Yep. I can’t believe we have a poster here that is shocked that criminal charges follow after a young man shoots a few people.
Think about it, he was attacked by someone rioting while possessing an illegally concealed weapon. I am surprised the guy who got shot hasn’t faced charges. That’s why it looks like a politically motivated prosecution.
There is nothing shocking with self defense.
And I won’t be shocked if he’s acquitted. Not filing charges against a guy who travels across state lines to march around after curfew with a weapon, (and looking for a chance to use it) that would have shocked me.
So why weren’t the armed folks who attacked Rittenhouse charged seeing that they had traveled and possessed weapons and unlike Rittenhouse were actually engaged in rioting and assault? The answer is pure politics.
Um, maybe because they didn’t shoot anyone?
Right. And I’m sure if one of the Black protestors had shot three people, two fatally, right-wingers would be adamant that the victims should also be charged with crimes – and not, say, screaming for the gunman’s head.
I agree with this. After seeing the prosecution’s case unfold, I am scratching my head as to why any responsible prosecutor would bring charges. Their own witness today said that he went after Rittenhouse because he (the witness) believed that Rittenhouse was an “active shooter.” So, your witness admits that he attempted to disarm Rittenhouse and so Rittenhouse has therefore reasonably feared that the guy was going after him, because he said that he definitely was.
Wow. Is the state doing this on purpose just to blame someone else when an acquittal happens?
Remember this post if you’re a ‘good guy with a gun’ and decide to respond to hearing there’s an active shooter near you.
Schrodinger’s Gunman: the Guy With A Gun is in a superposition of “Good” and “Bad”. When you shoot him, the wave function collapses, and you have either saved the day, or murdered an innocent person. It is impossible to tell whether the gunman was a Good Guy With A Gun or an Active Shooter until he is dead.
You forgot, unless there’s a certain level of melanin.
Fuckin’ ninjas!
This seems accurate, and most applicable to the situation at hand, and many others like it.
Tried to post the picture directly, and failed.
Summary: Rittenhouse is the proper color.
Regardless of what propagandists would have one believe not every thing in the universe revolves around race or color be it white, black, purple, or green. The sad thing is, and it is truly sad, is how otherwise seemingly intelligent folks can twist a narrative that doesn’t fit any set of facts because it counters an indoctrination.
Moving forward because I see an easy acquittal the police and municipal/state leaders can’t allow rioters and anarchists to take control of the streets because otherwise more of these situations will occur and it could potentially get ugly.
Rittenhouse’s likely (IMO) acquittal will have nothing whatsoever to do with “allowing rioters and anarchists to take control of the streets.” He wasn’t preventing anyone from doing anything, and his presence ultimately led to far more destruction and chaos than if he’d simply stayed home.
Right. You don’t see race, it’s us that are aware of how it affects people’s lives that are the racists!
Yeah, people might get shot if that happens!
Until today Rittenhouse is the only one I knew to be white. Today I read a linked article about the medic’s testimony and found out he was too. Without googling the other two victims I will asume they are white as well, if only because I believe that if they weren’t it would have been spelled out in big letters long before now.
As an almost 40yo white guy , Im not sure if it’s racist for me to say this but “protester armed with only a skateboard attempts to disarm lone gunman” sounds like a pretty white thing to get killed for to me. So I’m gonna assume he was as well. Is there a “proper” color to have when you die?
New to this country are you? Perhaps look into the events that led to the situation that night. There wasn’t some spontaneous inititive for people to take to the streets.
Is he really a racist or did he say something to someone who he knew would pass it along, therefore getting himself removed from state-sponsored indentured servitude jury duty. Without knowing more details about him I’m not sure he’s not crazy like a fox.
Who has ever argued that a “good guy with a gun” shouldn’t carefully assess the situation and make sure that he really is going after a bad guy before he pulls his gun? We can have this debate in the next gun control thread, but it has nothing to do with whether Rittenhouse acted in self defense. The prosecution is making the self defense case so well that one has to wonder why he was even charged.
Yeah. Is the juror anti-police because he claims that they just shoot until they run out of bullets no matter the circumstances? Or is he pro-police because he dismisses such shootings with a joke? And whether he is anti or pro police, why is that relevant to this case? I’m puzzled why the juror had to be dismissed for that. Even though the shooting happened at a BLM march, the shooter and at least one of the victims are white and there is no evidence that the politics for or against the BLM movement had anything to do with the facts at hand.