***REDDIT MELTDOWN WATCH*** RITTENHOUSE NOT GUILTY OF ALL CHARGES

submitted by Tarrock from self.MeanwhileOnReddit

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tophat123 7 insightful - 4 fun7 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

Actually, that image is accurate. That firearm saved the only life that mattered and ended the lives of commies which arent people.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

😂

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

reported for promoting murder

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

It doesn't seem like promoting so much as commentary about the incident, and of course that wasn't ruled murder. It's hard to want those guys Rittenhouse shot to have lived, they were bad hombres.

I saw a relevant comment on twitter: If you are in shock over the verdict, get better news sources.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The bigger question is: if you don't want a law against reckless endangerment that leads to homicide, do you really want armed teenagers walking around shooting anyone who gets close to them? Perhaps this law?: reckless endangerment that leads to homicide is legal IF you kill people who aren't likable.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

do you really want armed teenagers walking around shooting anyone who gets close to them?

What's this got to do with the Rittenhouse case?

The dead guy literally told the kid he'd kill him if he saw him on his own.

It wasn't anything like just getting closer to him. There was a legitimate threat.

Again with the fantasy scenarios.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So - an unarmed, obviously crazy person tells you that he'd kill you if he saw you on your own - and this justifies putting 4 bullets in him immediately? If you want people to shoot at you because you've said something threatening, then - by all means - appeal to lawyers to change the law, clarifying that anyone who annoys a person with a gun should be shot.

[–]Noam_Chomsky 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

reckless endangerment that leads to homicide is legal IF you kill people who aren't likable the key witness admits during cross examination that the defendant was acting in self defense.

FTFY

It's natural law.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You know that this is cherry picking

[–]Noam_Chomsky 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

You know that this is cherry picking

It is apparent to anyone who reads your comments that you are willfully misinformed.

The prosecuting attorney literally facepalmed himself after his witness told the court it was self defense.

He admitted it was self defense. It's in the public record.

Subjectively omitting the relevant factual info is cherry picking.

Hypocrites are embarrassed to be associated with you.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you have to resort to personal attacks? What a weakling.

Cherry picking: you selected one example that does not itself fit an argument regarding the other two victims.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

The jurors were not allowed to know the attacker's criminal records, it wasn't a factor in the trial, just a comforting note for all us viewers at home.

if you don't want a law against reckless endangerment that leads to homicide

You must be talking about something else, because this was ruled self-defense.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It's an acquittal (the jury didn't say it's self-defense; they ruled that the prosecutors did not provide sufficient proof for a guilty verdict).

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

He was found innocent of homicide and reckless endangerment. It wasn't accidental. That leaves self-defense.

I understand people not liking the laws, but I think it was really obvious Rittenhouse shouldn't have been charged in the first place, and after he was, that there was only one correct conclusion, which the jury reached.

More importantly than Rittenhouse though, one side of the media acted poorly. The liberal outrage was manufactured. They led people like you down a bad path for their own agenda and gain. That's abhorrent.