• Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Because it’s not against the law and had shit that he was doing there. You act like state borders are like national borders.

              • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Cleaning graffiti if I recall correctly. Cleaning up in general in a dangerous area subject to some riots.

                • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  It’s astonishing to me that you are simultaneously capable of forming full sentences and not seeing how useless and dumb that sentence sounds.

                  • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    And yet it wasn’t illegal. If it was he would have been found guilty. I said nothing of the intelligence of his plans, just what I remember of the facts. I remember he wasn’t doing anything wrong, but was targeted by some shitstains who chased after an armed guy. That was ultimately the stupidest decision on the day. One of the shitstains was a felon with a gun, and the dead one was a sex offender. If I got some of the details wrong it’s because I don’t care enough to look it up because it’s a decided case.

                    Sounds a lot like FAFO to me.

                • MerchantsOfMisery@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  You recall very incorrectly and should probably look up what really happened before you so confidently make incorrect statements. Ask yourself why he had zero cleaning equipment and instead only brought a loaded rifle.

                • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  He claimed he was hired to guard someone’s dealership, and when the guy denied ever hiring him he tried to say “Actually it was my dad’s dealership!” then when he was called on that lie he stopped bringing it up.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      He was, but it’s not self-defense if the only reason you are in that situation is because you created it.

      If I put myself and another person in some room that’s rigged to lock and not unlock until the other person is dead… Technically I am fighting for my life, but it’s not self-defense because this wouldn’t have happened if I didn’t seek this out intentionally…

      And that’s basically what Rittenhouse did waving that gun around

      • Tb0n3@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The court disagrees. Just because somewhere is dangerous, doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to be there. If you want to go somewhere dangerous and you do not want to be at more risk, you bring protection.

        Don’t fuck around if you don’t want to find out.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s not that he went that out all, it’s that there was a boatload of evidence implying that killing was his motive for wanting to go in the first place.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Self-defense is a response to a threat from someone else, “putting yourself” into a situation doesn’t change that. If that were true, we’d be free to blame victims of other crimes (e.g. cyclists and pedestrians hit by cars) for putting themselves into dangerous situations. But that’s absolutely not the case, it’s not my fault if a car hits me while I’m legally riding/walking on the side of the road, nor is it my fault that someone attacks me because I’m holding a firearm.

        That said, Rittenhouse was a minor and AFAICT not legally allowed to possess a firearm in that situation. That is the problem here, and anyone who enabled him to bring a firearm to that situation should be held at least partially accountable. But his actions in the moment were self-defense.

    • jaemo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      HEY everyone, this guy ^^ was THERE THAT NIGHT! We should all RELY TO him with our detailed questions about the events that unfolded since he clearly knows and has witnessed the events and is therefore an unimpeachable source of objective truth on this subject!

      Why weren’t you in the trial, out of curiosity? I’d have thought they’d be after your testimony, you know, since you know all this stuff and are really smart. Just wondering…