hypochondriac

I'm not soggy and just make things up on the fly for an argument on saintsweb. It has been a heavily publicised and interesting case in a similar vein to the OJ trial. Not sure why you find it so outlandish that it would be watched by a large number of people.

It's bizarre that you're suggesting I didn't watch the trial. Why would I lie? All I'll do is repeat the answer I've already given multiple times now in the hope that it will penetrate and you'll understand. In the opinion of the jury and non- biased people who watched the trial, it is entirely reasonable to view someone chasing you and advancing towards you as a threat. It is entirely reasonable to expect as the prosecution stated that had he not fired he would have received a severe-possibly life threatening beating and it is entirely possible that his gun could have been wrestled off him and used against him. Regardless, it was for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of murder and they never did that at any point of the trial. That's because he wasn't.

Great post.

2 people are dead due to their own actions. One of those people who died was a child abuser who raped kids so I won't exactly be weeping over his passing. The law in America says he does have the right to have a deadly firearm even though I personally don't think anyone in America should have a gun. Murder is premeditated and his actions immediately prior to the shooting and afterwards do not suggest he was trying to kill anyone until he was confronted, attacked and then provoked by the two men who died and the other one who was shot. Like I said only simpletons or those who have little knowledge of the case would think he was a murderer.

I've answered it about 4 times now. You have said yourself that it was reasonable that he could have expected a beating had he not shot but for some reason you consider it beyond the bounds of possibility that in the split second he had to make the decision that he couldn't have though that his gun could have been wrestled off him and used against him. In your mind he should have not shot, taken a potentially severe beating- which could easily result in death on its own-and run the risk that his gun would be used against him.

So are we saying that it was reasonable for rittenhouse to think he might get severely beaten but not that that beating might result in severe injury or death? Or that he might have had his gun wrestled off him and used against him? Let's remember that this judgement was made in fractions of a second.

Maybe stick to opining on things you have actually seen rather than taking opinion pieces as gospel mate.

Interesting. What was illegal about it? I really don't need to know what you think about liberalism considering you bang on about the far right all the time.

On second thoughts it's probably not worth your time watching the trial as you'd clearly made your mind up prior to its start. Shame you couldn't stay a bit more open minded and less partisan. Pity.

I'll take that as a deflection. I answered your question as you already know and you refuse to answer mine because you know that the idea that rittenhouse should have just taken a beating is clearly ridiculous.

He took a gun to a riot where he was attempting to put out fires and provide first aid as law enforcement had given up. He was attacked and fired as it was reasonable to assume his gun was going to be taken and he then surrender himself to law enforcement. I've already said he was a fool for doing so and I am not a fan of guns but what I've said is factually accurate and it was shown to be the case in court.

What a shame. It seemed like we were having a sensible conversation with your previous post. Never mind. Also hi soggy! Glad to see you're still following along despite pretending to have me on ignore.

Another one who didn't watch the trial and gets their news from twitter...

Hell be remembered as a murderer by simpletons who don't know what the definition of murder means or those who are politically partisan and want to believe it's true.

It's really odd that you spent about three posts badgering me because you wanted me to answer your questions, yet you are constantly avoiding mine. Why is that?

Was Kyle rittenhouse acquitted on a technicality then? You're drawing a false comparison between an obvious criminal who goes out with intent to burgle and someone like Rittenhouse who proved in court that that was not his intention. You're avoiding the question, should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution?

So should the jury have voted to convict in order for their decision to not be "shocking?" You disagree with the law not the decision of the jury that followed it. Should Kyle have "taken a beating" as suggested by the prosecution?

Hold on so the jury gave the correct decision according to the law yet it was "shocking"? Absolutely bizarre logic. Would you have praised a guilty verdict that went against the law and the instructions given to the jury?

Oh right I've heard of Robin diangelo or however you spell her name. I listened to an interview she gave a while ago and she seemed like a bit of a grifter to be honest and a proponent of identity politics and critical race theory which I despise so I'll pass.

The fact those who died were obvious scumbags doesn't have a bearing on the case of self defence. I already told you I have no desire to rerun the trial on this forum as I've already watched it. I explained to you already that Kyle was running away, that he had been assaulted with a weapon that was potentially deadly and that someone reaching for his gun meant that a reasonable assumption would be that his gun would have been taken from him and potentially used against him. This was all explained in great detail during the trial and I suggest you watch it so you have a proper grasp of the "facts." Since you're so keen to ask me questions, I'd be interested to know why you feel the verdict was a shocking one given the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse was seeking to murder someone. Not sure if you're aware as you haven't watched it, but the prosecution actually used the line "everyone takes a beating sometimes" in closing arguments suggesting that Kyle should have refrained from shooting and taken a (potentially deadly) beating instead. Presumably you agree with this?

Who claimed it did? Watch or listen to the testimony from the trial mate rather than forming your opinions from the view or twitter.

Yes exactly. Glad we could have some semblance of a reasonable conversation after all.

Because what they are guilty of speaks to their character and its why its laughable when celebrities on twitter like Mark Ruffalo give him affectionate nicknames and lionise him. If the situation had been reversed and Rosenbaum had been in the Rittenhouse role then you can just imagine what those types of people would be saying. It's hilarious but also quite sad.

Because they were very obviously guilty. Its weird that someone would decide on guilt or innocent based on political allegiance. You can't just go out and shoot someone because you suspect them of a crime based on basically nothing. I haven't seen anything that makes me think Kyle is a psychopath or a cunt, he's a traumatised kid and a fool for doing what he did but he's been caricatured in the media by those with an agenda.

"were the aggressors in this situation".