I still say it was self defense. But seeing the trial presented in a different light and after seeing a recent brief history of Rittenhouse.
He was presented as a squeaky clean Boy Scout type not so much. He should have been convicted on the gun charge being under age because under Wisconsin law a minor can carry a gun if he is going hunting. According to his testimony no one hired him to protect any buildings and after reviewing his brief history his heart may not have been in the right place for going out. But again he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter it was definitely an act of self defense.
I still say it was self defense. But seeing the trial presented in a different light and after seeing a recent brief history of Rittenhouse.
He was presented as a squeaky clean Boy Scout type not so much. He should have been convicted on the gun charge being under age because under Wisconsin law a minor can carry a gun if he is going hunting. According to his testimony no one hired him to protect any buildings and after reviewing his brief history his heart may not have been in the right place for going out. But again he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter it was definitely an act of self defense.
I still say it was self defense. But seeing the tr... (show quote)
That could have been all avoided. That's the kicker.
I still say it was self defense. But seeing the trial presented in a different light and after seeing a recent brief history of Rittenhouse.
He was presented as a squeaky clean Boy Scout type not so much. He should have been convicted on the gun charge being under age because under Wisconsin law a minor can carry a gun if he is going hunting. According to his testimony no one hired him to protect any buildings and after reviewing his brief history his heart may not have been in the right place for going out. But again he is not guilty of murder or manslaughter it was definitely an act of self defense.
I still say it was self defense. But seeing the tr... (show quote)
Rittenhouse was not illegally in possession of that fire arm as a minor, he would have been illegally in possession of a firearm IF the firearm was a short barrel which this was not.
Rittenhouse was not illegally in possession of that fire arm as a minor, he would have been illegally in possession of a firearm IF the firearm was a short barrel which this was not.
But he is in possession of a crazy mind like the guy he went visited
Rittenhouse was not illegally in possession of that fire arm as a minor, he would have been illegally in possession of a firearm IF the firearm was a short barrel which this was not.
The way it was explained if he was hunting. Now if the barrel of the gun makes a difference then I stand corrected.