Coffee vs Rittenhouse, what's the difference?
I'm not a fan of some of the specific wording in this article; but, this is important.
Both Coffee and Rittenhouse were found not guilty of murder due to correct self-defense claims. Still, we have to deal with the fact that the "Hang Kyle!" people are still falsely claiming that he was illegally in possession of a firearm and also falsely claiming that that negates his right to claim self-defense. Coffee was illegally in possession of the firearm that he used in self-defense and found not guilty of the murder charges; but, he was found guilty of illegally possessing the gun.
What's worse, the sentence could be thirty years in prison.
I want y'all to think about this and examine your motivations. I suspect that most of the "Hang Kyle!" people are the same people who support gun laws and harsh punishments like what this young black man is facing. I know for sure that the "Hang Kyle!" people - pretty much 100% of you - who are hanging onto the idea that it is and/or should be the law that if you use a gun which you illegally possess you forfeit the claim to self-defense, support laws that would have allowed the state to throw out Coffee's claim to self-defense and put him in prison for the rest of his life.
Examine your own minds and your own consciences - is this principle or politics? Would you apply the same laws that you falsely think do exist, the bad laws that you support that actually do exist, and the laws that you've expressed should exist equally to Rittenhouse and Coffee?
If your answer is yes, you've either gotta change your tune on the law or you've gotta join a "Hang Coffee!" mob, which is a mob which I assume none of us would want to join. If your answer is no, you believe that law should apply differently on the basis of race or beliefs, which would make you a dick.