Somehow this is a controversial opinion in America.
somewhere in America a far right person is gritting their teeth babbling something about 'antifa'
That's because so many governors have made hunting liberal protesters legal. It'll be federally legalized if not mandated if Trump gets back in.
Legally speaking, it's a factually incorrect opinion. So if course it's going to be controversial. I'm not sure why you're surprised.
He was literally acquitted by a jury of his peers of murder. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's shocking that one would be surprised some people think he isn't guilty.
He wasn’t charged correctly.
Had he been charged with 2nd degree murder he would have been convicted.
The jury was given instructions that they could also convict him of second degree murder.
(Edit) I take this back, I searched my source and I confused the prosecution requesting it, but it was denied by the judge.
I watched every moment of the trial including the jury instructions. You are spreading false information. Please check your sources.
You're right, I searched my source and found that they requested it, but the judge denied it. I'll edit my post.
Good job, we need more people like you, people who value the truth.
Since when do Juries get to take the prosecutor's job?
It's pretty standard for juries to be instructed that they can find someone guilty of a lesser charge. Not sure when this became common practice.
I don't like the guy, he is an idiot who shouldn't have been there and he's proven since then that he's just a piece of shit.
The difference between you and me is that I am able, at least in this case, to put my opinion of someone and my political beliefs aside and objectively look at the facts.
"Don't be so open minded your brain falls out of your head."
Yes, he managed to engineer a situation in which everyone involved could kill the other person and claim self defense. While it gave him a legal defense for shooting someone, that doesn't change the fact that he went there in the first place to shoot someone.
I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rytenhouse a murderer because his reason for being there is pretty fucking obvious even if impossible to "prove" in court.
and still call Rytenhouse a murderer because his reason for being there is pretty fucking obvious even if impossible to “prove” in court.
Of course you are free to your opinion. But I was responding to someone who is surprised that anyone could consider him not a murderer. You are admitting that it might even be impossible to prove in a court of law, and he was acquitted, so I would think you might also agree how someone might believe he is not a murderer.
And I was responding to someone who seemed to believe they were above other people in their ability to "put their political beliefs aside," and seems to believe it's impossible for someone to look at the facts presented and condemn Rittenhouse without it being political.
You're confusing my attack of an childish meme with an attack on coming to different conclusions based on the facts.
Although, lets me clear, you've not provided any facts that indicate he went there to kill someone.
He went somewhere he had no place to be, with a gun, in order to "protect property" he had no reason to protect. He said himself he went to "protect property". How do you think he was going to use that gun to protect property? Tickle people with it?
Have you never heard "an armed society is a polite one?" Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it? Or do you think that maybe the goal of showing force is to, sometimes, dissuade violence?
Have you never heard "an armed society is a polite one
American society is armed. Those that are most heavily armed don't seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.
Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it?
You don't send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed. When people take a security job they expect they will be using force at some point.
I challenge you to find me someone who works security that doesn't expect to ever use force. The difference is someone who works security is 1) trained, and 2) in situations where they are there as a precaution, not as an expectation. When there is an expectation of violence the police are involved.
Speaking of, if Rittenhouse is concerned about "protecting property" why doesn't he work for the police? I thought vigilantism was illegal.
Those that are most heavily armed don’t seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.
Remember, we're talking about intent here. Whether you believe it's true has zero bearing, it's whether he may.
You don’t send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed.
Well, sure. But that's like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I'm not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions. I know it will be necessary as time approaches infinity, but this is a far cry from saying I intend to get into an accident because I put my seatbelt on, which is effectively what we're talking about.
If your argument is that he's guilty because he knew he might have to use a gun to protect himself, rather than going with the intent of actually shooting someone, then I disagree that this even remotely makes him guilty of a crime, as this would mean I'm guilty of intending to cause an accident because I put my seatbelt.
A Winchester, Virginia, man who vowed to light Vice President Kamala Harris on fire and “personally pluck out her eyes” reacted with surprise when investigators showed up at his door “over a comment,” a federal complaint alleges.
Investigators said that Carillo in one post said Harris doesn’t “have a snowballs chance in hell which is exactly where you’re going and soon,” adding “I will cut your eyes out of your F—ING head” and “will make sure you suffer a slow agonizing death[.]”
**
In another post, he allegedly said he would “personally” set Harris on fire “if no one else does[.]” In a third post, Carillo allegedly said Harris is “going to regret ever trying to become president because if that ever happened I will personally pluck out her eyes with a pair of pliers but first I will shoot and kill everyone that gets in my way that is a f** promise.”**
Carillo allegedly said he owned a pistol and an AR-15 and made remarks of surprise about the reason for the law enforcement visit.
