this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2024
851 points (96.8% liked)

politics

18870 readers
3726 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

if he wasn’t charged with it then the laws are insufficient.

I believe we would find common ground here. But this is one of political beliefs rather than an objective analysis of the law and whether he broke it that night in such a way that he should be found guilty of murder.

And remember this is where this all comes from, me pointing out that it's weird to claim that it makes no sense that people would think he's not guilty of a crime. You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn't break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.

On that last point, I do agree. This should not be legal to do, and he's an idiot for doing it.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

You even seem to be relenting a bit and admitting that maybe he didn't break a law, but saying there should be a law against it.

Maybe you're having discussions with other people and confusing me with someone else. I remind you that my first reply to you was:

I can acknowledge the court case, not disagree with the decision, and still call Rittenhouse a murderer

The definition of murder does require "being found guilty of the crime of murder in the place where it happened."

For example: historically it was legal to kill minorities. Those that did were still murderers even if it was "legal" at the time.

I don't care that Rittenhouse was found "not guilty", he's still a murderer. I'm not saying the trial was wrong, I'm saying Rittenhouse was wrong and the existing laws are insufficient.