He didn’t own the firearm— stop making up facts which only continues to discredit your opinion. Besides that .. the jury disagrees with your opinion.You mean the gun he illegally owned (being a minor from another state) that he crossed state lines to participate in a riot before he got into a confrontation with a homeless person and shot him, with the fatal shot being in his back when he was already down and no longer presented a threat?
One hit him with a skateboard, and the other armed felon moved in for the attack and had his arm blown away.Then he shot two other people who were trying to hold him for police. The police who let him walk past four of their cars even though he was carrying a gun down the street.
But justified as self-defense because he was white.
Keep in mind what started this riot. The Kenosha police shot a black man in the back when he was trying to get into his car and leave.
View attachment 1266582
Why did the black jury’s essentially opt out so they “wouldn’t put a brother in jail?” Ask them brainiac. Regardless, it’s a far cry from the “all white” propaganda the defense originally communicated to turn it into a race based issue instead of the facts to present reasonable doubt.I agree. So why no black people on the jury? Why did the prosecutors, in fact, eliminate all black jury members from the potential jury pool?
You’ll just have to agree or disagree with a grand jury, a petit jury, and the ability of the defense to create doubt — an approach the defense hasn’t started out with and decided to turn it into a racial propaganda extravaganza.Now, truth to be told, I think this kid is guilty of manslaughter, not murder. But so were Rittenhouse, and Zimmerman, and Reeves. But they all got off on a "Stand your Ground"/Self-defense argument.
Hardly speculating.
The only difference I see in these cases is that they are railroading a black kid when white people who did things that were FAR WORSE got passes because of their race and level of privilege.