![](/static/23fb711/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/db7182d9-181a-45e1-b0aa-6768f144911a.jpeg)
“Oh, you were misinformed about something worthy of a snopes article, have you considered that you might also be wrong in opposing murder?”
Yes. That is my question. Is it possible that the same sources and methods by which you came to be misinformed about his mother have also caused you to be misinformed about the actual circumstances of the attack?
12 jurors all heard the same evidence, and concluded that his use of force was justified against all three of the people he hit, and a fourth that he fired upon and missed. What do you know about the case that leads you to believe differently?
Were you aware that there was a fourth person to attack Rittenhouse?
Were you aware that Gaige Grosskreutz (“Byecep”) was live streaming, captured Rittenhouse stating he was going to police, observed him running toward police, and still called for mob violence against Rittenhouse?
These are all from primary sources: people and video directly involved. They aren’t from reports or commentary. If any of this information is new to you, how confident are you that you now have all the relevant information? How confident should you be?
Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 empower Congress to require such training every member of the militia, and they have indicated that the militia is comprised of every able bodied male citizen, aged 17 to 45. (10 USC 246)
Congress can require training on safe handling. They can require training on the laws governing use of force in self defense and defense of others. We can have the same kind of training that promotes the low firearm crime rates we see in Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, South Korea, etc.