• Qkall@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        somewhere in America a far right person is gritting their teeth babbling something about ‘antifa’

      • Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s because so many governors have made hunting liberal protesters legal. It’ll be federally legalized if not mandated if Trump gets back in.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        Legally speaking, it’s a factually incorrect opinion. So if course it’s going to be controversial. I’m not sure why you’re surprised.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        He was literally acquitted by a jury of his peers of murder. Regardless of how you feel about it, it’s shocking that one would be surprised some people think he isn’t guilty.

        • UmeU@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          He wasn’t charged correctly.

          Had he been charged with 2nd degree murder he would have been convicted.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            The jury was given instructions that they could also convict him of second degree murder.

            (Edit) I take this back, I searched my source and I confused the prosecution requesting it, but it was denied by the judge.

            • UmeU@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              I watched every moment of the trial including the jury instructions. You are spreading false information. Please check your sources.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                4 months ago

                You’re right, I searched my source and found that they requested it, but the judge denied it. I’ll edit my post.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                4 months ago

                It’s pretty standard for juries to be instructed that they can find someone guilty of a lesser charge. Not sure when this became common practice.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            4 months ago

            I don’t like the guy, he is an idiot who shouldn’t have been there and he’s proven since then that he’s just a piece of shit.

            The difference between you and me is that I am able, at least in this case, to put my opinion of someone and my political beliefs aside and objectively look at the facts.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              “Don’t be so open minded your brain falls out of your head.”

              Yes, he managed to engineer a situation in which everyone involved could kill the other person and claim self defense. While it gave him a legal defense for shooting someone, that doesn’t change the fact that he went there in the first place to shoot someone.

              I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rytenhouse a murderer because his reason for being there is pretty fucking obvious even if impossible to “prove” in court.

              • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                and still call Rytenhouse a murderer because his reason for being there is pretty fucking obvious even if impossible to “prove” in court.

                Of course you are free to your opinion. But I was responding to someone who is surprised that anyone could consider him not a murderer. You are admitting that it might even be impossible to prove in a court of law, and he was acquitted, so I would think you might also agree how someone might believe he is not a murderer.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  And I was responding to someone who seemed to believe they were above other people in their ability to “put their political beliefs aside,” and seems to believe it’s impossible for someone to look at the facts presented and condemn Rittenhouse without it being political.

                  • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    You’re confusing my attack of an childish meme with an attack on coming to different conclusions based on the facts.

                    Although, lets me clear, you’ve not provided any facts that indicate he went there to kill someone.

              • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                He obviously went there looking for trouble. What Rittenhouse did in response to other people’s unlawful actions was deemed lawful by a court. There’s not much more to it besides the cases hyper politicisation. For some reason (riots) it became left vs right. If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation - then some other idiots attacked him, one even had a gun pointed at him, this is worse than Rittenhouse simply carrying a gun. It seemed like a dumb case for the left to get behind - nearly nothing about Rittenhouse’s attackers were discussed in the media. It was solely focused on Rittenhouse and his stupidity. Not what whether or not his attackers also did something wrong. Which they did according to a court.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  If you remove the politics, it’s just some idiot who knowingly went into a dangerous situation

                  Yes. I’m not calling him a murderer because Republicans have rallied around him, or because of what the protest was about.

                  Remove the politics and I’m still calling him a murderer because he knowingly put himself in a dangerous situation with the intent of shooting people in order to protect property that wasn’t even his, because it is appropriate to take lives to protect property. It is not appropriate to damage property to protect lives.

                  • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Yes but Rittenhouse couldn’t have shot someone unless he felt in fear for his life. This isn’t like a cop putting 20 bullets in someone cause he thought his comb was a gun. He literally had a gun pointed at him. If this didn’t happen he would be a murderer. It did happen and the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation. It’s like people can’t comprehend there are shades of grey.

          • EatATaco@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            Which one? What charges should have been brought and what evidence do you have?

