Carrying a gun is “premeditated self defence”? Are people only supposed to carry guns where it is safe? What is the purpose of that?
So many people pushing this ridiculous idea he is guilty for not staying at home, quaking in his boots. Right to self defense and to bear arms literally exist so that people don’t have to fear walking outside because of asshat violent criminals and rioters.
And even more ridiculous saying the police and prosecutors didn’t care. What do you mean? They went after him with everything they had. It was a jury of his peers that told them to f off with that shit.
But I guess lemmy only likes juries if they nullify actual murderers they like, not when they let go an innocent person they don’t like. (I don’t like Rittenhouse either, but that does not make him a murderer.)
I remember when I was a freshman in high school, I worked at a McDonald’s. For whatever reason, I owned a Burger King t shirt. As a 14 year old, I thought it would be funny to wear the Burger King shirt to work. I figured it would annoy my boss and might get a few reactions out of other people. It didn’t work, but there were no real consequences because of it.
You really can’t see how Rittenhouse did a similar thing? He went to a protest knowing he was diametrically opposite, politically, to people actually protesting and he did it with a big ass gun. Like my Burger King t shirt, this was very clearly sending a message of “I am your enemy.” And the message wasn’t on a harmless shirt, it was on a deadly big ass gun.
You really truly believe he had no intention of killing? Are you dumb?
Do you remember the part of the story where nobody cared about the shirt? It’s possible people cared but didn’t say anything because they didn’t want to cause a conflict. The same is true of a gun. You’re allowed to carry a gun and people are allowed to disagree but they are not allowed to attack you for it. Not without consequences anyway.
If I’m just using my eyes, the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun is the bad guy is shooting at people. But by that point, it’s too late. You might be allowed to carry a gun, but people may be scared of it, and justifiably so.
If he took the gun with him, he was anticipating the need to protect himself. By simply taking the gun, he acknowledges that he is putting himself in danger. So why did he go? Aside from bloodlust, what was the purpose of him going?
Murders with guns happen. This fact has still not led to the seizure of weapons in the US. So, why are so many gun proponents afraid to admit Rittenhouse is a murderer who unfairly got away with his crimes?
Rittenhouse was not a cop, he was a douchebag little shit stirrer with a murder fantasy, and he got exactly what he wanted — a fun murder spree killing liberals with no consequences.
I’m not going to coordinate an effort to lynch the piece of shit, but spreading bullshit about how “he’s not a murderer,” like what you’re doing, is disingenuous at best. Kindly, shut the fuck up
Orchestrating a scenario in which the only possible outcome is self-defense by deadly force sounds an awful lot like premeditated murder, to me. I think you should reevaluate what you consider pedantry.
Carrying a gun is “premeditated self defence”? Are people only supposed to carry guns where it is safe? What is the purpose of that?
So many people pushing this ridiculous idea he is guilty for not staying at home, quaking in his boots. Right to self defense and to bear arms literally exist so that people don’t have to fear walking outside because of asshat violent criminals and rioters.
And even more ridiculous saying the police and prosecutors didn’t care. What do you mean? They went after him with everything they had. It was a jury of his peers that told them to f off with that shit.
But I guess lemmy only likes juries if they nullify actual murderers they like, not when they let go an innocent person they don’t like. (I don’t like Rittenhouse either, but that does not make him a murderer.)
I remember when I was a freshman in high school, I worked at a McDonald’s. For whatever reason, I owned a Burger King t shirt. As a 14 year old, I thought it would be funny to wear the Burger King shirt to work. I figured it would annoy my boss and might get a few reactions out of other people. It didn’t work, but there were no real consequences because of it.
You really can’t see how Rittenhouse did a similar thing? He went to a protest knowing he was diametrically opposite, politically, to people actually protesting and he did it with a big ass gun. Like my Burger King t shirt, this was very clearly sending a message of “I am your enemy.” And the message wasn’t on a harmless shirt, it was on a deadly big ass gun.
You really truly believe he had no intention of killing? Are you dumb?
Do you remember the part of the story where nobody cared about the shirt? It’s possible people cared but didn’t say anything because they didn’t want to cause a conflict. The same is true of a gun. You’re allowed to carry a gun and people are allowed to disagree but they are not allowed to attack you for it. Not without consequences anyway.
If I’m just using my eyes, the difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun is the bad guy is shooting at people. But by that point, it’s too late. You might be allowed to carry a gun, but people may be scared of it, and justifiably so.
If he took the gun with him, he was anticipating the need to protect himself. By simply taking the gun, he acknowledges that he is putting himself in danger. So why did he go? Aside from bloodlust, what was the purpose of him going?
Murders with guns happen. This fact has still not led to the seizure of weapons in the US. So, why are so many gun proponents afraid to admit Rittenhouse is a murderer who unfairly got away with his crimes?
Removed by mod
Rittenhouse was not a cop, he was a douchebag little shit stirrer with a murder fantasy, and he got exactly what he wanted — a fun murder spree killing liberals with no consequences.
I’m not going to coordinate an effort to lynch the piece of shit, but spreading bullshit about how “he’s not a murderer,” like what you’re doing, is disingenuous at best. Kindly, shut the fuck up
Removed by mod
Violent bloodthirsty evil thug, then. Is that better for you, Herr Pedant?
Removed by mod
Orchestrating a scenario in which the only possible outcome is self-defense by deadly force sounds an awful lot like premeditated murder, to me. I think you should reevaluate what you consider pedantry.
Removed by mod
You could have picked from so many different reasons to why this was not murder, but this one takes the cake.
I have another one!
Murder is a crime, and Criminals are in Jail.
Since he is not, it could not have been murder! CHECKMATE LIBERALS /s
Removed by mod
Nothing!
Please keep talking about what murder is! I really need to know.
Everything they had? He’s still alive. That’s more than most shooters get.
Removed by mod
No? But usually shooters get shot, especially if they shoot blindly into unarmed folks. How isn’t anyone able to read any more? Did I write trial?
Removed by mod