-
wanted to be involved in the conflict, ... he intended on finding and joining conflict
he maybe wanted to be a part of the "solution". Protest the protest, doesnt matter how far he travelled. Thats his right.
He took a gun to protect himself, another legal right.did indeed end up in a conflict, which the evidence suggests he sought out, and put himself in. It takes two to make a fight, but if Rittenhouse had stayed at home that night he'd not have killed those people
Whats the evidence, location and armed? Not enough.
By the above logic the entire protest and then riot is what killed those people, in fact go further, cops, cops with guns. ITS tHE8R FAUlt!!.....
Our country has nucleur weapons to scare but if we use them is that cos we were forced to? No. It will be a decision we would have to stand by, no one elses fault. You cant blame a cause for a reaction or all tantrums are justified lol!I believe what he did was wrong. I also believe what he did was lawful. That is the argument int it, if its wrong why is it lawful. Well, because of all the nuances that got america where it is, it has different laws to us regardless of what we think.
In america guns are everday carry. It is not pre meditated is it?
If I punch someone and they die it is manslaughter not murder.Im playing devils advocate because while it is obvious to me a crime has been commited I am not in any way an authority on american law and this is only that. Law. Not logic (unfortunatley)
Yes he murdered people
No he shouldnt face a homicide charge, manslaughter charges, disrupting the peace, involved in a riot, illegally carrying and using a firearm etc, he should (a whole other argument to be had as to whether manslaughter should even be a thing, Im sure)
He will be acquited, lawfully, it will be a turning point in US laws (we hope)Hurling insults and claiming superiority through syllables is what irked me to post tbh.
Also, bang on with the poppies!
Also think help for heroes is extremely shameful too. But probably not the place for that.
You are reading a single comment by @.mo. and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
.mo.
rhb
Rittenhouse put himself in an active conflict zone, with a rifle.
Specifically he got his mother to drive him across state to another state to get to the conflict zone. With his rifle. That would suggest that he wanted to be involved in the conflict, or else why go to the considerable trouble of putting himself in the middle of it, and he decided that a rifle was a suitable item to have with him, which again suggests that he intended on finding and joining conflict that required the ability to present and/or dispense lethal force with ease.
He did indeed end up in a conflict, which the evidence suggests he sought out, and put himself in. It takes two to make a fight, but if Rittenhouse had stayed at home that night he'd not have killed those people.
This may work in terms of a self-defence argument in the US, where there's a nation wide cognitive dissonance with regards to firearms, said items being venerated in popular culture, seen as a vital part of being a "true" American, etc etc. But that doesn't mean that people outside America exposed to the same universal conditioning* and can see that it's bollocks.
I'm uncertain how that's "just happening to be there, with my hammer in my toolkit, which happened to be at hand in the unplanned altercation which I found myself embroiled in".
*(Similar to how the Poppy Day in the UK has become a month long, oppressive bit of Nationalist ancestor worship in praise of the glory of war that literally a handful of citizens experienced. We don't seem to see it, but it's plain to those outside the bubble).