Except that it doesn’t actually do that unless you buy the concept of the aggressor claiming self defense (which is not part of a self-defense case unless the law is looking for an excuse to acquit) and/or you buy the notion that the people that this shit-stain was claiming to guard against didn’t have the right to be…

When you put yourself in danger you don’t get to claim self defense. Rittenhouse put himself in that protest whilst carrying a fucking assault rifle. The warning shot was them trying to fucking protect themselves and this piece of shit shot them. I don’t give a flying fuck what excuse the law gives this asshole, it…

HE WAS THE FUCKING ACTIVE SHOOTER

No. He started that shit and he doesn’t get to claim self defense for a fight he started. He went there to start some shit, he went there with bad intent, he went there looking to shoot someone, he brandished the fucking gun, and he had no goddamn business being there if not for the bitch who raised him who is also…

How the fuck do you think it’s acceptable to go anywhere, threaten the people who were there before you then claim self defense when the people you’ve threatened and assaulted arm themselves in self defense?

This judge couldn’t have been more blatant in his bias if he’d tattooed this rancid fuck’s face on this chest and walked around the courtroom shirtless.

I don’t think anyone is saying it wasn’t “ok” for him to go... he was certainly allowed to go. The argument is that he went with intent to be violent, because he had someone else buy him an AR-15 in preparation, made previous comments about wanting to shoot looters, and took that weapon (that he couldn’t buy for…

“He feels trials are too easy to manipulate, especially by the prosecution.”

“This isn’t a case of a biased judge. It is a case of a highly experienced prosecutor deliberately sabotaging his own case.”

At least one juror, which is all it takes, may think self-defense was true enough in the moment. Much depends on whether they ask themselves a higher-level question, namely, whether he’d have had to defend himself if he hadn’t grabbed a gun and traveled to another state looking for trouble.

Especially when the defense lies and makes claims that aren’t true to benefit their case and the judge puts the burden of proof on the prosecution:

From what I read this judge is a defense attorney’s wet dream. They love to get him. He feels trials are too easy to manipulate, especially by the prosecution.

I totally agree. I have no faith in a conviction. It’s what I thought from day one of the trial when I saw him in his suit looking like he was headed to a wedding. His defense team probably prepped him on how & when to cry. How is it that the judge can be, at least to me, so impartial towards Rittenhouse?

No, he is not a good person. He’s racist trash who is always making excuses for oppressive systems and racism.

This POS judge is doing everything he can to get the fucker off.

Bill don’t see any problem with the whole “don’t call them victims, call them arsonists” part.

I don’t often agree with you, but this could actually be the strategy.

No, blame the judge. The judge has deliberately subverted the prosecution.

Slow clap. Good job. Thank you for providing a prime example of why our justice system can remain borked. Any more right wing talking points you want to use?

Uh huh. Blame the prosecutor, but not the judge. God. Could you suck on the right wing dick any more?