posted
Needless to say it's "all news all the time" around these parts.
Some "talking heads" are suggesting that the Prosecution's case was presented in a weak manner. Time will tell if there is any foundation to that.
But I have to wonder; what the devil is some 17yo kid doing running around a volatile scene in the first place; let alone carrying a weapon?
irishchieftain Member # 1473
posted
The same question could be asked of the rioters regardless of age. Particularly Gaige Grosskreutz, who pointed a gun at the defendant.
Jerrold Nadler is currently calling on the DOJ to conduct a review, which looks like overreach to me.
George Harris Member # 2077
posted
Given the basic real facts to the case, any verdict other than not guilty would have been a miscarriage of justice. Why the media and others decided to essentially declare him guilty without trial is the mystery to me. It only makes sense if you decide to promote destruction. Rittenhouse needs to be very thankful there were people out there taking videos while this was going on. Growing up in a "gun culture" environment, to use present day terminology, I have no problem with the idea of a 17 year old with a semi-automatic rifle in hand. To be there was not the wisest move on his part, but he really did nothing wrong. Given the now known history of the people he killed, he should be given a vote of appreciation for improving society.
Gilbert B Norman Member # 1541
posted
This Times column noted within the Joe topic also address the Rittenhouse matter.
posted