Rittenhouse Update: DA Claims “Who was the Aggressor” is Irrelevant ...I don’t think you get to kill somebody with a gun when they are unarmed, even if they are the aggressor. I mean, let’s think about a bar fight, your honor, we have a lot of bar fights… [More]
Tell me this Binger facist doesn't know about this.
And ULLA SELLA 'n all that...
2 comments:
I think there is a subtext here that underlies this discussion but isn't clearly stated.
There is a weird quirk in Wisconsin law under which someone who goes out specifically inviting people to aggress against him cannot claim self-defense when it occurs. They're trying to say that a guy who goes out with a highly-visible gun strapped to him is like a pretty woman who goes on in Daisy Dukes and heels -- both are "asking for it," and both are "at fault for whatever happens." I think the DA is angling for a concession from the judge that will allow him to use this law as a can-opener.
Complicating this, of course, is Rosenbaum's express repetition of "Go ahead, shoot me, nigger" directed towards Rittenhouse. If you claim that Rittenhouse was implicitly inviting aggression, you have to deal with the fact that Rosenbaum was explicitly inviting it.
On top of Henry's comment, the video shows that the men attacking Rittenhouse were not "unarmed". One was attempting to bash Rittenhouse in the head with a skateboard (the wheels and trucks are no joke), and another had drawn a gun.
Is the DA seriously expecting us (or the judge) to consider an aggressor with a gun "unarmed"? If so, then Rittenhouse was unarmed and could not have invited the attack against him!
Post a Comment