People Twitter

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[+] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (2 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Do you not remember the very iconic picture of him in his blue gloves? At the very least he did have something. Usually when somebody is running from attackers they don't pick up the bucket of supplies they were using before running away.

parent

[+] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago

[deleted]

parent

[–] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 years ago (5 children)

You recall very incorrectly and should probably look up what really happened before you so confidently make incorrect statements. Ask yourself why he had zero cleaning equipment and instead only brought a loaded rifle.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[+] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -7 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Alright. Go ahead. Bring your evidence, because I saw the pictures and video.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

17 year old in possession of a firearm. Misdemeanor. There. One simple charge and you are wrong. You clearly aren't interested in truth, just your opinion on it. Have a good one.

parent

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 years ago

17 year olds are typically only restricted from handguns. Go ahead and point to the law that says he wasn't allowed to possess a long gun at that time. Maybe you should have been on the prosecution if you're so good.

parent

[+] MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

Here's the picture everybody saw of him cleaning before the shooting. Obviously you have no memories of the actual situation.

parent

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

He claimed he was hired to guard someone's dealership, and when the guy denied ever hiring him he tried to say "Actually it was my dad's dealership!" then when he was called on that lie he stopped bringing it up.

parent

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago (3 children)

He was, but it's not self-defense if the only reason you are in that situation is because you created it.

If I put myself and another person in some room that's rigged to lock and not unlock until the other person is dead.. Technically I am fighting for my life, but it's not self-defense because this wouldn't have happened if I didn't seek this out intentionally...

And that's basically what Rittenhouse did waving that gun around

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago

Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, "putting yourself" into a situation doesn't change that. If that were true, we'd be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that's absolutely not the case, it's not my fault if a car hits me while I'm legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I'm holding a firearm.

That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.

parent

[+] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -14 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn't mean you're not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.

Don't fuck around if you don't want to find out.

parent

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

It's not that he went that out all, it's that there was a boatload of evidence implying that killing was his motive for wanting to go in the first place.

parent

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago (4 children)

HEY everyone, this guy ^^ was THERE THAT NIGHT! We should all RELY TO him with our detailed questions about the events that unfolded since he clearly knows and has witnessed the events and is therefore an unimpeachable source of objective truth on this subject!

Why weren't you in the trial, out of curiosity? I'd have thought they'd be after your testimony, you know, since you know all this stuff and are really smart. Just wondering...

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[+] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Dude. He was found not guilty. If there was evidence of him being there for no reason other than to kill somebody then I'm sure he would have been convicted. I remember fairly well that he retreated but got attacked by a guy trying to hit him in the head with a skateboard (weapon) and shooting the arm of a felon brandishing a handgun at him.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I'm sure Kyle is glad you're out here white-knighting for him.

parent

[–] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 years ago

Whatever you say bro.

https://heavy.com/news/gaige-grosskreutz/

parent

[+] Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works -9 points 2 years ago

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit

I didn't remember it perfectly, but certainly a lot that is ignored by those who hate Rittenhouse. I was mistaken when I said the guy with the handgun is a felon. He WAS a felon and seems like an all around piece of shit, but his felony was expunged so he was legally allowed to possess a firearm. He did have a loaded handgun in his hand when approaching Kyle though.