https://twitter.com/thevivafrei/status/1457774701673996298?t=oPH9QjWrujDBIcyNLtcEyA&s=19
They didn't really have much to work with.
Rittenhouse went to a protest with a gun, which undoubtedly provoked people, but that's legal in America.
He didn't shoot anyone who wasn't on video attempting to use lethal force against him, wasn't caught on camera brandishing his gun at anyone, and thanks to Wisconsin's lack of laws regarding underaged firearm possession, I'm starting to worry they might not even get him on the straw purchase.
Legally, the wannabe cop bootlicker fascist is likely in the clear here. What else should the prosecutors have done? Their star witness admitted he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse when he was shot. That's self defense.
So convicted on murdering two people and self-defense on one? Could they have gone with that narrative
At most manslaughter, since bringing a gun to a protest would probably not be considered enough to support premeditation, but I wouldnt be sure of that even being a strong case.
Maybe 1 count of manslaughter, by the second shooting any competent defense would most likely successfully argue that Rittenhouse was in sufficient fear of his life that self defense would apply.
Prosecutors don't really get to where they are by being very dumb, so that just leaves the other option.
I believe it less intentional and more of the prosecutors just not caring.
Grosskreutz is attempting to sue the city for $10m. That's going to be really hard now, after confessing to a whole bunch of crimes on the stand.
Even if the prosecution has a good case, they would have plenty of material reasons to fuck this up.
In a dark coincidence, the NRA's "Eddie Eagle" program for kids would have stopped this tragedy.
It would have stopped Alec Baldwin from killing someone too.
The problem with legally trying to argue this way is that even if you manage to successfully argue that the victims were not doing a criminal thing by pursuing/subduing Rittenhouse, that just means that your victims arent legally in trouble.
Even if the people who Rittenhouse shot and killed did nothing wrong because they thought he was an active shooter, because he was retreating in the process he's probably entirely covered by self defense laws, plus the dipshit who fired a warning shot right before the first killing and the fact that people were trying to physically subdue him before the second killing.
Basically the victim could have reasonably pointed a gun at Rittenhouse at the same time Rittenhouse "reasonably(legally speaking)" shot the victim in "self defense".
Apparently the first victim had made multiple threats towards Rittenhouse before the actual confrontation so that might make that strategy more challenging, but Id agree that it definitely feels like the prosecution could do more. Ive seen a lot of people say the whole thing just has the vibe of "if we dont attempt to prosecute this there will be more riots"(understandably), and that in any normal case this wouldnt have been prosecuted.
Being leftists doesn't mean we have to ignore facts when they are inconvenient for us.
Patting him on the back? He's a piece of shit who is only going to become a bigger, more dangerous piece of shit when he gets out of this.
I just don't think the prosecution has a lot they can get him on. The laws at play here were written to protect shitheads like this.
I suppose anything other than "I wish that fascist would have died that night." would be taken as fascist apologia though.
Is the misgendering an intentional thing? I thought we didn't do that here.
To be honest I don't disagree with her. It's important for leftists to look at things objectively, both because it improves our analysis and because being seen as dishonest makes it very hard to promote leftism. No one is disputing that Rittenhouse was a shithead who was looking for an opportunity to legally shoot someone. But the guys who attacked him gave him that opportunity. The mistakes they made have to be understood unless we want to give other fascists the opportunity to gun down our comrades with no consequences. We are not equals in the eyes of the law. Fascists are given preferential treatment. Therefore leftists must act with a much higher degree of planning and discipline. Why was no one filming the altercation that led to the initial shooting? Why was the response to chase the shooter with blunt weapons? That gave him the legal right to shoot more people and made it impossible for anyone to open fire without risking hitting a comrade. The whole thing went about as badly as it could go. We have to be better prepared for the future shootings that will undoubtedly occur once Rittenhouse walks free and demonstrates that the state will defend this.
As did everyone he shot, at least one of which was also illegally carrying a gun.
The fascist lucked out here - self defense laws don't have a "you shouldn't have been there" clause.
But we don't care about the law. The law is unjust and is dealt unjustly. The reason you're getting pushback is that we're aware the defense can come up with some perfectly legal reason why he's in the clear. But it shouldn't be that way no matter how much it is that way. The people attacking Kyle were just and he should have been harmed. He should be harmed before he's free to go do it again. It's fun and cool and good to beat the shit out of people like Kyle. Because it's obvious he went looking for trouble. The only real problem was that the people attacking him weren't properly armed nor did they go far enough. If that had happened, they'd be unjustly arrested and unjustly tried with yet another perfectly fine US legal argument. I'd be mad about that too.
But that was after he murdered a guy! It was literally after he murdered a guy! This can't possibly matter
I mean, just looking at the evidence there seems to be an extremely weak case to convict him for murder, at most manslaughter and even that seems like it would be a miracle to get him for.
He might be a fucking right wing psycho but videos and evidence just dont really strongly support him being there to kill people, theres stuff of him talking about being there to help, him apparently offering aid etc. And then with the shootings he's retreating during the whole time, some dipshit jackass fired a "warning shot" immediately before the first shooting, the second shooting people are trying to hit him, third shooting the victim had a gun. It all helps back up his case of self defense, if they get him for anything it wont be the direct shootings I imagine.
Just like Zimmerman before him, he's gonna get off on this bullshit but that doesn't change the fact that the motherfucker armed himself and put himself in a situation where he would feel justified shooting someone. Rittenhouse is a murderer, and the fact that our law seemingly has exceptions carved into it for acts like this demonstrates that our laws were written by and for white supremacists and capitalists to """"defend"""" themselves against minorities and the poor.
Fully agreed. This is the scenario this asshole was hoping for when he strapped up and headed to a BLM protest in defense of fascists. He killed with intent
Ok? Do that then.
Im just looking at this shit from a legal perspective to explain why the case against him is so weak, perfectly fine if you wanna sit and think a lot about how he's a nazi and deserves to die but dont fucking randomly start yelling at me, dickhead.
Someone asked why it mattered and I explained why it mattered in a legal sense, jesus christ fuck off dont reply to me again shithead.
Laws are supposed to be neutral. If a leftist did an analogous thing because they heard proud boys were going to be invading a city, got chased and shot some of them, would you think they should be charged with murder?
I've seen a lot of Reddit tier comments dismissing everyone they don't like as a wrecker on here. I feel this sites best days are behind it.
If they get him for anything its probably that, but the actual shooting shit he's most likely in the clear for.
