• CileTheSane
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Something about you quoting me saying “The laws / legal system are insufficient” and responding with “Which law exactly?” Makes me question your sincerity or how much you’re listening to what I’m saying.

    What Rittenhouse was doing should be clearly covered by vigilantism. If he wasn’t charged with it then the laws are insufficient.

    Which law exactly?

    The one that apparently doesn’t exist saying “you are not a cop and are not allowed to use deadly force to protect someone else’s property.”

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      if he wasn’t charged with it then the laws are insufficient.

      I believe we would find common ground here. But this is one of political beliefs rather than an objective analysis of the law and whether he broke it that night in such a way that he should be found guilty of murder.

      And remember this is where this all comes from, me pointing out that it’s weird to claim that it makes no sense that people would think he’s not guilty of a crime. You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn’t break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.

      On that last point, I do agree. This should not be legal to do, and he’s an idiot for doing it.

      • CileTheSane
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn’t break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.

        Maybe you’re having discussions with other people and confusing me with someone else. I remind you that my first reply to you was:

        I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rittenhouse a murderer

        The definition of murder does require “being found guilty of the crime of murder in the place where it happened.”

        For example: historically it was legal to kill minorities. Those that did were still murderers even if it was “legal” at the time.

        I don’t care that Rittenhouse was found “not guilty”, he’s still a murderer. I’m not saying the trial was wrong, I’m saying Rittenhouse was wrong and the existing laws are insufficient.