"Those who emphasize the role of self-defense in Rittenhouse's three shooting ..."
But this is the only element relevant to Rittenhouse's self-defence case. So of course it's emphasised. All the other stuff, the pictures with the Proud Boys, the "back the Blue" posts on Instagram, even the video of him saying he wsh he had his gun, none o…
"Those who emphasize the role of self-defense in Rittenhouse's three shooting ..."
But this is the only element relevant to Rittenhouse's self-defence case. So of course it's emphasised. All the other stuff, the pictures with the Proud Boys, the "back the Blue" posts on Instagram, even the video of him saying he wsh he had his gun, none of it is relevant to whether he should have been convicted of murder in this case.
When you say he's not innocent, what is the crime you're saying he's not innocent of? His crime can't be that you or I think he's stupid.
If you ran into an LGBT crowd with a rifle, they'd almost certainly be able to argue that they feared for their safety. And so the question of who was acting in self defence would be a lot less clear. But this is nothing like what happened with Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was away from the main body of the protests, and he wasn't, from anything we've seen, behaving in a threatening manner at all.
But Rosenbaum, who set the whole sequence of events in motion, was absolutely behaving in a threatening manner. Both before he saw Rittenhouse, and afterwards, where he chased after him, threw his bag at him and tackled him to the ground. If you do that to a man carrying a rifle, one who, let's bear in mind, hadn't done anything wrong at that point, why are we pretending it's shocking that he was shot?
"Those who emphasize the role of self-defense in Rittenhouse's three shooting ..."
But this is the only element relevant to Rittenhouse's self-defence case. So of course it's emphasised. All the other stuff, the pictures with the Proud Boys, the "back the Blue" posts on Instagram, even the video of him saying he wsh he had his gun, none of it is relevant to whether he should have been convicted of murder in this case.
When you say he's not innocent, what is the crime you're saying he's not innocent of? His crime can't be that you or I think he's stupid.
If you ran into an LGBT crowd with a rifle, they'd almost certainly be able to argue that they feared for their safety. And so the question of who was acting in self defence would be a lot less clear. But this is nothing like what happened with Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse was away from the main body of the protests, and he wasn't, from anything we've seen, behaving in a threatening manner at all.
But Rosenbaum, who set the whole sequence of events in motion, was absolutely behaving in a threatening manner. Both before he saw Rittenhouse, and afterwards, where he chased after him, threw his bag at him and tackled him to the ground. If you do that to a man carrying a rifle, one who, let's bear in mind, hadn't done anything wrong at that point, why are we pretending it's shocking that he was shot?