This armed man was so polite he was confused about why agents would show up at his door over a simple "comment"
Again, whether it's true makes no difference because we're discussing intent to go shoot someone, so if he believes it to be true (or any of the others I listed) then your claim that it is a fact he intended to shoot someone is really just a supposition.
He obviously went there looking for trouble. What Rittenhouse did in response to other people’s unlawful actions was deemed lawful by a court. There’s not much more to it besides the cases hyper politicisation. For some reason (riots) it became left vs right. If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation - then some other idiots attacked him, one even had a gun pointed at him, this is worse than Rittenhouse simply carrying a gun. It seemed like a dumb case for the left to get behind - nearly nothing about Rittenhouse’s attackers were discussed in the media. It was solely focused on Rittenhouse and his stupidity. Not what whether or not his attackers also did something wrong. Which they did according to a court.
If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation
Yes. I'm not calling him a murderer because Republicans have rallied around him, or because of what the protest was about.
Remove the politics and I'm still calling him a murderer because he knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation with the intent of shooting people in order to protect property that wasn't even his, because it is appropriate to take lives to protect property. It is not appropriate to damage property to protect lives.
Yes but Rittenhouse couldn’t have shot someone unless he felt in fear for his life. This isn’t like a cop putting 20 bullets in someone cause he thought his comb was a gun. He literally had a gun pointed at him. If this didn’t happen he would be a murderer. It did happen and the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation. It’s like people can’t comprehend there are shades of grey.
the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation.
Who said they weren't both fucking idiots? No one is parading the one that got shot around like they're some kind of hero.
Still doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse went there to shoot people and is an unrepentant piece of shit.
Mods deleted my comment on here ages ago for calling him a murderer. Doesn’t make it not true.
All of his shootings were legally self defense, and based on the evidence presented at trial the jury absolutely decided his case correctly. Grosskreutz will have a hard fight in his civil suit against Rittenhouse after admitting on the stand that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. He might actually have an easier time against the city, county and police for not having sufficient police response to the previous shots fired.
Rittenhouse was also a complete and total idiot for being there in the first place, even more so for separating from his group, and he hasn't demonstrated substantially better judgement any time since. Because he's immensely, painfully stupid.
The only thing I don't really get is why everyone seems so damned intent about spending time, attention and effort talking about him in the first place, regardless of what political side you're on. I mean it's weird they treated him like some kind of aspirational figure, it's even more weird that they're now accusing him of being trans as though that changes the value of anything he's said before or since. But we really, really don't need to give him any more of a spotlight than he already has.
All of his shootings were legally self defense
Not quite… The jury’s decision simply indicated that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the defense’s position was accepted as fact. This is an important distinction.
… at trial the jury absolutely decided his case correctly.
Agreed, but keep in mind he was found to be not guilty, which is not the same thing as innocent.
Because he's immensely, painfully stupid.
Immensely, painfully, and dangerously stupid.
But we really, really don't need to give him any more of a spotlight than he already has.
Fair enough, but I think that this case should be taught in law school as an example of prosecutorial negligence in that if he were simply charged appropriately, 2nd degree non premeditated and/or manslaughter, he would be in prison now for a minimum of 15 years but probably closer to 25 years.
The choice to only charge 1st degree, which took on the burden of proving premeditation, was the biggest legal blunder of our time… worse than Alex Jones’s lawyer sending the full cell phone copy to the prosecutor, which was an absolute joy to watch live as it happened.
Fair enough, but I think that this case should be taught in law school as an example of prosecutorial negligence in that if he were simply charged appropriately, 2nd degree non premeditated and/or manslaughter, he would be in prison now for a minimum of 15 years but probably closer to 25 years.
The choice to only charge 1st degree, which took on the burden of proving premeditation, was the biggest legal blunder of our time… worse than Alex Jones’s lawyer sending the full cell phone copy to the prosecutor, which was an absolute joy to watch live as it happened.
You think? His defense was a pretty standard self defense argument. Or does having shown up to the general area at all remove his ability to claim self defense under those charges?
His defense was irrelevant because by only charging 1st degree, and not including the lesser charges, the prosecution took on the burden of proving premeditation, which was not possible to prove in this case.
Even if they were able to admit the evidence that KR had talked about his desire to kill protesters only weeks earlier, the prosecution would still have had trouble proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt given this heresy evidence alone.
