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).
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).