Your capacity to think logically is clouded by your political bias. And I'm being kind.
Rittehouse, or whatever his name is, was found not guilty because, according to Wisconsin law, it was established that he was being chased down and had reason to fear for his life. I agree. It is possible to die from someone unarmed. If you get punched unconscious and your head slammed the pavement for example. I think Ritenhouse had no business being there in the first place, and that he might have provoked the whole situation, and it was a tragedy that there was a loss of life, but the verdict was correct.
So, if you believe him to be innocent, than you absolutely have to believe the three in the Aubery case to be guilty. Because Aubery, like Rittenhouse, was the one being chased down and had reason to fear for his life an the 3 lifers were the equivalent of the guys chasing down Rittenhouse. If you can't see that, which I know you can't, than it's too late for you. Which I know it is.

In his defense, Victor admitted earlier that he is sleep-deprived, so that might explain his steep cognitive decline.

Yeah, maybe I went too hard on him, which I have the propensity to sometimes do.
I mean, to me it's all so obvious and I don't understand what the confusion is all about.
The only explanation would be a severe tribal prejudice. Which few people want to admit.
But hey, my brain waves aren't always at the highest level either. I could be the one that sees it wrong? Nah.

Meth is a helluva drug

This thread should be renamed. Also this thread and the other thread should be combined to a " just because I call Brazil nuts ****** **** doesn't make me racist" thread.

Huh?

1/2

you are the biased one. you listen to the media and clowns like the liberals in this thread.

but bolded gives up the game. they both acted the same way. intentionally put themselves in a dangerous position and provoked a confrontation. no analogy is perfect. and the bootlicker "patriots" like Howard and the rest of the lawyers will pick apart meaningless differences. but this is all that matters. and its all that mattered for Zimmerman too.

Amazingly, most lawyers were able to predict that the outcomes would be different.

Maybe I'm inferring wrongly but who do you mean by "both"? Do you mean Rittenhouse and those he shot? Or Ahmaud Arbery? Because Ahmaud Arbery did absolutely nothing to provoke anyone or intentionally put himself in a dangerous position and it's completely dishonest to claim otherwise, if that's what you're saying..

He's claiming an equivalence between Rittenhouse and Arbery's killers. He's suggesting that Arbery's killers were no more provocative than Rittenhouse and that their argument for self-defense was no weaker than Rittenhouse's argument.

It's fine to think that Rittenhouse should have been convicted, but it's ridiculous to hand wave the differences between the cases as trivial. He is mostly trying to defend his prediction that Arbery's killers would be acquitted.

As our friend Bruce Rivers always likes to say, it's about "who closes the gap".

i think the cases are clearly linked because the verdict in rittenhouse promises that we end up with more Arbery's.

Hillbillies chase a guy for 5 minutes, hitting him with their truck twice, drawing weapons on him, and then kill him when he tries to defend himself against a shotgun vs people chasing after a guy with an AR15 and attacking him.

Totally similar.

Culturally backwards morons take it upon themselves to stop perceived crimes with firearms is an obvious parallel.

In the other thread, y'all were saying that no one should bring a firearm to a riot because it's asking for trouble to find you. Whether one agrees with that or not, a riot is certainly not a perceived crime.

It’s not obvious the people Rittenhouse shot were committing crimes. Even if they were Rittenhouse is too big of an idiot to deal with it.

Well, they were attacking him, so that's a crime directly perpetrated toward him - nothing they did before that is relevant.

Right so he put himself in a spot where someone could have killed him and got off on self defense. Not a very smart move, but indicative of his cultural background. We’re told be the media to feel sorry for people like him, economic insecurity blah blah blah but I think personal responsibility is in order.

You mean just up and blast him because he's legally carrying an AR15? That's not self-defense.


Well, him and his parents are idiots, but so are the people setting buildings on fire. Seems quite a few here feel sorry for people setting buildings on fire and don't think they should have any personal responsibility.

Ya no ****. My whole point is that bias caused it. Not the facts.the facts show clear parallels between these guys and Ritt and Zimmerman.

The facts do not show that, and they don't care about your feelings either.

Bias against whom?

I am not arguing that the justice in the U.S. is unbiased, but it's quite odd to point to the the different results in the Rittenhouse and Arbery cases as evidence of the bias.

Once he reached for his gun anybody could have shot him and claimed self defense and won the same way Rittenhouse did.


Yes they are idiots. But I’m not aware of anybody arrested for violent protest arson being offered congressional internships and being called a hero by many political and media figures like Rittenhouse is. I was just pointing out the lack of personal responsibility in the Rittenhouse/Hillbilly Elegy culture. It’s not a surprise that life expectancy among rural whites has seen a notable decline when people like Rittenhouse become their heroes rather than the kid who escaped rural America to become a scientist or doctor.

Thats why we have the police and not 17 year olds with AR15s protecting the public