He was found not guilty because the premeditation was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The self defense argument only would have been relevant if he had been charged with 2nd degree murder, reckless homicide, or manslaughter.
In the case of reckless homicide, his self defense argument would have failed due to the fact that a reasonable person would have known that bringing a loaded rifle into the middle of an unpredictable and potentially volatile situation would have the potential of resulting in death.
His unjustified and inappropriate presence that night instigated the conflict, and but for the fact that he was incorrectly charged, he would be in jail now.
Keep in mind that the verdict only establishes that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the jury believed the self defense story.
He's definitely a murderer, so that's a thing.
Somehow this is a controversial opinion in America.
somewhere in America a far right person is gritting their teeth babbling something about 'antifa'
That's because so many governors have made hunting liberal protesters legal. It'll be federally legalized if not mandated if Trump gets back in.
Legally speaking, it's a factually incorrect opinion. So if course it's going to be controversial. I'm not sure why you're surprised.
He was literally acquitted by a jury of his peers of murder. Regardless of how you feel about it, it's shocking that one would be surprised some people think he isn't guilty.
He wasn’t charged correctly.
Had he been charged with 2nd degree murder he would have been convicted.
The jury was given instructions that they could also convict him of second degree murder.(Edit) I take this back, I searched my source and I confused the prosecution requesting it, but it was denied by the judge.
I watched every moment of the trial including the jury instructions. You are spreading false information. Please check your sources.
You're right, I searched my source and found that they requested it, but the judge denied it. I'll edit my post.
Good job, we need more people like you, people who value the truth.
Since when do Juries get to take the prosecutor's job?
It's pretty standard for juries to be instructed that they can find someone guilty of a lesser charge. Not sure when this became common practice.
I don't like the guy, he is an idiot who shouldn't have been there and he's proven since then that he's just a piece of shit.
The difference between you and me is that I am able, at least in this case, to put my opinion of someone and my political beliefs aside and objectively look at the facts.
"Don't be so open minded your brain falls out of your head."
Yes, he managed to engineer a situation in which everyone involved could kill the other person and claim self defense. While it gave him a legal defense for shooting someone, that doesn't change the fact that he went there in the first place to shoot someone.
I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rytenhouse a murderer because his reason for being there is pretty fucking obvious even if impossible to "prove" in court.
Of course you are free to your opinion. But I was responding to someone who is surprised that anyone could consider him not a murderer. You are admitting that it might even be impossible to prove in a court of law, and he was acquitted, so I would think you might also agree how someone might believe he is not a murderer.
And I was responding to someone who seemed to believe they were above other people in their ability to "put their political beliefs aside," and seems to believe it's impossible for someone to look at the facts presented and condemn Rittenhouse without it being political.
You're confusing my attack of an childish meme with an attack on coming to different conclusions based on the facts.
Although, lets me clear, you've not provided any facts that indicate he went there to kill someone.
He went somewhere he had no place to be, with a gun, in order to "protect property" he had no reason to protect. He said himself he went to "protect property". How do you think he was going to use that gun to protect property? Tickle people with it?
Have you never heard "an armed society is a polite one?" Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it? Or do you think that maybe the goal of showing force is to, sometimes, dissuade violence?
American society is armed. Those that are most heavily armed don't seem very polite, but a lot of people get shot.
You don't send security to an event without the intent of using it if needed. When people take a security job they expect they will be using force at some point.
I challenge you to find me someone who works security that doesn't expect to ever use force. The difference is someone who works security is 1) trained, and 2) in situations where they are there as a precaution, not as an expectation. When there is an expectation of violence the police are involved.
Speaking of, if Rittenhouse is concerned about "protecting property" why doesn't he work for the police? I thought vigilantism was illegal.
Remember, we're talking about intent here. Whether you believe it's true has zero bearing, it's whether he may.
Well, sure. But that's like when I put on my seatbelt when I get in the car: I'm not planning to crash into someone just taking the necessary precautions. I know it will be necessary as time approaches infinity, but this is a far cry from saying I intend to get into an accident because I put my seatbelt on, which is effectively what we're talking about.
If your argument is that he's guilty because he knew he might have to use a gun to protect himself, rather than going with the intent of actually shooting someone, then I disagree that this even remotely makes him guilty of a crime, as this would mean I'm guilty of intending to cause an accident because I put my seatbelt.
