What it ultimately came down to is: If you have a gun, and someone chases you and goes to grab your gun, is it reasonable to fear that person is going to kill you?

This case was never about should he have not gone to a chaotic scene with a gun. Because the answer is he should not but it's not against the law.


Sharpton had it right in the clip you shared, its about the law and changing the law.

Its also worth going back 20 seconds in the clip you shared because that very prosecutor said this was a difficult case to win...which is my point.

Also his fist metaphor doesn't hold up because fist fights and gun fights are just so fundamentally different.



>>The media and politicians went all out to portray this as
>>something it was not. It was not a white supremacist
>>deliberate mass murderer. It was a guy caught up in a
>chaotic
>>scene.
>
>It was a guy who went to a chaotic scene.
>
>>Whether he should have been in that scene or not is outside
>>the scope of what happened while he was there.
>>
>
>smh
>
>>The first person shot was entirely justifiable. He was
>getting
>>chased by dude (who was the aggressor) who was trying to get
>>at his gun. Given that self defense laws exist, Rittenhouse
>>had every right to defend himself.
>
>https://youtu.be/cLJ_sHrn3lg?t=1713
>
>>The other two were not necessary aggressors. According to
>the
>>prosecution, they thought they Rittenhouse was the aggressor
>>and was a danger.
>>But from Rittenhouse's perspective, it's reasonable to
>believe
>>that he felt the need to continue defending himself against
>>these threats that keep chasing after him. Especially the
>one
>>who pulled a gun on him.
>>
>>
>
>https://youtu.be/cLJ_sHrn3lg?t=1729
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"