@wildgrass saidI'll agree he didn't do the smart thing by being there in the first place. But once there, I can't see what other choice he had but to do what he did (assuming he wanted to live).
Sure, all those things are true, but he wasn't a criminal. One of the lessons here is that if you have a team of highly paid defense lawyers, it's really hard to prove that a shooting was not self defense. I suppose others could follow in his footsteps, but why would they want to?
While he did not commit a crime, his actions were deplorable. I'm annoyed that the conserva ...[text shortened]... y weapon. Let's not pretend he did the right thing just because we didn't like the people he killed.
@sh76 saidShould he have fired a lethal shot in Rosenbaum's back when the latter was falling to the ground? Was that a reasonable "choice" on his part?
I'll agree he didn't do the smart thing by being there in the first place. But once there, I can't see what other choice he had but to do what he did (assuming he wanted to live).
@no1marauder saidyou have never been in a life or death situation…things happen quick. All your whining is not going to change what the jury ruled.
Should he have fired a lethal shot in Rosenbaum's back when the latter was falling to the ground? Was that a reasonable "choice" on his part?
@mott-the-hoople saidYou don't know what situations I have been in.
you have never been in a life or death situation…things happen quick. All your whining is not going to change what the jury ruled.
I'm not asking the jury; I'm asking sh76. I do note I've raised this point before and not a single poster here has responded to it.
@sh76 saidThe right wing glee over the verdict cannot be based on simply the merits of the case; there are thousands of cases every year in the US where self-defense claims are upheld and you don't see right wingers make a peep about it.
FWIW, I agree with Richards.
People like Matt Gaetz should STFU and stop doing touchdown dances after the resolution to a tragic story.
No, what they are happy about is that they think the verdict gives them carte blanche to wield guns to threaten and even kill people protesting for leftist causes. It seems obvious that a growing portion of the right wing fringe is becoming ever more accepting of violence at the same time it rejects democratic principles. They want power no matter what the bulk of the People desire and are perfectly willing to kill to gain and maintain it.
@no1marauder saidI responded, you dont have any experience with what you are talking about.
You don't know what situations I have been in.
I'm not asking the jury; I'm asking sh76. I do note I've raised this point before and not a single poster here has responded to it.
You should stop your whining, a jury answered.
@no1marauder saidAll 4 shots combined took less than one second (0.76 seconds, IIRC).
Should he have fired a lethal shot in Rosenbaum's back when the latter was falling to the ground? Was that a reasonable "choice" on his part?
I really don't think he had time to consider whether Rosenbaum was lunging or falling at that millisecond. Rosenbaum chased him, caught him and lunged for the gun. The video shows all of that. Rittenhouse got off 4 quick shots and if the last one was when Rosenbaum was already falling, that doesn't make it any less reasonable.
Edit: A key factor is also that Rittenhouse heard a gun fire from a few feet behind him. The video showed the shot was into the air, but he didn't know that at the time. He had to assume the shot might have been at him. He also might have suspected that the person chasing him shot it. That he saw Rosenbaum holding only a bag earlier (as Binger made a big deal about) doesn't mean he know that Rosenbaum was unarmed at the time.
@no1marauder saidAnd you don't think at least part of that is because the "people protesting for leftist causes" destroyed property and generally wreaked havoc all summer last year with impunity?
The right wing glee over the verdict cannot be based on simply the merits of the case; there are thousands of cases every year in the US where self-defense claims are upheld and you don't see right wingers make a peep about it.
No, what they are happy about is that they think the verdict gives them carte blanche to wield guns to threaten and even kill people protesting ...[text shortened]... matter what the bulk of the People desire and are perfectly willing to kill to gain and maintain it.
@no1marauder saidhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/riot-rittenhouse-protest-portland-kenosha-peaceful.html
The right wing glee over the verdict cannot be based on simply the merits of the case; there are thousands of cases every year in the US where self-defense claims are upheld and you don't see right wingers make a peep about it.
No, what they are happy about is that they think the verdict gives them carte blanche to wield guns to threaten and even kill people protesting ...[text shortened]... matter what the bulk of the People desire and are perfectly willing to kill to gain and maintain it.
"In Portland, however, police declared a riot as protests turned violent amid reports that demonstrators had smashed windows of cars and stores. Police said protesters threw objects at officers and attempted to breach the Justice Center building as they talked of burning it down."
I'm not saying the rioters should be shot, but it seems pretty clear that the hooligans who are smashing cars and stores will never be prosecuted for it. I can see people being frustrated with the lack of law and order in these cases.
@sh76 saidSo you favor vigilante "justice" now?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/riot-rittenhouse-protest-portland-kenosha-peaceful.html
"In Portland, however, police declared a riot as protests turned violent amid reports that demonstrators had smashed windows of cars and stores. Police said protesters threw objects at officers and attempted to breach the Justice Center building as they talked of burning it dow ...[text shortened]... prosecuted for it. I can see people being frustrated with the lack of law and order in these cases.
@sh76 saidYou and other right wingers have vastly exaggerated the damage done for propaganda purposes. That you and others think killing protestors is an acceptable response to what happened last summer is an unsurprising extension of your ideology.
And you don't think at least part of that is because the "people protesting for leftist causes" destroyed property and generally wreaked havoc all summer last year with impunity?
@sh76 saidIMO the jury was extremely lenient or didn't understand the legal principles involved to justify a kill shot in the back as "self defense." You have miserably failed to offer an actual justification for it either.
All 4 shots combined took less than one second (0.76 seconds, IIRC).
I really don't think he had time to consider whether Rosenbaum was lunging or falling at that millisecond. Rosenbaum chased him, caught him and lunged for the gun. The video shows all of that. Rittenhouse got off 4 quick shots and if the last one was when Rosenbaum was already falling, that doesn't make it a ...[text shortened]... rlier (as Binger made a big deal about) doesn't mean he know that Rosenbaum was unarmed at the time.
@mott-the-hoople saidI woulda successfully taken that gun from him, beaten him down with it and then held it on him until the police could cart his whiny ass off to jail.
would have throwed a hissy fit ehhh?
liberal idiot
conservative retard
@sleepyguy saidThanks for that synopsis of the bulls--- defense fairy tale.
Cops were called because domestic abuser Jacob Blake was doing what domestic abusers do. Cops show up and he fights with cops and gets shot by cops as he tries to climb into a vehicle full of kids with a knife. The cops are white and Jacob Blake isn't so, you know, several nights of rioting, looting, and burning ensue and the cops and other leaders in the city, cowed by the ...[text shortened]... on, but luckily the jurors believed their own eyes instead of the lies of the media and prosecutors.
@dood111 saidThey were trying to stop him from killing again.
No that is not right. I'd explain, but you need to look it up yourself since you are basing your opinion on absolute ignorance.
I will get you started though: He did NOT shoot them "for shouting at him". They were trying to kill him.