this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
1131 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
6836 readers
494 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you admit he was fighting for his life?
What a ridiculous thing to say. They didn't insinuate that in any way.
The other gun would disagree with the validity of that.
Why did he cross state lines with a weapon after threatening violence?
Because it's not against the law and had shit that he was doing there. You act like state borders are like national borders.
And what “shit” was he doing there?
Cleaning graffiti if I recall correctly. Cleaning up in general in a dangerous area subject to some riots.
It’s astonishing to me that you are simultaneously capable of forming full sentences and not seeing how useless and dumb that sentence sounds.
And yet it wasn't illegal. If it was he would have been found guilty. I said nothing of the intelligence of his plans, just what I remember of the facts. I remember he wasn't doing anything wrong, but was targeted by some shitstains who chased after an armed guy. That was ultimately the stupidest decision on the day. One of the shitstains was a felon with a gun, and the dead one was a sex offender. If I got some of the details wrong it's because I don't care enough to look it up because it's a decided case.
Sounds a lot like FAFO to me.
Do you not remember the very iconic picture of him in his blue gloves? At the very least he did have something. Usually when somebody is running from attackers they don't pick up the bucket of supplies they were using before running away.
You recall very incorrectly and should probably look up what really happened before you so confidently make incorrect statements. Ask yourself why he had zero cleaning equipment and instead only brought a loaded rifle.
Alright. Go ahead. Bring your evidence, because I saw the pictures and video.
17 year old in possession of a firearm. Misdemeanor. There. One simple charge and you are wrong. You clearly aren't interested in truth, just your opinion on it. Have a good one.
17 year olds are typically only restricted from handguns. Go ahead and point to the law that says he wasn't allowed to possess a long gun at that time. Maybe you should have been on the prosecution if you're so good.
Here's the picture everybody saw of him cleaning before the shooting. Obviously you have no memories of the actual situation.
The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn't mean you're not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.
Don't fuck around if you don't want to find out.
Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, "putting yourself" into a situation doesn't change that. If that were true, we'd be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that's absolutely not the case, it's not my fault if a car hits me while I'm legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I'm holding a firearm.
That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.
HEY everyone, this guy ^^ was THERE THAT NIGHT! We should all RELY TO him with our detailed questions about the events that unfolded since he clearly knows and has witnessed the events and is therefore an unimpeachable source of objective truth on this subject!
Why weren't you in the trial, out of curiosity? I'd have thought they'd be after your testimony, you know, since you know all this stuff and are really smart. Just wondering...
Dude. He was found not guilty. If there was evidence of him being there for no reason other than to kill somebody then I'm sure he would have been convicted. I remember fairly well that he retreated but got attacked by a guy trying to hit him in the head with a skateboard (weapon) and shooting the arm of a felon brandishing a handgun at him.
I'm sure Kyle is glad you're out here white-knighting for him.
Whatever you say bro.
https://heavy.com/news/gaige-grosskreutz/
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057422329/why-legal-experts-were-not-surprised-by-the-rittenhouse-jurys-decision-to-acquit
I didn't remember it perfectly, but certainly a lot that is ignored by those who hate Rittenhouse. I was mistaken when I said the guy with the handgun is a felon. He WAS a felon and seems like an all around piece of shit, but his felony was expunged so he was legally allowed to possess a firearm. He did have a loaded handgun in his hand when approaching Kyle though.