I am not much aware on legal mumbo jumbo here.. There are 3 people dead. I understand a confused kid who put himself in the wrong place. I am sure he was scared when he acted the way he did But after the first shot was fired, it is self defense for everyone. What if some of the people who killed were trying to defend themselves. You can't outrun an AK rifle. May be their self defense is to remove the gun from this person. What do you do when self defense argument for killer conflicts with self defense argument for the killed person? This is a complicated case to trivialize on party and partisan lines. I feel bad for the kid but some choices he made that day cost 3 lives
(This is not a defense but a clarification) *Three people were shot, two people died. *The kid was there to help his friend patrol car lot that was being looted and burned, he was also rendering aide to injured rioters. * Rosenbaum (red shirt) *Rosenbaum started a fire, Rittenhouse got an extinguisher and put the fire out enraging Rosenbaum and the crowd * Rosenbaum and others in the crowd scream to get Rittenhouse and begin chasing him
Binger keeps saying his legal mumbo jumbo about not using deadly force to protect property. Korean rooftop snipers disagreed.
Uhm... Out of all of those clips one had a guest that said "arguably a domestic terrorist". None of the others called him that. I would hope that there was discussion of the matter, but without context it was impossible to tell. I was told it happened many times and haven't seen one example, yet. I would genuinely like to see where it happened and examine context behind it. I'm really curious.
It still and will always amaze me that people will even turn something like this into this person is innocent or this person is guilty based on their political agenda. If a person had done the same exact thing and went to a tea party protest several years ago and got into a confrontation with people there. Liberals would be saying he is innocent and conservatives would be saying guilty the exact opposite of what is shown here. It's pathetic and sad. Incapable of even looking at something without the shroud of being a democrat or republican hiding any kind of discernable or reasonable conclusion of your own.
I honestly don't know all the facts of the case to make a determination. I do know that it was illegal and stupid for him to have a gun and to take to the protest. I also think everyone that enabled to be there and have the gun should be prosecuted also.
The only problem with your take is that the tea partiers never burned anything down or pointed guns in your face and threatened to end your lives. You are seeing justice being done right, in front of your eyes in this trial. This kid was being convicted by the media and the left on day one. Remember that congresswoman who married her own brother? She called Rittenhouse a domestic terrorist.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-campaign-to-condemn-kyle-rittenhouse-in-the-court-of-public-opinion You ask and I provide. Where do you live by the way to be this ill informed?
I'm pretty sure almost every person at the capitol on January 6th would consider themselves supportive of the tea party (if not outright members, to whatever extent one can be anymore). Not a huge leap in logic given that the biggest Jan 6 apologists in congress are some of the most prominent tea party legacy and freedom caucus folks.
Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota added elsewhere, “A domestic terrorist executed two people, and according to [Fox News’s Tucker Carlson] and his supporters this is ‘maintaining order.’ Their murderous rants have inspired many mass shooters and now they aren’t even trying to distance themselves from it, they are excusing it. God help us.” https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...le-rittenhouse-in-the-court-of-public-opinion Glad that I can help. Had a delish dinner at Owens Fish Camp last night. Love that place, been there many times. You’ve eaten there before?