They posted graphics calling him a "biological female" before he caved. Rittenhouse backtracked his criticism not even 12 hours after the online hate from his fellow conservatives started.
It seems kind of obvious Rittenhouse went looking for a situation he could put himself in so that he could shoot somebody. That’s murder if you can prove it, but good luck proving it.
Well, yes. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a situation he had zero business being in, with a weapon he was legally not allowed to have, and those actions put him in the danger that he then, legally speaking, defended himself from.
He’s an idiot, a terrible person, and 100% at fault for what happened. But not a murderer since he was acquitted, and words mean things.
You idiots can downvote me until the end of time if doesn’t make me less correct
Acquitted means that someone was tried for a crime but not convicted.
That could be because they’re actually innocent
Or it could be because of insufficient evidence, loopholes, technicalities, and circumstances that the people who wrote the law didn’t foresee, they were unable to adequately prove guilt. It could also be due to corruption or incompetence.
So you can commit a murder and still be acquitted of it. It doesn’t mean you’re not a murderer, it just means that you weren’t convicted for the murder you committed.
So you can commit a murder and still be acquitted of it. It doesn’t mean you’re not a murderer, it just means that you weren’t convicted for the murder you committed.
This is the dividing line for morality.
Some people understand that the law and morality are not the same. There are illegal things that are moral. There are legal things that are immoral.
People who think that legality = morality are dangerous, because they will interpret a loophole in the law to be a loophole in morality. The law becomes permission to do anything that fits within it, even if it is harmful to others.
Always worth reminding these people that the Holocaust was legal, and resistance was illegal, but we still know who the good guys and the bad guys were in WWII.
It would also be crazy if statue of limitations would be used to argue that somebody isn’t guilty when there’s solid evidence just because a court can’t legally find them guilty at that point
Not in cold blood. That refers to a degree of murder. Murder is any intentional killing of a person by another person. Homicide is any killing of a person by another regardless of intent (broader). Manslaughter is usually unintentional, but can also refer to the killing of another with a lesser intent (like the intent wasn’t to kill specifically, but cause harm or something).
Deliberately putting yourself in a situation you need to defend yourself using lethal force for the sake of defending yourself using lethal force is murder.
I’m a murderer whether or not I’m convicted. Murderers predate the US justice system.
Should Rittenhouse have been convicted? Probably not, because it’s not worth sacrificing the protections inbuilt to the legal system for the sake of punishing a snivelling shit weasel like Rittenhouse. That doesn’t make him innocent though.
That’s due to corrupt cops manipulating evidence. The judicial system acted accordingly when presented with the proof that the evidence could no longer be trusted.
Doesn’t matter. The point is that not being convicted is not synonymous with innocence. Innocence and guilt both exist outside the current iteration of the justice system.
OJ Simpson was different. The police borked that case to a mind blowing degree. Planting evidence, poor handling of evidence, police officers invoking the fifth on the witness stand, just so bad. The facts in Rittenhouse’s case were pretty well established, and the way the law applied left him in the clear. Now maybe the law should be different to deter vigilantes like Rittenhouse, but it was always likely to be a successful case of self-defense.
OJ Simpson also wasn’t convicted.
It seems kind of obvious Rittenhouse went looking for a situation he could put himself in so that he could shoot somebody. That’s murder if you can prove it, but good luck proving it.
Well, yes. Rittenhouse inserted himself into a situation he had zero business being in, with a weapon he was legally not allowed to have, and those actions put him in the danger that he then, legally speaking, defended himself from.
He’s an idiot, a terrible person, and 100% at fault for what happened. But not a murderer since he was acquitted, and words mean things.
You idiots can downvote me until the end of time if doesn’t make me less correct
So was Al Capone’s only crime tax evasion?
Yes, words mean things.
Murderer means someone who has committed murder.
Acquitted means that someone was tried for a crime but not convicted.
That could be because they’re actually innocent
Or it could be because of insufficient evidence, loopholes, technicalities, and circumstances that the people who wrote the law didn’t foresee, they were unable to adequately prove guilt. It could also be due to corruption or incompetence.
So you can commit a murder and still be acquitted of it. It doesn’t mean you’re not a murderer, it just means that you weren’t convicted for the murder you committed.
This is the dividing line for morality.
Some people understand that the law and morality are not the same. There are illegal things that are moral. There are legal things that are immoral.
People who think that legality = morality are dangerous, because they will interpret a loophole in the law to be a loophole in morality. The law becomes permission to do anything that fits within it, even if it is harmful to others.
Always worth reminding these people that the Holocaust was legal, and resistance was illegal, but we still know who the good guys and the bad guys were in WWII.
It would also be crazy if statue of limitations would be used to argue that somebody isn’t guilty when there’s solid evidence just because a court can’t legally find them guilty at that point
Just to nitpick, OJ was acquitted but still a murderer. The word means you killed someone
in cold bloodon purpose, not that you got a guilty verdict.Not in cold blood. That refers to a degree of murder. Murder is any intentional killing of a person by another person. Homicide is any killing of a person by another regardless of intent (broader). Manslaughter is usually unintentional, but can also refer to the killing of another with a lesser intent (like the intent wasn’t to kill specifically, but cause harm or something).
Thanks for the clarification. I meant “in cold blood” in the sense of “premeditated and intentional”, but I’ll remove it to be clear.
TIL OJ Simpson isn’t a murderer
Wow, so if I commit crimes, and someone tries to stop me, I can legally defend myself from them by killing them?
I don’t think that’s true, but it’s certainly what you said for some reason…
Deliberately putting yourself in a situation you need to defend yourself using lethal force for the sake of defending yourself using lethal force is murder.
I’m a murderer whether or not I’m convicted. Murderers predate the US justice system.
Should Rittenhouse have been convicted? Probably not, because it’s not worth sacrificing the protections inbuilt to the legal system for the sake of punishing a snivelling shit weasel like Rittenhouse. That doesn’t make him innocent though.
That’s due to corrupt cops manipulating evidence. The judicial system acted accordingly when presented with the proof that the evidence could no longer be trusted.
Doesn’t matter. The point is that not being convicted is not synonymous with innocence. Innocence and guilt both exist outside the current iteration of the justice system.
OJ Simpson was different. The police borked that case to a mind blowing degree. Planting evidence, poor handling of evidence, police officers invoking the fifth on the witness stand, just so bad. The facts in Rittenhouse’s case were pretty well established, and the way the law applied left him in the clear. Now maybe the law should be different to deter vigilantes like Rittenhouse, but it was always likely to be a successful case of self-defense.