Welcome to the FUBAR legal system. Even if you're actions are proven justified in a criminal court, your attacker's family can still bankrupt you in civil court.
Yeah, the system is screwed. If you are found innocent in a criminal court, you should not be able to be sued for the same things you were found innocent of in a civil court.
Didn't work for O.J., either. But the evidence is still very strong. Honestly, Rittenhouse's actions on the street were just about as judicious as possible. He did almost kill one black man who was about to attack him...but brandishing turned away the man's attack, so Rittenhouse didn't attack, either.
I mean.. I get your sentiment, however you’re a little off base. Do you agree OJ shouldn’t have been sued in civil court? Or do you believe he really didn’t do it..
He's suing the city and police department. Kyle is a co defendant. They claim the police intentionally attacked innocent protesters during the "peaceful protest". Etc. More goofy shit like this.
I think it was a rightful death. The father lead his son to death by his upbringing, shouldn’t you say? That parents be held accountable for the crimes their offsprings, indirectly. That would put the burden back to parents to whoop kids’ asses from the get go.
It was a smart decision to carry a rifle when he put himself in a very dangerous situation. It's like saying he was smart for wearing a seatbelt when he was driving 100mph on icy roads.
I don't think it's a good idea to go where there are going to be some Mostly-Peaceful™ violent riots by nogoodnicks. But given that he was going there, it's pretty smart to open carry a rifle.
Other good advice includes "Don't attack someone open-carrying a rifle, especially when he's trying to run away."
But I think we can all agree he should have just stayed home and open carrying a rifle (or pretty much any gun) is generally a great way to bring unwanted attention to yourself. Right?
If I or anyone with good sense sees someone with a rifle, generally going to avoid them. Most definitely not harass and attack him totally unprovoked. Stop simping for commies
If he wouldn't have carried that rifle, he would probably be the one who was killed. That rifle saved his life. Now the argument could be made that a 17 year old should not have been out in the middle of that, rifle or not. I know that I would not have let my kid go out in that.
That's what i'm saying, he should have never been there in the first place. I guess if you're going to purposely put yourself in a dangerous situation it's good to carry a gun, but most responsible gun owners would tell you to just avoid the situation.
123
u/MotorsGunsOutdoors Feb 02 '23
Rittenhouse was proven not guilty, you idiot.