766
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
766 points (87.0% liked)
Not The Onion
12350 readers
399 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Everyone who defended him during the trial or afterwards has signed a blood pact with the man and has to continue to defend everything he ever does or says forever.
Heaven forbid anyone admit to making a mistake!
I think people are misunderstanding this comment.
I think he's making fun of the idiots that continue to stick to a wrong opinion because they don't want to say they are wrong.
Yes, that is exactly what I meant.
I defended him during the trial, and I was not wrong. He was innocent. He's still an absolute piece of shit and dumber than a sack of weights, but the shootings were absolutely in self defense.
I still defend his innocense in the trial specifically, and nothing else this piece of shit does.
That's what the blood pact comment was getting at. You can hate everything he's saying and still believe he shot in self defense. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I'll be honest that I have only peripherally paid attention to the Rittenhouse trial, and maybe you can help me understand it a bit better.
Didn't he travel a good distance to "defend" a business, one he had no right or reason to defend with a deadly weapon? Was it really just that Washington is a "stand your ground" and not a "duty to retreat" state that made him innocent on that?
If so, that's definitely a good argument for a duty to retreat legal doctrine, because it's one hell of a loophole to allow people to purposefully put themselves into a conflict, accelerate things with an open threat, and try to claim you did nothing wrong.
Yes, which is not murder or a component of murder.
No, and I think this is where a lot of the hysreria around the trial came from. He didn't stand his ground, he ran away was being chased. One of the men chasing him was trying to grab his gun, and another pointed a gun at him.
I think the great majority of the people calling him a murderer have never actually looked into what happened that night.
You're right, I don't think he was guilty of murder, but that wasn't the only focus of the trial was it? Seems like there should have been a better case brought against him, but there wasn't a good legal precedent or framework to really categorize the level of responsibility he had for the situation. While it isn't murder, it's something.
True, and I think that speaks to the loophole point you brought up. He very obviously went there and was okay with the possibility of doing harm to people. That, in itself, should be illegal, but it's very hard to prove.
By that logic anyone who carries and is willing to defend their life if necessary could be argued to be "okay with the possibility of doing harm to people." Clearly that's not what you meant but it is important to think about how laws could be abused when advocating for things to be illegal, as other people are able to interpret laws differently than intended based on improper wording.
If I remember correctly he traveled from a neighboring town to Kenosha WI. But people get hung up on how he traveled from his home in Illinois all the way to Wisconsin to do this without bothering to look at a map and see that Kenosha is right on the border with Illinois
But he also immediately after getting bailed out went and did a photo op/party with white nationalists, I think I remember he even made white nationalist gestures for the camera so guilty or not he's a piece of shit
Iirc fwiw that "White nationalist symbol" was the OK symbol, which is not a white nationalist symbol and never was. The closest it gets is 4chan convinced some news agencies that it was simply because 4chan is trolls, the news bought it, and then instead of saying "ok you got us good that time Mr Anonymoose" they doubled down and said "no look it really is and if it wasn't it is now," and as a result of that every right winger nazi or not thought it was hilarious and in using it weren't saying "white power" but rather "liberals are idiots, they still think this means WP." It's literally just a hand signal version of "lets go brandon."
Idk about whatever group he was with, but I cringe every time I see that old troll still working on people. It gives them too much power, they're literally using it making fun of "stupid people who think it means WP" and by being one of those people we play right into their desired role.
You can argue that it was not prudent for him - or anyone - to be there, but you cannot argue that he had no right to be there. He had the exact same right to be there as all the protesters, and much more right to be there than any of the rioters and arsonists, including the arsonist who initially attacked him.
There is no evidence that Rittenhouse did anything to invite the initial attack against him. "Carrying a gun" is not, in and of itself, a justification for someone to attack the carrier.
The event happened in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Not Washington.
The law in Wisconsin actually did allow him to possess and carry a rifle at the time; the way the law prohibiting minors from carrying weapons was written, he could only have violated it if he was illegally hunting. It's a rather technical point that the Wisconsin legislature probably should have corrected, but the judge dismissed the charges because the law did not actually prohibit him from carrying the rifle.
"Duty to retreat" would not have played a part in the Rittenhouse case: he was on video retreating from all three of the people he shot, as well as a fourth person who he attempted to shoot, but missed. The first attacker was in contact with the rifle as Rittenhouse was running backwards from him. The next two attackers attempted to jump him after he had fallen. The fourth had a gun in his hand with his hands up, indicating he was not a threat. Rittenhouse initially held his fire. However, the final attacker suddenly pointed the weapon and lunged toward Rittenhouse.
Duty to retreat doesn't mean you can't go anywhere, it means that if someone attacks you in a place you are legally allowed to occupy (like your home, car, work, public spaces), you are obligated to attempt to escape to the best of your ability, and only when that option is exhausted can you defend yourself.
Ironically, he ran from Rosenbaum until he was cornered, then ran from the mob yelling "get him" until he was downed by a guy with a rock, so he met the legal definition of "duty to retreat" whether or not he had to in WI.
The only argument that could be made is the "were legally allowed to occupy" bit as there was a curfew in place that night, however IIRC that curfew was later ruled to not be legal itself, and that would also have applied to everyone in the entire city of Kenosha at the time, including those who attacked Kyle.
Furthermore, he drove 20min from his mother's in Antioch, yes, however his father lived in Kenosha, he worked in Kenosha, and had multiple friends in Kenosha, it wasn't just some random place. Also Huber and Grosskreutz both drove further, albeit from further north WI rather than IL, but still further distance, and Grosskreutz brought a gun he wasn't legally allowed to own (the one he pointed at Kyle.) The only one who didn't travel was Rosenbaum who was a violent criminal released from a mental facility into that chaotic situation with presumably nowhere to go, which seems like it may have been a poor choice on someone's part.
Washington isn't a duty to retreat state, but duty to retreat laws often do cover accelerating a conflict with your weapon. Going open carry, as an opposing force and as a bright white little boy, to a riot started due to racial inequity could be considered accelerating a conflict. But those laws don't apply here anyway.
But yeah, 20 minutes isn't a far distance. And he did his best to retreat even after he put himself in that situation, and I don't think there was any better decision to make besides just not being there. For him and the shit stains that attacked him.
WI != WA. But in any case, no, if he had the legal right to be there and the legal right to carry there, carrying there is not a basis for arguing he accelerated the conflict. Brandishing would be a good basis for that, but brandishing != carrying open or otherwise, and he was not brandishing.
For sure, I agree he shouldn't have been there. That same night there were also less eventful riots in my area too, and did I go to them? No, I stayed to protect my home and my loved ones with my rifle. Luckily there was no need, the stuff that got burned down and the people that got jumped all ended up being in another part of town, but that's their problem I'm not obligated to protect them as shitty as that is, I gotta look out for me and mine.
Is murder a mistake?
Generally considered to be, yes.