The court was wrong. Anyone not blinded by ideology can see Rittenhouse crossed state lines to go cause trouble with a gun. His fig leaf of a cover blew apart and conservatives pretended it still applied.
Furthermore despite conservative judges protecting attackers this must be a tenet of self defense, otherwise there is no longer any way to convict someone of murder, except the arbitrary denial of self defense as an argument to defendants.
Nothing that happened after he grabbed a gun and went to the protest matters. If he hadn’t gone there with the intent of using his gun none of this would have happened. He is the instigating force and cannot claim self defense.
And yet, look what happened in court, because he actually did nothing of the sort. Do you not understand anything about how the laws work or what happened there? (Don’t answer, that was rhetorical. “Rhetorical” means a question for conversational effect, not an actual request for an answer. The previous sentence contains condescension, and I’m just going to assume you need an definition for that also, as you seem to have no idea of what goes on at all.)
They literally got caught lying in court. They were there to protect a store, no they were there to render aid, no they were there to counter protest, no they were there to protect the cops.
He got the same jury nullification as other white men killing black men get.
Court entirely disagreed with your scenario, even the survivor admitted he was attacking.
The court was wrong. Anyone not blinded by ideology can see Rittenhouse crossed state lines to go cause trouble with a gun. His fig leaf of a cover blew apart and conservatives pretended it still applied.
Furthermore despite conservative judges protecting attackers this must be a tenet of self defense, otherwise there is no longer any way to convict someone of murder, except the arbitrary denial of self defense as an argument to defendants.
Was the survivor also lying, you propaganda pushing piece of shit?
Nothing that happened after he grabbed a gun and went to the protest matters. If he hadn’t gone there with the intent of using his gun none of this would have happened. He is the instigating force and cannot claim self defense.
And yet, look what happened in court, because he actually did nothing of the sort. Do you not understand anything about how the laws work or what happened there? (Don’t answer, that was rhetorical. “Rhetorical” means a question for conversational effect, not an actual request for an answer. The previous sentence contains condescension, and I’m just going to assume you need an definition for that also, as you seem to have no idea of what goes on at all.)
They literally got caught lying in court. They were there to protect a store, no they were there to render aid, no they were there to counter protest, no they were there to protect the cops.
He got the same jury nullification as other white men killing black men get.
lol. ok. time to take your meds.
Oh great now basic ethics are a mental illness. Great take.
(for the delusions)