***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 →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Why the personal attack, Jet? You don't have a reasonable argument?

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

It's literally just a fair description.

No need to take it personally.

You need to have an argument why Rittenhouse broke the law.

Not just "my weebo mates are crying, circle jerking and coming up with mad fantasy scenarios which are completely unfalsifyable rather than addressing the actual facts of the case because admitting they might be wrong or have been lied to hurts their feelz too much."

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

You need to have an argument why Rittenhouse broke the law.

And you need to have an argument regarding his supposedly legal actions. I replied to your 2nd Amendment comment a moment ago. Here below is a law he broke, which I copy from one of my other responses:

You cannot accuse someone of breaking a law if there is no evidence that the person broke the law. And you cannot hold a trial without sufficient evidence that a law was broken. Let's pick "reckless endangerment" and the multiple shots that killed Rosenbaum (one of which in the back). One can shoot in if one's life is in danger, but - after - Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum in the hand, did he have to keep shooting Rosenbaum? There are of course laws against reckless endangerment that result in homicide. Rittenhouse broke at least one of them. If the prosecution could not effectively clarify the way in which that law was broken, and if the jury was not convinced of the arguments (as they weren't), then Rittenhouse had to walk, even if he technically broke that law.

[–]jet199 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

In think your mistake is that you are assuming Rittenhouse was there for a fight.

He wasn't.

He was there to put out fires and give first aid and the gun was just for self defence.

Before he was attacked he put out a dumpster on fire which was being rolled towards a petrol station.

That's why he was there.

I think it was completely fair for him to assume that if he was in a situation with people who try to blow up petrol stations his life would be threatened at some point and being openly armed would stop that.

Unfortunately he didn't count on a paedo with a death wish being there.

Often attackers don't stop once shot. A shot to the hand doesn't mean a man who told you he would kill you it's going to stop trying to kill you. You are making these assumptions that simply don't play out in real life.

And you still haven't given your argument why he was guilty of anything.

You just try to muddy the waters.