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Leftism can also be cult like, as evidenced by this comment. Someone who doesn’t know the narrative on Rittenhouse is not part of the in-group, therefore even people politely requesting info are Outsiders to be shunned.

                It’s such a perfect example of a purity test. Say the right thing, or be cast out.

                Under different circumstances, you would be MAGA. I’m glad you’re using your awful mindset in the benefit of good things, but it still grosses me out that people like you exist.

              • TheFonz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                Why are you so angry? Like every other comment you write -to the most benign questions too- is just vitriolic anger.

                Why?

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Mods deleted my comment on here ages ago for calling him a murderer. Doesn’t make it not true.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      4 months ago

      All of his shootings were legally self defense, and based on the evidence presented at trial the jury absolutely decided his case correctly. Grosskreutz will have a hard fight in his civil suit against Rittenhouse after admitting on the stand that he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. He might actually have an easier time against the city, county and police for not having sufficient police response to the previous shots fired.

      Rittenhouse was also a complete and total idiot for being there in the first place, even more so for separating from his group, and he hasn’t demonstrated substantially better judgement any time since. Because he’s immensely, painfully stupid.

      The only thing I don’t really get is why everyone seems so damned intent about spending time, attention and effort talking about him in the first place, regardless of what political side you’re on. I mean it’s weird they treated him like some kind of aspirational figure, it’s even more weird that they’re now accusing him of being trans as though that changes the value of anything he’s said before or since. But we really, really don’t need to give him any more of a spotlight than he already has.

      • UmeU@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        All of his shootings were legally self defense

        Not quite… The jury’s decision simply indicated that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the defense’s position was accepted as fact. This is an important distinction.

        … at trial the jury absolutely decided his case correctly.

        Agreed, but keep in mind he was found to be not guilty, which is not the same thing as innocent.

        Because he’s immensely, painfully stupid.

        Immensely, painfully, and dangerously stupid.

        But we really, really don’t need to give him any more of a spotlight than he already has.

        Fair enough, but I think that this case should be taught in law school as an example of prosecutorial negligence in that if he were simply charged appropriately, 2nd degree non premeditated and/or manslaughter, he would be in prison now for a minimum of 15 years but probably closer to 25 years.

        The choice to only charge 1st degree, which took on the burden of proving premeditation, was the biggest legal blunder of our time… worse than Alex Jones’s lawyer sending the full cell phone copy to the prosecutor, which was an absolute joy to watch live as it happened.

        • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Fair enough, but I think that this case should be taught in law school as an example of prosecutorial negligence in that if he were simply charged appropriately, 2nd degree non premeditated and/or manslaughter, he would be in prison now for a minimum of 15 years but probably closer to 25 years.

          The choice to only charge 1st degree, which took on the burden of proving premeditation, was the biggest legal blunder of our time… worse than Alex Jones’s lawyer sending the full cell phone copy to the prosecutor, which was an absolute joy to watch live as it happened.

          You think? His defense was a pretty standard self defense argument. Or does having shown up to the general area at all remove his ability to claim self defense under those charges?

          • UmeU@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            His defense was irrelevant because by only charging 1st degree, and not including the lesser charges, the prosecution took on the burden of proving premeditation, which was not possible to prove in this case.

            Even if they were able to admit the evidence that KR had talked about his desire to kill protesters only weeks earlier, the prosecution would still have had trouble proving premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt given this heresy evidence alone.

            He was found not guilty because the premeditation was not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

            The self defense argument only would have been relevant if he had been charged with 2nd degree murder, reckless homicide, or manslaughter.

            In the case of reckless homicide, his self defense argument would have failed due to the fact that a reasonable person would have known that bringing a loaded rifle into the middle of an unpredictable and potentially volatile situation would have the potential of resulting in death.

            His unjustified and inappropriate presence that night instigated the conflict, and but for the fact that he was incorrectly charged, he would be in jail now.

            Keep in mind that the verdict only establishes that the prosecution did not meet their burden of proof, not that the jury believed the self defense story.