I for one do not believe he shot them people out of self defence and never meant to kill them. I think he intended to kill them and thought he would get away with it. The Judge as well is a joke. What a very strange trial. Only in America.
I don’t think ambulances were entering the riot zone, hence Rittenhouse etc administering first aid to people.
So for the same reasons I take it you would have no qualms abut people being executed in Islamic countries for crimes such as homosexuality because it is not out of the ordinary?
Yeah do I need to go to Fox news to get the real insight?
💩
💩💩
He was 17 and legally a minor at the time of the crime. Ergo he was a child.
So he was pictured happily posing with racists though right?
This wasn’t a mass shooting. This wasn’t a mass shooting. This wasn’t a mass shooting. This wasn’t a mass shooting. This wasn’t a mass shooting.
Maybe one of those will get through?
I think Rittenhouse had good intentions but he was very naive. He put himself in a dangerous situation while trying to do some good. And he was doing good prior to the shootings, that's pretty much without question. He was earlier that day filmed cleaning graffiti, he was filmed putting out a fire with a fire extinguisher etc. He apparently provided first aid to someone but I don't have proof of that.
Yes, he was armed but that has yet to be proven a crime. This lawyer appears to be very confident that Rittenhouse wasn't breaking the law by being armed at the time of the shootings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adFTYHHrTIQ
Regarding ambulances staying away from the riot zone; pretty much anyone with any sense would stay away from the riot zone.
I was pictured with Charlie Haughey and Bertie Aherne years ago. Does that mean I'm in favour of shennanigans and dodgy politics?
Where you at the time in court or under investigation for financial irregularities?
I obviously missed the trial where Rittenhouse is charged with being a proud boy.
So your morality only extends as far as if it legal or not under the country it happened laws. If its legal in that country it is ok?
Nope. But what difference does that make? Getting a photo taken with a roasted boll1x doesn't necessarily make you a roasted boll1x or mean that you support their ideals.
I'd love a photo with Kim Jung Un for the novelty factor, but that doesn't mean I support any of his ideals.
Why would he be charged in the USA with membership of a racist but non proscribed organisation. Under what Yankee law would he be charged?
Likewise if you were a member of the KKK in the USA that would not be an illegal act. Now if Rittenhouse tried to go to Canada where the Racist Proud boys are a prescribed organisation and considered a terrorist entity he might be charged with membership. But not in the good old usa where joining a racist club is a ok.
Would you get your picture taken smiling with known racists?
There's technically no actual meaning of a mass shooting ,some say it's killing at least 4 or 3 people , others it's shooting more than one person .
Morally he was right, the trial is about the legality of it.
Solidarity is not immoral.
Morally he was right to take a gun to a riot?
Indeed. What was phase two of the 'insurrection' going to be? Were a list of demands going to be circulated? A new republic declared?
It scares me that there are people who actually think that deciding to grab an assault rifle and travel 20 miles to the site of a protest against another unlawful killing, so you can gun down and murder some protesters if they react aggressively to your intimidation is the morally right thing to do.
It scare me to think they there are people who actually think that looting, burning and destroying local businesses is “protesting”.
Erm, their demands were extremely clear, they wanted to overturn the democratic result of the election that had just occurred.
I'll extend your question to the rioters. For example, the people Rittenhouse shot in self-defence. Should they have brought guns to a "peaceful protest"?
Wasnt one of them carrying illegally also?
Its one rule for the "peaceful protesters" and another for everyone else then is it?
It scars me that people still think he crossed the state lines with the gun
No, I wouldn't totally agree that if a law in a country permits something that it's fine to do it. For example, some countries in Africa have no laws against female genital cutting and I think that's an abhorrent practice.
While carrying a gun in public seems abhorrent to many Irish people, I'm not as against that as most. We aren't allowed guns for self-defence here in Ireland (some exceptions but generally not allowed) but you are in the US. I'm ok with that law to be perfectly honest. So, given what I've said above, I don't see it being moral or immoral to be carrying a gun for self-defence.
I don't think morality comes into it when someone is chasing you and attempting to kill you and you react in self-defence, which is what it appears Rittenhouse did. He retreated from each of the encounters that led to a shooting and he only shot those who were actively attacking him.
In my book he's guilty of being naive and foolish, but that's about it.
There was no "unlawful" killing. It was completely within the confines of legality.
"The U.S. Department of Justice launched its own investigation days after the shooting. The agency announced Friday that a team of prosecutors from its Civil Rights Division and the U.S. attorney's office in Milwaukee reviewed police reports, witness statements, dispatch logs and videos of the incident, and determined there wasn't enough evidence to prove Sheskey used excessive force or violated Blake's federal rights.
"Accordingly, the review of this incident has been closed without a federal prosecution," the Justice Department said in a news release."
It's honestly sad how many posters here have to rely on an arsenal of misinformation. I get it though, if you took the truth as it is, you wouldn't have a point, so you're forced to rely on lies.
No its not. What a stupid idea.
Where have I ever said anyone else bringing guns was right?
All those idiots who brought guns are culpable for the violence that ensued. But you will note this thread is about Joshua the kid with the assault rifle.
Put your American politics sides aside guns are the **** problem here. With no guns no one gets shot here and Joshua brought his rifle and shot 3 people, so he deservers the blame for his part in those shootings.
If he's completely cleared on all charges it would then say to anyone who decides to bring weapons to counter a demonstration or try to prevent damage to private businesses ,we will see in an increase in these types of shootings involving wannabes seals , using the excuse of I felt threatened an citing this case as the excuse to act as a defence
Why didn't the Plebs let those passionate rich white kids burn down their businesses and destroy their livelihoods, you mean?
Look, there is a real class divide in this, the businesses, the rich kids and the hoods were burning largely employ working class people, in most cases that Summer the businesses destroyed by that movement were black owned and employing, they don't care because they just can't understand, it's a world far removed from the protestors experiences.
He stood up when the community needed him and put his life on the line.
The usual aloof and cold response to that is that the insurance will cover it.
The righteous middle class used to become Jesuits, now they describe themselves as activists. The mindset never changes.
No one gets shot here? Where is here?
https://www.thesun.ie/news/7898080/man-charged-thomas-mccarthy-shooting-ballyfermot-dublin-courts/
I mean this is the whole reason for the protest - the fact that you've decided that shooting someone in the back multiple times to kill them is fine because they investigated themselves and decided it was ok, rather than looking at the actual facts of what happened.
Shooting someone in the back to kill them is fine. Travelling somewhere with an assault rifle looking for a fight then shooting at four people who try to disarm you and killing two of them is fine.
Protesting against this sort of thing is terrible though and you basically deserve to be gunned down on the street by an unhinged individual like Rittenhouse if you do.
"known racists" is totally subjective and hard to quantify.
I'd get my picture taken with Jeremy Clarkson but not with Richard Spencer. Are those two just the same?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/20f4606d019ca0b240328ff30d91e82b.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c9236bc67b608c3603b1ed089c896282.svg)