matter when you’re on the ground getting beaten with a skateboard and all you have to defend yourself is a rifle.
He still is a POS despite it being self defence
You can absolutely not like him, and think he made stupid decisions. That doesn’t change the legality though.
Yeah, my point