-
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-
Minor point, but Remembrance Day, and America's obsession with gun ownership are not the same thing, or even similar.
-
in praise of the glory of war that literally a handful of citizens experienced
Millions of citizens across Europe died in those two wars, Poppies and Remembrance day at least partly has the intention of keeping it everyone's minds so nothing like that happens again.
I don't think anyone would ever consider WW1 glorious.
-
I don't like coming across as defending Rittenhouse, who I think is morally culpable, but legally likely to get off the hook (not helped by US gun/self-defense laws and prosecution over-charging) but there's a few things in here that I also thought were true but have come to find aren't at all, or at least lack context. Long sentence, sorry..!
Also reckon that if/when he's acquitted these assumptions are going to be the reason a lot of people will absolutely kick off by way of seeing someone they believe to be a cold-blooded murderer absolved of wrong-doing.Rittenhouse put himself in an active conflict zone
Arguably hyperbole, but there are videos of him at least performing the 'concerned citizen' stuff in the hours before shooting people - and at least within the confines of the trial, that's evidence enough he's not gone in 'looking for a fight' - whether or not he had ulterior motives.
drive him across state to another state
It was about a 15-20 mins drive, and he both works and his dad lives in Kenosha
With his rifle.
Not true - he picked that up from a friend after he'd got there, I think the day/evening before - not sure if that friend will be charged with anything RE: supplying a kid with a rifle, can only hope so.
suggests that he intended on finding and joining conflict
Open-carry state + US gun culture, so as much a we want to read into his intentions, they're essentially moot point legally (again, not saying that the legal side of things ignoring context/bigger picture is right - just how it is)
Might be preaching to the choir here with some of that especially around what's legally defensible and what's morally so, apologies if I've talked over you in that respect.
edit: just to be clear - I think Rittenhouse is a racist shithead who at best made some fucking stupid decisions, and I dread the elevation of the folk-hero status he already has on the right once this trial ends, whichever way it goes.
-
wanted to be involved in the conflict, ... he intended on finding and joining conflict
he maybe wanted to be a part of the "solution". Protest the protest, doesnt matter how far he travelled. Thats his right.
He took a gun to protect himself, another legal right.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
Whats the evidence, location and armed? Not enough.
By the above logic the entire protest and then riot is what killed those people, in fact go further, cops, cops with guns. ITS tHE8R FAUlt!!.....
Our country has nucleur weapons to scare but if we use them is that cos we were forced to? No. It will be a decision we would have to stand by, no one elses fault. You cant blame a cause for a reaction or all tantrums are justified lol!I believe what he did was wrong. I also believe what he did was lawful. That is the argument int it, if its wrong why is it lawful. Well, because of all the nuances that got america where it is, it has different laws to us regardless of what we think.
In america guns are everday carry. It is not pre meditated is it?
If I punch someone and they die it is manslaughter not murder.Im playing devils advocate because while it is obvious to me a crime has been commited I am not in any way an authority on american law and this is only that. Law. Not logic (unfortunatley)
Yes he murdered people
No he shouldnt face a homicide charge, manslaughter charges, disrupting the peace, involved in a riot, illegally carrying and using a firearm etc, he should (a whole other argument to be had as to whether manslaughter should even be a thing, Im sure)
He will be acquited, lawfully, it will be a turning point in US laws (we hope)Hurling insults and claiming superiority through syllables is what irked me to post tbh.
Also, bang on with the poppies!
Also think help for heroes is extremely shameful too. But probably not the place for that.
Jingle_Jangle
who22
hvsds
.mo.
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.