General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI don't know if anyone has pointed this out about the Rittenhouse verdict.
It implies that, if, at the moment an altercation started, someone close by shot Rittenhouse and killed him, they would have been found not guilty for the same reasons he was.
grumpyduck
(6,255 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)PTWB
(4,131 posts)Gaige Grosskreutz could have (and it can be argued should have) shot Rittenhouse when he had the opportunity. It would have been morally and legally justified. We knew that before the jurys verdict, however.
maxsolomon
(33,400 posts)Ask Mike Reinoehl how that works out.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)own friggin gun and became a risk to the pissant punk who showed up with a rifle dangling from his neck.
brush
(53,843 posts)They'll show up just waiting for the opportunity to shoot. They have qualified immunity now.
sop
(10,243 posts)around with their AR15s, wearing body armor and paramilitary paraphernalia, overrunning State Houses and other public institutions while acting in as threatening and intimidating a manner as possible, can be shot dead by anyone who feels their life is in danger.
Johonny
(20,888 posts)and the shooter gets convicted in relative obscurity. It was the RW news machine that pummeled the innocent narrative that set up the defense to work as it worked for Zimmerman before.
Jeebo
(2,026 posts)... the cops would immediately have swooped down on him. They would have been all over him instantly, like white on rice. But while that kid was marauding around there shooting them dirty commie pinko libruls, the cops liked what he was doing and that's why they let him go on marauding.
Which puts the hypocrisy of the right on full display.
-- Ron