If you got your info about this trial from CNN or MSNBC, I can understand why you are perplexed or enraged over the result. I watched some of their coverage, and it was non-stop disinformation. Shockingly so.
This is the narrative they were essentially spewing right until the end:
“A white supremicist militia member crosses state lines with an illegal gun to go to a civil rights protest he has no other interest in other than to raise trouble. He goes there, confronts people, then when one of them reacts he raises his gun and shoots him dead. Then when concerned citizens see this they attempt to chase him down and neutralize the threat to others. The kid then turns and shoots two unarmed men and a third who had a gun out but only for the purpose of trying to get Rittenhouse to surrender.”
I heard one reporter describe Kyle running away from Rosenbaum as him ‘luring’ Rosembaum between the cars so he could kill him. Joe Scarborough said that Rittenhouse fired over sixty shots. Joy Ried claimed that Rittenhouse crying on the stand was an example ‘white tears’, just like Kavanaugh, and this is a tactic white men get away with. CBS described Rittenhouse as someone who 'Murdered two people" before the trial even started.
That’s an unhinged take on what happened, but I found that essential story being told over and over again. It appears to be similar to the story some people here seem to believe.
In an open carry state confronting an armed person on the public streets simply because they are armed, is not acceptable or appropriate behavior. Full stop.
How so? What governmental agency will be sued and settle? KR wasn’t working for the government. They can’t sue the court because he was found not guilty. KR may be sued but that’s about it.
The lawsuits have already begun. The floodgates are open since the criminal case ended.
The Rittenhouse family will probably sue the media. Similar to the case of the teen that was confronted by protestors during a high school field trip in Washington. He got settlements from several papers.
And that is not relevant in the slightest to what I actually said. My entire point is that he was not confronted simply because he was armed. If he were, then all the other hundreds of people who were armed would have also been confronted, which they were not.
Which indicates that he was not confronted simply because he was armed, but rather, because of his behavior while being armed that people found threatening.
Yes, and while we work to reform the police, as uphill and possibly fruitless battle that may be, what we don’t need is for people to start finding ways of mimicking this cowardly and deadly behavior.
The evidence for your conclusions is weak and your conclusion is thus weak as well. You’re basically postulating “since someone attacked him, but not everyone was attacked, it means he must have done something.” That is not, in fact, what it must mean. But nice try!
The Blake lawsuit is tangential but not directly related to Rittenhouse. The other one if the wording is anything like what you put in your post should be dismissed at the first hearing.
That’s not how I was intending to use the term, I was saying there is no “evidence proving Rittenhouse threatened people”, sorry for the lack of clarity.