Yes, they were rioting, burning things, and looting.
None of Rittenhouse’s victims were charged with rioting, arson, or looting. So no, they weren’t “rioting, burning things, and looting” as you claim.
On top of that, none of those crimes are punishable with the death penalty in the USA, so “they committed rioting/arson/looting, therefore they deserved to die” is not a valid legal argument. Do you know where it was considered to be a valid legal argument, though? Stalin’s URSS.
They also were rapists and pedophiles.
Incorrect - only Rosenbaum sexually abused minors. The other two had no sex-related charges.
Rosenbaum had already been punished for his crime, with a sentence of 15 years. Unlike what Durkin thinks, you cannot punish the same person twice for the same crime. Again: Durkin thinks that he lives in the URSS instead of the USA.
On top of that, the victims’ past crimes can be used as evidence only if they are related to the case. Since they aren’t, in ANY way or form, this is just the same as when the cops dug up Tony Timpa’s crime sheet to justify suffocating him to death. It’s an attempt to smear the victim and paint it as violent, therefore implying that it’s alright to “rough them up”. It’s a tactic similar to the “but black-on-black crime” that the KKK and Durkin love so much to use against black people.
But let’s pretend, for a second, that “the victims already committed crimes prior to this, therefore using violence on them is okay” IS a valid argument. Unlike Durkin, however, we’ll apply this across the board. Wisconsin law says that you cannot go out with a firearm if you’re under 17yo; Rittenhouse DID, therefore he’s guilty of a misdemeanor. “But the 2nd Amend-” - the Supreme Court is currently majority conservative and pro-gun, and they STILL sided in favor of Wisconsin, so shut up.
Additionally, there’s the issue of where Rittenhouse got that rifle. The evidence available indicates two possible scenarios:
Rittenhouse got the rifle in Illinois (his home state), and then brought it with him in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Illinois law states that firearms owners must have a Firearm Owners Identification card - but Rittenhouse didn’t have one, so he’s guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, he crossed state lines with an illegally-owned rifle, which upgrades his crime to a felony.
Rittenhouse got the rifle in Wisconsin, from a friend. So not only Rittenhouse is guilty of carrying a firearm despite not being legally allowed to do so (misdemeanor), but the friend is also guilty of giving a rifle to a kid who wasn’t legally allowed to carry a firearm.
I bet that the “friend” will deny having given Rittenhouse his weapon. Which leaves only Scenario 1.
They also tried to murder a child.
Rosenbaum threw an empty plastic bag in his direction. And you claim that’s “trying to murder a child”?
This is like that time where you tried to claim that, if YOU pick a fight with cops and gets yourself killed, then somehow I murdered you through the fascist state.
