There's no defamation case and he's not guilty of murder. Y'all really should read up on 1st amendment and 2nd amendment doctrine.
He's 17 and there are reels and reels of corporate media talking heads calling him a domestic terrorist, if that ain't defamation, the definition should be amended. I may be mistaken but weren't/aren't Sandmann's defamation cases based on the same thing?
Please share some links of the corporate media calling him a domestic terrorist. I would love to see some. So far I haven't been able to find any.
This is the exact reason Rittenhouse was there - to provoke the protesters. He might not have known it because he is a dumbass. The militia groups were there as a counter-protest with protecting property as a thin pretext.
What makes you think it is a pretext? Were they attacking or verbally provoking people who weren’t destroying property? To put it another way, what would convince you that their stated reason for being there is sincere?
Except you've agreed that that is a right. I'm not saying that what Grosskreutz did was common sense or correct at all. I'm pointing out though how confused and murky self-defense laws can be when we have situations like this. Except though from Grosskreutz' testimony and it appears to match video he was following Rittenhouse but didn't actually aim at Rittenhouse until he saw Rittenhouse racking his weapon. In the video we do see both in the next moment pointing their weapons at each other. That would be very similar to the Martin situation where Zimmerman was following and lethal force didn't come into play until there was a threat. Grosskreutz is stating that he felt the threat of lethal force from Rittenhouse was why he pointed his weapon. Again Rittenhouse shot first. I'm not making an argument here about what is common sense. In fact I agree that isn't common sense. I'm not even making an argument about the guilt or innocence of Rittenhouse. This is showing how dangerous these situations can be and how the law might not be able to adequately address them or discourage them. As someone who both teaches self-defense and also been on the frontlines of protests that have turned violent this is a problem that will happen again.
This all comes down to again he shouldn't have been there and it was very very VERY irresponsible of him, his mom and Kenosha PD.
To tie some of this together. This is why I was very critical of both George Zimmerman and Joe Horn. Self-defense is more than just physically reacting in the immediate moment. By the time you get there most of self-defense is out the window. Self-Defense is about threat awareness. Whether you agree with that Rittenhouse, Zimmerman or Horn thought they were doing the right thing they put themselves into a situation that was threatening. While legally all three might be acquitted in both the Zimmerman and Rittenhouse situations they were very lucky that neither of them were threatened and in the Horn situation a plain clothes LEO was worried he might've been shot by Joe HOrn.
There was just way too much pressure to bring these charges. The prosecution bricked. Now the jurists are being targeted.
If the people who fly the "Don't Tread On Me" flag had any real moral or intellectual consistency they would have been on the side of the people who were protesting a government agent who literally stepped on a citizens neck until he died. So, no, I don't think they are sincere. You have to be stupid to think people protesting overaggressive policing would accept a mini-jackboot flaunting an AK. The kid is the embodiment of the thing they are protesting. They don't have to say or do a thing, their militarized presence is enough provocation.
I'm not certain that "Right" is the proper term to use here. Authority or ability to act under some circumstances. Kinda reminds me of the premise of the Aubrey case .... they claimed at some point they were making a citizens arrest. There's situations where citizens have the authority to do that .... but they better be right in doing so. To be quite honest about that case , I think they set out with the intent to kill him from the get go. They had no interest in making any "citizens arrest". The shooter in that case , I'm almost positive is gonna end up with a life sentence , the question is what the other two , particularly the driver gets.
It took a person with mental problems who was off his meds to set this off. Who else was being provoked to violence by his presence?
Pathologist: Rittenhouse shot first man at close range (apnews.com) This along with the testimony of another individual who witnessed the incident between Rittenhouse & Rosenbaum along with the testimony of Grosskreutz in response to the images he had been shown - This thing is over. The prosecution failed as most of us believed they would. What really sucks in all this is the potential for violence should the verdict not go the way of the prosecution. Cities like Chicago are priming for violence / riots.
What really sucks is the kid being brainwashed by right wing propaganda and being motivated to fight against Black activism and be a bootlicker for law enforcement. No, I don't think he should be charged with murder but I can understand the urban poor black community not liking the kid and how he was raised and brainwashed to go against any of their causes due to online brainwashing. You know how you probably get offended when people propel individuals like Floyd as a hero rather than just a victim of police brutality. Don't do that for Kyle. He might be a "victim" of over-prosecution but he ain't someone young kids should look up to as a high school dropout who his own classmates complied about how aggressive he was with his Donald Trump bootlicking and labeling him the next school shooter.
Defense opened the door. He's currently on the stand. Prosecution has been brutally bad so far. They'll have their Hail May later today.
Thanks for posting my son's live stream. He has had far and away the second biggest live audience during the trial. Rittenhouse just broke down on the stand. Recess called.
