(November 12, 2021 at 5:10 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:(November 12, 2021 at 5:02 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: Given that Grossenkreutz’ actions were done to neutralize the threat from an active shooter (given that Rittenhouse had shot several people by that point, this seems like a plausible self-defense claim), never actually fired the gun, and that, unlike Grossenkreutz, Rittenhouse actually killed three people, it makes sense that the law would come down harder on Rittenhouse than Grossenkreutz.
Uh... That is one way of looking at it.
The other is he was pointing a gun at someone defending himself....
Read the article. He said under oath that Rittenhouse did NOT fire until he pointrd his pistol at Rittenhouse
If Grosskruerz had fired first ( they were at point blank range) would HE be up on charges?
There really isn' t an innocent party here.
They ALL fucked up.
And he killed 2. Wounded 1.
No dude. The Rambo baby face twat had no legal right to even possess a firearm and he transported across state lines illegally. Not only that the jackass claimed to be there to protect property and lend medical aid while there. Name me one fucking fireman or EMT that needs an assault riffle to lend aid?
What's next, you go into surgery for a heart bypass and your surgeon is sporting a bazooka? That fucking little snot wanted to play hero, nothing more.
