Can one of you Rittenhouse defenders explain how this works?
Victim was legally carrying. Witness testimony says the victim wasn’t threatening Perry, the driver, who purposefully drove toward the crowd. Driver said he wasn’t going to give the victim a chance to aim at him. Jury finds him guilty. Tucker does a show shaming Abbott. The NEXT DAY, Abbott says he’s going to pardon Perry.
I mean, wtf? Abbott has the right, don’t go there. But the legal argument for Rittenhouse was that the jury acquitted him. Jury found this guy guilty.
Bigger question is, if everybody is carrying, as I’ve said before, who is right and who is wrong when people start shooting at each other?
Victim was legally carrying. Witness testimony says the victim wasn’t threatening Perry, the driver, who purposefully drove toward the crowd. Driver said he wasn’t going to give the victim a chance to aim at him. Jury finds him guilty. Tucker does a show shaming Abbott. The NEXT DAY, Abbott says he’s going to pardon Perry.
I mean, wtf? Abbott has the right, don’t go there. But the legal argument for Rittenhouse was that the jury acquitted him. Jury found this guy guilty.
Bigger question is, if everybody is carrying, as I’ve said before, who is right and who is wrong when people start shooting at each other?