-
lol. youre first paragraph reads as such "i dont understand you, you must be dumb THIS IS WHATS WRONG WITH WORLD" only, politically worded lmfao.
also, If I carry a hammer jist to go and kill somone its pre meditated.
having a hammer in my toolkit and whacking someone stealing that toolkit would not be.
A trial would decide which I did.like whats happening....
I dont agree with a lot of US gun laws but objectively some do make sense and open carry is a deterrent to not get to the point of using. Makes sense even if we dont like that they have the guns.
fwiw the first dude was at least manslaughter. Maybe self defense if he didnt run away. Its not pre meditated murder, he didnt want to kill him (trial to decide remember) but he ended uo doing so.
His aim got better during the night and the other two incidents are more self defense oriented, less shots, more immediate threat, handed himself in etc etc.And please, dont veil youre disdain for an opinion with jargon and swearwords. I dont understand arabic or french or many laws of physics etc etc but that doesnt mean theyre not valid, sensible and widely shared.
.mo.-
Rittenhouse put himself in an active conflict zone, with a rifle.
Specifically he got his mother to drive him across state to another state to get to the conflict zone. With his rifle. That would suggest that he wanted to be involved in the conflict, or else why go to the considerable trouble of putting himself in the middle of it, and he decided that a rifle was a suitable item to have with him, which again suggests that he intended on finding and joining conflict that required the ability to present and/or dispense lethal force with ease.
He did indeed end up in a conflict, which the evidence suggests he sought out, and put himself in. It takes two to make a fight, but if Rittenhouse had stayed at home that night he'd not have killed those people.
This may work in terms of a self-defence argument in the US, where there's a nation wide cognitive dissonance with regards to firearms, said items being venerated in popular culture, seen as a vital part of being a "true" American, etc etc. But that doesn't mean that people outside America exposed to the same universal conditioning* and can see that it's bollocks.
I'm uncertain how that's "just happening to be there, with my hammer in my toolkit, which happened to be at hand in the unplanned altercation which I found myself embroiled in".
*(Similar to how the Poppy Day in the UK has become a month long, oppressive bit of Nationalist ancestor worship in praise of the glory of war that literally a handful of citizens experienced. We don't seem to see it, but it's plain to those outside the bubble).
Dammit
I saw your tried reasoning, but i cannot get my head around it, though I appreciate the attempt, and slagging you off for sharing an opinion is wrong -the lack of congnitive discussion and debate is a cornerstone of the demise of the current world.
Edit: To be clear @Eseman I was not calling you dumb - in case you read it that way also. I appreciate your comment. And meant what I said on the lack of cognitive discussion of opposite views being a demise, so thanks.
I feel that as an outsider I can have a prepspctive that it is fucking lunacy, and people inside have been numbed to the second ammendment they think its okay.
Someone died because he went somewhere he didn't need to go with a gun, thinking he was some hero and want-to-be police/army loser. That is what he is, a loser an outcast and pathetic child. Just because someone punches you I don't think you should be able to shoot them, its not exactly proportional. As I learned growing up, two wrongs don't make a right and while I don't know many facts I highly doubt he was attacked for no reason. I am looking forward to reading the full facts when they come out after the trial ends.
In the UK, if you went somewhere with a hammer, and killed someone with it. That's pre-meditated murder.
If you (Americans) can't see what happened is lunacy then hope is lost.