Clem72
Well-Known Member
Got it, I thought maybe he was on his 3rd booster shot.
Rittenhouse verdict - make your prediction
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Got it, I thought maybe he was on his 3rd booster shot.
I think if they’d had a change of venue it would have been a slam dunk acquittal. With the “friends and neighbors” of the jury being so close they’ll probably have to find him guilty of something.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I'm afraid that is what will happen. Pretty sure there is at least one coward on that jury.
If I had to find him guilty of something it would be of being stupid, which isn't a crime (but it should be). They're trying to make it seem that he had a vested interest in "protecting" Kenosha, but that's just so much blah blah. In reality he wanted to be where the action was. I don't think he went there specifically to kill anyone, just to be Billy Badass fending off the bad guys and we can see how that turned out.
BUT! That's not a crime. And even if he puts himself directly in harm's way he still has a right to defend himself. I think of it like if a woman walks down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood at night, gets attacked, then pulls out her gun and shoots the attackers dead. We can all agree that she shouldn't have put herself in that situation, but the attackers are still at fault and she'd have a perfect right to defend herself. She wouldn't be legally required to fight it out with them, nor would she be obligated to fire a warning shot, or any of the other silly things this overzealous prosecutor was babbling about. She could simply gun them down and that would be that.
And so it is with Kyle Rittenhouse. The burden SHOULD be on criminals and predators to leave people alone.
BUT! That's not a crime. And even if he puts himself directly in harm's way he still has a right to defend himself. I think of it like if a woman walks down a dark alley in a bad neighborhood at night, gets attacked, then pulls out her gun and shoots the attackers dead. We can all agree that she shouldn't have put herself in that situation, but the attackers are still at fault and she'd have a perfect right to defend herself. She wouldn't be legally required to fight it out with them, nor would she be obligated to fire a warning shot, or any of the other silly things this overzealous prosecutor was babbling about. She could simply gun them down and that would be that.
And so it is with Kyle Rittenhouse. The burden SHOULD be on criminals and predators to leave people alone.