3 weeks, 3 days ago
—
3 weeks, 4 days ago16 of 16
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
He drove like 30 mins to a community he frequented you mean?
And the only people he shot were people who directly threatened him.
Yea. He crossed state lines to go provoke violence. That’s what I said
When did he provoke violence?
Pointing guns at people isn’t usually a friendly affair
Did he do that before or after he was threatened and chased?
Before
And after I suppose
Ah man, you should really familiarize yourself with the situation if you want to talk about it. Otherwise you'll continue to just look stupid.
Look who’s talking
If you followed the case at all, you would know:
1) At no point did he antagonize, provoke, or threaten anyone.
2) Each of the people he shot were people he had already tried to disengage with and they kept chasing him after he was backing off or running away.
You seriously don't know any of this?
So you didn't watch the video the prosecution presented as it's own evidence where Rosenbaum chased him as Rittenhouse retreated and then Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's rifle?
"Tried to grab is gun" is a massive stretch. Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse ran but then stopped despite the fact he could keep going (There was easily enough space between the parked cars in front of him and a large group not far from that). After he stops, Rittenhouse turns around and shoots Rosenbaum while Rosenbaum is still multiple feet away, we'll outside of "Grabbing gun range". As the Medical Examiner points out, one of the shots hits Rosenbaum in the hip/groin area. When the Prosecution asked whether if this would cause him to fall forward, the Medical Examiner said yes. The implication of this being that the claims of Rosenbaum "lunging" could very well be Rosenbaum "falling" as he's being shot.
This also doesnt change the fact that Rosenbaum was completely unarmed, and Rittenhouse had a gun that was strapped over his shoulder. In order to get the gun Rosenbaum would have had to manage to wrestle the gun away, unstrap it from his shoulder AND make the decision to shoot Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse has no way of knowing if any of these things will happen. The Prosecution's argument boils down to "You cant bring a gun somewhere, help incite violence (Rittenhouse is on camera casually pointing his gun at people while walking down the street well before Rosenbaum chases him), be the only one armed and then kill someone because they might take the gun YOU BROUGHT." It becomes this weird circular logic of, "I'm armed and you're not but if a fight breaks out I'm justified shooting you because you could take my own gun to become armed".
Not enough for "beyond a reasonable doubt"
It's actually the straight forward logic of "if you know I'm visibly armed and you start a fight, I must assume you are playing for keeps".
I encourage you to look up the discussion of the case on legal subs where practicing lawyers were aghast at the incompetence of the prosecution and that they took such a weak case to trial. They were especially not impressed with the borderline mistrial level 5th amendment violation, where he implied that Rittenhouse lawyering up was an implication of guilt, which is an absolute no-no in a criminal trial.
“No! You can’t disarm the shooter until AFTER they kill people! No fair stopping him before that!”
And a community in which one of his parents live in.