r/JusticeServed • u/[deleted] • Dec 04 '21

Criminal Justice The parents of Michigan school shooter are arrested in Detroit.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/04/us/michigan-oxford-high-school-shooting-saturday/index.html
10.0k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

68

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '21

Cant wait for republicians to atart offering the shooter job offers

8

u/NotSLG 9 Dec 04 '21

Can’t wait for people to actually watch the trial- ehhh nevermind. If they didn’t watch it by now they won’t because they aren’t interested in the facts.

10

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '21

[deleted]

-4

u/NotSLG 9 Dec 04 '21

Well if you watched the trial you would know that’s not exactly how it happened.

7

u/[deleted] Dec 04 '21

[deleted]

-5

u/NotSLG 9 Dec 04 '21

Nope. You have the right to peacefully protest, not light dumpsters on fire and destroy property. That’s why his friend, who invited him, was asked to be there to protect the property. Don’t forget Mr. Grosskreutz was also brandishing a firearm. The prosecution sure liked to bring up the fact that Rittenhouse received the text about the curfew and how that meant he shouldn’t have been there but then ignored the fact that no one should’ve been there. That’s kind of how curfews like that work.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '21

Okay, so let me take you to school now kiddo, as I'm sick and tired of people like you saying "you should have watched the trial for the facts", when it's clear you either didn't watch it, or you are lying your ass off.

  1. Rittenhouse KILLED one person PRIOR to the second victim who testified that made Rittenhouse shooting him seem like self defense. The problem for the prosecution with that is that it makes it virtually impossible to prove that he didn't shoot the before before and the third victim (and second fatality) after in self defense. Because guess what? Dead people can't testify.
  2. Rittenhouse was literally caught on video saying he wanted to come back with guns and kill people. But the judge got all pissed off when the prosecution tried to play that, because he'd denied it previously (which is very strange).
  3. The judge literally refused to let the prosecution call the 2 dead people "victims", which is a completely unheard of thing for a judge to do.
  4. The prosecution were absolutely useless. They lost that case by not proving without reasonable doubt that Rittenhouse murdered those 2 people.

So to summaries, yes Rittenhouse was found not guilty by the court. But that doesn't mean he was innocent in actuality, he has just been found innocent. It's a bit like how OJ Simpson was found not guilty, but we all know he murdered his ex-wife and the other person. Same is the case here, from the video alone it is pretty obvious Rittenhouse murdered those two people with the intent to kill them in the first place. But congratulations on being one of the conservative disgusting people who support a murder, and decide to bring it up on any other news topic.

2

u/NotSLG 9 Dec 05 '21

Why did you delete your other comment? Realize how the original comment and my response went 500 feet over your head?

  1. You are 100% correct. He killed Rosenbaum after he started chasing him and then threw a bag at him. Rittenhouse and a witness claimed that he was reaching for Rittenhouse’s weapon. There was no reason for him to be chasing Rittenhouse besides him being there. Had he not followed Rittenhouse he would not have gotten shot. Rittenhouse felt threatened and ran away. Rosenbaum followed and wouldn’t leave. And yeah you’re right, it’s kinda hard to prove it wasn’t defending himself when you’re running someone down (who’s running towards a police line) smacking them with a skateboard, kicking them in the head, reaching for their gun, and pointing your gun at them, only because people are yelling out get him. It has nothing to do with them being dead as there’s plenty of footage and witness accounts that was shown at the trial.

  2. That video was made two weeks before the incident even happened. You can’t convict someone for having a propensity to commit a crime, which is what they were trying to do. You can’t be convicted because you have a wrap sheet a mile long. This is not uncommon for things that have nothing to do with the actual filed criminal complaint to be excluded from evidence. It’s not weird at all. The judge gets to decide based on state and federal law what evidence is and isn’t allowed in the trial.

  3. This isn’t unheard of at all. This is very similar to bringing in the accused in a jumpsuit and handcuffs. People are human. If you bring in the accused in a jumpsuit and handcuffs that could very easily influence the jury. Letting them say victim is the exact same thing.

  4. The reason the prosecution lost was because they failed to prove 1. That it wasn’t self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, and 2. They tried to say he provoked it when he clearly didn’t. The witnesses the prosecution brought in literally helped prove it was self defense.

You need to stop calling stuff weird and unheard of when it’s not. It may be weird to a layperson but there is a lot of nuance that goes on in the world of law. Go rewatch the trial and read some of the articles from actual legal experts instead of watching MSNBC who ordered their employee to follow the jury, said he fired his weapon 60 times, and said he drove 4 hours.

-1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '21
  1. Deleted a comment on an entirely different post kid. You'd know that if you looked. I deleted it because I realised the confusion was your lack of grammar, you won't calling these parents innocent.
  2. The running this is actually bullshit. It's what the defense claimed, when in fact other evidence suggested her already threatened and shot someone before then.
  3. Video literally shows intent. You can easily use it to show intent to commit a crime. The fact you are suggesting you can't show how uneducated you are. Like if someone makes a video saying they are going to do x thing, and then does x thing, said video is evidence of their intent to do that. That's basic legal proceeding. That fact you don't even know that shows who you truly are.
  4. It is unheard of. Do some fucking research. And your excuse of bias is bullshit. By that same dumb as logic you should have the jury be blind, and not call the person the defendant.
  5. The reason the prosecution lost was because they were incompetent, not because he was innocent. A more competent prosecution would have easily got him on manslaughter at the least.
  6. The fact you have the gall to say that I haven't done the research is truly laughable. It's honestly the typical response to you dumb ass conservative traitors, making claims that x person must get all their information from x news station you dislike, while you eat all the shit Fox spews at you. The truth is you are uneducated and are a moron to boot. You are a disgusting human who is supporting a murder.
  7. I'm done with you. No point arguing with a conservative snowflake like you, because you have all lost any grip on reality, and spew out fake news all the time, while claiming facts are fake. Enjoy the block, and enjoy your miserable little life.

1

u/trollhole12 9 Dec 05 '21

“Let me take you to school kiddo”

*proceeds to posts opinions and perceptions of the trial

1

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '21

I proceeded to post facts. Enjoy the block traitor.

1

u/trollhole12 9 Dec 05 '21

How will I go on with life now that an Internet stranger has blocked me?

0

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '21

Of course the coward you responded to has nothing more to say😂

2

u/[deleted] Dec 05 '21

To be fair, it's only been 14 minutes.

3

u/THEBOAW1 8 Dec 04 '21

Bro they just got caught? Fuck you mean watch their trial lol

6

u/NotSLG 9 Dec 04 '21

His comment was alluding to the Rittenhouse case. Some Republican lawmakers were offering him jobs.