Kyle Rittenhouse is being sued by the estate of the mentally disturbed man Rittenhouse shot four times and killed.
Rittenhouse’s response:
“These lawsuits are making it harder and harder for me to move on with my life”
The amount of cope white men feel after doing something horrible could power a city
Do you know what else makes it hard to move on with your life?
Being murdered
If you kill a man, you should not be able to move on with your life, that is the whole point...
Unbelievable...
@xs4me2 @flexghost
Context matters. I don't think self-defense is the same as first or second degree murder. Is it legal to own a gun and use it for self-defense in the US? Yes. Was it self-defense against mortal injury? Yes. Do police do the same in the US? Yes. You just write and I quote "An eye for an eye...". I don't think you have the mental capacity to make a logical decision regarding this event or any loss of life event that includes someone taking a life. I do not support that person who carry automatic firearms in the middle of the road.Neither I also don't support his freedom being used for some people's political agenda.
@turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost This wasn't self defense, at least in the traditional sense. I can't carry a gun into a local bar, claim in going to shoot anyone who comes near me and then claim self defense when I shoot them.
@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost He has a much better case than that. Your point maybe remains, but it wasn't nearly that bad.
@ech @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost I guess if by "much better" you mean, crossed state lines with a gun to cossplay as an unwanted security guard who antagonized others with words.
He sure as fuck made a very large series of mistakes that (along with others making mistakes) ended in the death of two people. He wasn't going guilty, but he certainly wasn't innocent. At best he is a shity boogaloo kid who deserves to be haunted for the rest of his lige
@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost turns out the canard about him traveling far away looking for trouble or whatever isn't really true; his father lived in/near Kenosha; it's his hometown.
@ech @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost
He would "sometimes" visit his dad. That's at best convenient and most likely irrelevant. He did not live in Kenosha (he lived with his mother) and he was not visiting his father (he was there to "guard" other people's property without being asked)
@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost aside from the canard about him living far away not being true, apparently he also did not transport the gun across state lines at all. (If that even matters wrt any laws)
@Shadowfalx @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost I don't think we can really conclude that his intent was to harm people. I mean, maybe it was, but we don't especially have any reason to think that.
Anyway the bottom line about the gun law thing is he didn't violate any laws, yes? (Did the friend buy the gun illegally for him or something? That would be a thing.) And he didn't travel far away to a place he isn't connected with.
But yeah: he brought a (highly visible) gun to a protest, no question there.
@ech @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost his friend bought the gun illegally, since Rittenhouse was 17 and it was illegal for him to purchase a gun.
@ech @turretjust @xs4me2 @flexghost his gun was being stored (according to his testimony) at a friend's house in WI. In fact that friends is being prosecuted for making a straw purchase.
The only reason Rittenhouse was not found guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon is the law specifies that it would need to be a short barrel.
The fact remains, he traveled to Kenosha with the intent to harm others. He was found not guilty, so he is legally clear, but morally he still failed