10-27-2021, 11:01 PM
(10-27-2021, 10:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not to the question of self defense, which is the crux of this case.
Dude, seriously? He didn't "join in" on the riot. You're sounding a bit silly right now.
What do you mean by "bad"? A poor decision? Sure. A criminal act? Absolutely not. A reason to attack him? Double plus absolutely not.
Well, forgive me, but I absolutely am and, based on what we have available, he absolutely was defending himself.
Oh, I agree. In this case Rittenhouse was not acting as a vigilante, he was defending himself from attack. This is an enormous legal distinction.
Sure, let's say it was. It's still totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is was Rittenhouse legally defending himself.
Hard to tell within the content of your post.
Indeed, it was. I will tell you, wealth is a far better determinant for a more lenient outcome than race. Of course, certain ethnicities have more wealth so it definitely dovetails into race. I can say that I have not, personally, witnessed anyone getting railroaded because of their ethnicity, but I will acknowledge that I live in Southern California which is likely not indicative of the entire country.
I thought he was on trial because he was an armed minor from out of state in the middle of a riot who killed people.
As far as I know he was not forced to go there. But I'm not a doctor.
It's legal for unaccompanied minors to walk around the streets in the middle of the night during riots with loaded semi auto rifles?
Yea I agree. Self defense. Just like I would be if I went out to a raucous crowd of strangers with some combat gear on and a loaded M16 and started engaging them with no authority.
He was acting as a vigilante or he wouldn't have been there. This is a common sense distinction.
It is relevant to the topic at hand. Equal justice.
.
Agreed.
