Here
and
Now

opinions

Rittenhouse verdict flies in the face of legal standards for self-defense

9 Comments
By Ronald Sullivan

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

9 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

This article’s title contradicts what the article actually says, which is that Rittenhouse did, indeed, act in self-defense.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

The most logical sensible form of self-defense Rittenhouse could have embraced is to have stayed at home.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

This is likely not the end of the matter, with possible federal charges and law suits.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

What did he think was going to happen when he illegally obtained an AR weapon, and crossed state lines with it claiming to protect property. He intended to use the weapon, which he did. There's a lot wrong with this event.

6 ( +15 / -9 )

This article’s title contradicts what the article actually says, which is that Rittenhouse did, indeed, act in self-defense.

This is the key part of the trial and it's the PROSECUTION’S witness:

https://youtu.be/w9-tUWdi5bM

If you can't spare 20 seconds, Grosskreutz intentionally ran at Rittenhouse while pointing a gun at him so Rittenhouse fired

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

The Wisconsin jury believed Rittenhouse’s claims that he feared for his life and acted in self-defense 

This is a simple concept.

Great decision by the jury. Prosecutors never should have gone forward with this case anyway because the evidence was so overwhelming to show Kyle acted within his rights.

Anyone criticizing the decision is obviously looking at irrelevant aspects, because the facts were clear cut, and the decision was clear cut. It is the law.

Simple as that.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

@Zichi

What did he think was going to happen when he illegally obtained an AR weapon, and crossed state lines with it claiming to protect property. 

He did not "illegally obtain an AR weapon", nor did he "cross state lines with it" (despite how many media reports also falsely claim these myths).

It was fully legal for him to possess the rifle as per Wisconsin law (which is why the judge threw out the weapon's charge).

And he got the rifle from his friend in Kenosha. He never carried it over a state boundary.

Facts matter.

Fortunately, the writer of the article here didn't repeat (part of) your mistake:

he drove about 20 miles from his home in Antioch, Illinois – picking up an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle in Kenosha

1 ( +8 / -7 )

eancolmarToday  08:34 am JST

This is likely not the end of the matter, with possible federal charges and law suits.

Yes, it is likely Rittenhouse will sue MSNBC, CNN, and even president Biden.

zichiToday  09:11 am JST

What did he think was going to happen when he illegally obtained an AR weapon, and crossed state lines with it claiming to protect property. 

Rittenhouse's possession of the gun at the time legal. And the gun was already in Kenosha the night of the incident, based on police records and court testimony.

This is basic, information.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

@zichi

There’s also a lot wrong with 3 grown men chasing a teenager down, is there not?

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites