• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 month 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
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month 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
        1 month 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
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month 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
            ·
            1 month 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
            ·
            1 month 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
        ·
        1 month 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
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month 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
            ·
            1 month 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
              ·
              1 month 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
                ·
                1 month 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.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  He went somewhere he had no place to be, with a gun, in order to “protect property” he had no reason to protect. He said himself he went to “protect property”. How do you think he was going to use that gun to protect property? Tickle people with it?

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

                    Have you never heard “an armed society is a polite one?” Do you think when they send security to any event, the goal is to violently use it? Or do you think that maybe the goal of showing force is to, sometimes, dissuade violence?

          • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month 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
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month 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
                ·
                1 month 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.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  the idiot who did this should share the blame of a stupid situation.

                  Who said they weren’t both fucking idiots? No one is parading the one that got shot around like they’re some kind of hero.

                  Still doesn’t change the fact that Rittenhouse went there to shoot people and is an unrepentant piece of shit.

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

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

            Why?