Case in point:
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/i-will-personally-pluck-out-her-eyes-man-who-threatened-to-light-kamala-harris-on-fire-is-baffled-feds-were-at-his-door-over-a-comment-complaint-alleges/
This armed man was so polite he was confused about why agents would show up at his door over a simple "comment"
Again, whether it's true makes no difference because we're discussing intent to go shoot someone, so if he believes it to be true (or any of the others I listed) then your claim that it is a fact he intended to shoot someone is really just a supposition.
He obviously went there looking for trouble. What Rittenhouse did in response to other people’s unlawful actions was deemed lawful by a court. There’s not much more to it besides the cases hyper politicisation. For some reason (riots) it became left vs right. If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation - then some other idiots attacked him, one even had a gun pointed at him, this is worse than Rittenhouse simply carrying a gun. It seemed like a dumb case for the left to get behind - nearly nothing about Rittenhouse’s attackers were discussed in the media. It was solely focused on Rittenhouse and his stupidity. Not what whether or not his attackers also did something wrong. Which they did according to a court.
Yes. I'm not calling him a murderer because Republicans have rallied around him, or because of what the protest was about.
Remove the politics and I'm still calling him a murderer because he knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation with the intent of shooting people in order to protect property that wasn't even his, because it is appropriate to take lives to protect property. It is not appropriate to damage property to protect lives.
Yes but Rittenhouse couldn’t have shot someone unless he felt in fear for his life. This isn’t like a cop putting 20 bullets in someone cause he thought his comb was a gun. He literally had a gun pointed at him. If this didn’t happen he would be a murderer. It did happen and the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation. It’s like people can’t comprehend there are shades of grey.
Who said they weren't both fucking idiots? No one is parading the one that got shot around like they're some kind of hero.
Still doesn't change the fact that Rittenhouse went there to shoot people and is an unrepentant piece of shit.
He was never prosecuted for the most blatant murder.
Which one? What charges should have been brought and what evidence do you have?
Mods deleted my comment on here ages ago for calling him a murderer. Doesn’t make it not true.
All of his shootings were legally self defense, and based on the evidence presented at trial the jury absolutely decided his case correctly. Grosskreutz will have a hard fight in his civil suit against Rittenhouse after admitting on the stand that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. He might actually have an easier time against the city, county and police for not having sufficient police response to the previous shots fired.
Rittenhouse was also a complete and total idiot for being there in the first place, even more so for separating from his group, and he hasn't demonstrated substantially better judgement any time since. Because he's immensely, painfully stupid.
The only thing I don't really get is why everyone seems so damned intent about spending time, attention and effort talking about him in the first place, regardless of what political side you're on. I mean it's weird they treated him like some kind of aspirational figure, it's even more weird that they're now accusing him of being trans as though that changes the value of anything he's said before or since. But we really, really don't need to give him any more of a spotlight than he already has.
Not quite… The jury’s decision simply indicated that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the defense’s position was accepted as fact. This is an important distinction.
Agreed, but keep in mind he was found to be not guilty, which is not the same thing as innocent.
Immensely, painfully, and dangerously stupid.
Fair enough, but I think that this case should be taught in law school as an example of prosecutorial negligence in that if he were simply charged appropriately, 2nd degree non premeditated and/or manslaughter, he would be in prison now for a minimum of 15 years but probably closer to 25 years.
The choice to only charge 1st degree, which took on the burden of proving premeditation, was the biggest legal blunder of our time… worse than Alex Jones’s lawyer sending the full cell phone copy to the prosecutor, which was an absolute joy to watch live as it happened.
You think? His defense was a pretty standard self defense argument. Or does having shown up to the general area at all remove his ability to claim self defense under those charges?
His defense was irrelevant because by only charging 1st degree, and not including the lesser charges, the prosecution took on the burden of proving premeditation, which was not possible to prove in this case.
Even if they were able to admit the evidence that KR had talked about his desire to kill protesters only weeks earlier, the prosecution would still have had trouble proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt given this heresy evidence alone.
He was found not guilty because the premeditation was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.
The self defense argument only would have been relevant if he had been charged with 2nd degree murder, reckless homicide, or manslaughter.
In the case of reckless homicide, his self defense argument would have failed due to the fact that a reasonable person would have known that bringing a loaded rifle into the middle of an unpredictable and potentially volatile situation would have the potential of resulting in death.
His unjustified and inappropriate presence that night instigated the conflict, and but for the fact that he was incorrectly charged, he would be in jail now.
Keep in mind that the verdict only establishes that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the jury believed the self defense story.