438
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 94 points 2 years ago

Shame it didn’t go this way for Rittenhouse.

[-] UmeU@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago

I think rottenhouse was charged with 1st degree only and not 2nd degree, which was ridiculous. Trying to prove he had a premeditated intent to kill that night was a bad strategy by the prosecution. They would have gotten a conviction if they charged 2nd degree or even manslaughter, negligence resulting in death, or whatever.

Its hard not to have conspiratorial thoughts when realizing that the only reason rottenhouse got off scott free was because he wasn’t properly charged. They could have charged him with 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter and let the jury decide, but for whatever reason they only charged 1st, even though they couldn’t prove intent.

From the moment that trial started I was so frustrated because I knew they wouldn’t be able to prove intent which was necessary for the charges. I’ll never understand why they didn’t properly charge him.

[-] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago

So that's why the guy went free ? I did wonder but never bothered to research it

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

that and the judge wanted to adopt him as a son

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Retrograde@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

He'll get what's coming to him

edit: jeez guys I was just trying to lighten the mood but yeah you're all spot on

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago

I mean, has George Zimmerman gotten anything that's "coming to him?"

Seems like he's been in a total shit storm of events, but suffered consequences for nothing.

Rittenhouse will have his nose so far up the maga go fund me grift should anything ever happen, he'll never know anything more than a minor inconvenience.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] GooseFinger@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.

I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn't live in and got away with it.

What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom's house),to help protect his family friend's business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.

This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.

~~And he wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.~~

Edit: He was charged with first degree accounts, the wiki doesn't state this. However, the jury considered lesser charges and still acquitted. Here's an NPR article that goes into more detail.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] UmeU@lemmy.world 84 points 2 years ago

I watched the whole trial. The verdict was definitely just, but her lawyer didn’t do her any favors. At one point, in a moment of frustration, her lawyer exclaimed ‘I’m going to kill myself’, at a trial for a mother of a kid who killed a bunch of kids.

She ‘opened the door’ to a whole bunch of evidence that had previously been ruled inadmissible, including the defendants infidelity and the entire text communications between the defendant and her husband.

She said “I’m sorry” about a thousand times, which I am convinced was an intentional strategy to associate the defense with being sorry.

They weren’t supposed to use the shooters name but she used it three times in her opening statement.

Most of her objections were not valid legal objections, but just argument.

The whole thing was a train wreck, I actually feel bad for her (the attorney not the defendant).

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 48 points 2 years ago

As a 2A Advocate / Gun Guy all I can say is GOOD. Parents who do this deserve to held legally responsible.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Does that include all the children who kill themselves with their father's gun?

[-] acceptable_pumpkin@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

If a minor gets a gun and does something illegal, including killing themselves, the parents should 100% be charged. There is no scenario where it would be ok for a minor to get access to a gun without supervision and approval by their parents.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 21 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Why did you gender that?

In answer to your question I'll say "It would depend on the circumstances." A weapon retrieved from a nightstand, or a mothers purse, and used by a small child to kill themselves is a very different situation than a teen who accesses a gun safe without permission.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] humorlessrepost@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

Thumbnail looks like Mitch McConnell has reconsidered his stance on drag.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

There's things they chose to be that are far worse than "unattractive".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bradorsomething@ttrpg.network 21 points 2 years ago

Gun manufacturers should take note, they are one step away from fault now.

[-] easydnesto@sh.itjust.works 15 points 2 years ago

This was the case where the parents decided to be tried separately right? I wonder if we’ll see both end up in the same sentence.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago

Justice done, but ultimately this doesn't solve anything.

[-] fne8w2ah@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

Now go for the gun manufacturers next!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
438 points (100.0% liked)

News

32924 readers
2438 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS