1. Remember, it's not self-defense if you were the one who brought an illegal weapon across state lines with the sole purpose of looking for a fight.

  2. Rittenhouse didnt break any laws though, there was a whole trial about it, remember? The best the prosecution could muster was to attack the character of witnesses. In fact it was some of the most embarrassingly bad prosecution I've ever seen, it was historically bad. Because they had nothing.

  3. This is stupid. As a white guy who has seen the inside of a jail cell, I can assure you they most certainly do apply.

  4. Rittenhouse by his own admission went to protect property. He thought that property was more important than the lives of people, so he went armed to murder. He went to hunt people who were protesting injustice. If he was just going as a show of force then he didn't need real bullets. But he did go with bullets, and he did kill people instead of the correct action which was to sit at home and do nothing.

  5. Rittenhouse was only chased because he had already killed someone and they thought (correctly) that he'd do it again

  6. I'd give you apple seeds and apples, and I think that is the point, that maybe Rittenhouse wasn't as bad as new Rittenhouse (sorry, don't care enough to look up the USA's newest accused murderer), but the fact that there were no consequences for Rittenhouse actions (and we can agree to disagree on if Rittenhouse did anything wrong), emboldened New Rittenhouse and crazies like him.

  7. If you think the two events in question are in any way similar, you are too propagandized to be able to have reasonable, reality-based opinions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin