Look at this tweet capturing all the usual GOP nazi's loving it. Free for all at the next protest
Current Affairs Only in Murica - non-shootin, non Trump News
- Thread starter zandvoort blue
- Start date
- Status
Look at this tweet capturing all the usual GOP nazi's loving it. Free for all at the next protest
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
First off, that’s not how it works. Second, as the law is stupidly written, this probably does qualify as self-defense. It apparently only applies to the specific moment he was firing the weapon. It’s insane that the law doesn’t take into account the fact that he made a long series terrible and illegal decisions that put him in a situation he had to kill his way out of.
grandjoeblue
Player Valuation: £35m
Surprised he got away with that. Wouldn't be surprised if there are riots.
Tony101
Player Valuation: £15m
People trying to attack a man with an assault rifle put them in the position to be shot. He shouldn’t have been there but neither should of the rioters. Say what you want but it was self defence and he rightfully got proved not guilty. I also no that’s not how it works but I couldn’t careless about a child rapist.
Expected that outcome, and if you look at it dispassionately it's probably the right verdict.
It's a shame the QAnon/Proud Boys nutters will be celebrating it, but it's the fault of the prosecution in bringing the case and giving them the free win. It really was a weak case as there was ample evidence that he was attacked and could reasonably say he feared for his life.
The way I looked at it, if I was in his shoes, I'd have shot too. The difference, of course, is that I wouldn't have went to 'defend property' from rioters with a gun in the first instance, but America gonna America.
It's a shame the QAnon/Proud Boys nutters will be celebrating it, but it's the fault of the prosecution in bringing the case and giving them the free win. It really was a weak case as there was ample evidence that he was attacked and could reasonably say he feared for his life.
The way I looked at it, if I was in his shoes, I'd have shot too. The difference, of course, is that I wouldn't have went to 'defend property' from rioters with a gun in the first instance, but America gonna America.
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
I’m not. Given that the red hatters have just been given the all clear to kill protestors, hopefully the people who are rightfully outraged by this piece of [Poor language removed] walking free decide to exercise better judgement than him and just stay home.
DanEFC92
Player Valuation: £90m
Dunno how anyone is surprised.
Maybe the rioters could have stayed home too and not tried to kick someones head in who was armed.
Tony101
Player Valuation: £15m
Great post same as in the Liverpool bomb thread you offer a balanced view in your posts. When many on here either go to far one way or the other.
Couldn’t the second and third people Rittenhouse shot have also plausibly used the same defense if
they had instead killed him?
Overall you can understand why the verdict was reached given the laws regarding self defense and still be concerned about what will likely happened at other protests in the future.
Tony101
Player Valuation: £15m
Maybe they could have but because he was walking to the police and they tried to attack him. one with a skate board an the other who got shot but didn’t die pointed his own gun at him before he was shot. Really he shouldn’t have been there and the rioters shouldn’t have either but don’t try an attack someone with an assault rifle an expect him to not use it.
TN Toffee
Player Valuation: £25m
So just allow an active shooter to do whatever they want simply because they have a gun? Perhaps the police should have made some effort to disarm him as opposed to letting him casually stroll back towards them after killing a man.
Martin Alvito
Player Valuation: £50m
This is more or less why we had an assault weapons ban in the first place. As others have pointed out, context is such that if someone opens fire with such a weapon in a crowd, it looks like the beginning of a mass shooting. I fail to see how it's dissimilar from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, at the end of the day. There will be a panic.
I understand that this is not how the law is written, but it seems to me that the law is currently written in a way that represents a clear threat to public order and safety.
I understand that this is not how the law is written, but it seems to me that the law is currently written in a way that represents a clear threat to public order and safety.
- Status