754
Two 26-Year-Olds: One Killed a Homeless Man, Another is Suspected of Killing a Healthcare CEO (zeteo.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/aboringdystopia@lemmy.world
172 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 2 years ago (9 children)

There is no Self Defense when you seek conflict.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Court entirely disagreed with your scenario, even the survivor admitted he was attacking.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    The court was wrong. Anyone not blinded by ideology can see Rittenhouse crossed state lines to go cause trouble with a gun. His fig leaf of a cover blew apart and conservatives pretended it still applied.

    Furthermore despite conservative judges protecting attackers this must be a tenet of self defense, otherwise there is no longer any way to convict someone of murder, except the arbitrary denial of self defense as an argument to defendants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Was the survivor also lying, you propaganda pushing piece of shit?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Nothing that happened after he grabbed a gun and went to the protest matters. If he hadn't gone there with the intent of using his gun none of this would have happened. He is the instigating force and cannot claim self defense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    And yet, look what happened in court, because he actually did nothing of the sort. Do you not understand anything about how the laws work or what happened there? (Don't answer, that was rhetorical. "Rhetorical" means a question for conversational effect, not an actual request for an answer. The previous sentence contains condescension, and I'm just going to assume you need an definition for that also, as you seem to have no idea of what goes on at all.)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    They literally got caught lying in court. They were there to protect a store, no they were there to render aid, no they were there to counter protest, no they were there to protect the cops.

    He got the same jury nullification as other white men killing black men get.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •