Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn’t address my question of “Why was he there in the first place?”
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked “Why was he there?” “Someone attacked him while he was there” does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn’t just say “Red herring” and act like I won something.)
I don’t know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a “crazy guy walking around with a gun” prior to the shooting, but I’d never heard that before.
To protest, obviously. Same as the other side.
Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to “engineer” that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He’s just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him.
(See? You’re finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.)
I don’t know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn’t even his.)
He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives).
You put far too much faith in someone’s words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were “just there to visit” therefore it wasn’t an insurrection?
Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he’d be in prison like he deserved.
“he didn’t mean it” is not a legal or moral defense.
If someone’s officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn’t mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from “You say X when it was actually Y because…” than in saying “You claim X, so let’s assume X is true…”
I’m not going to argue with you about his “true” reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let’s meet in the middle at Rittenhouse’s stated reason. His official reason was “to defend property” which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches.
As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine.
He’s very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I’m just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it.
His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there’s a pretty high chance they’ll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn’t. He was, hence the acquital.
He’s very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd.
And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe “you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people”?
If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there’s a pretty high chance they’ll shoot at you.
And if you believe there’s a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it’s legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law.
I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I’m saying it’s really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn’t even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so.
Whatever his “real” reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse’s presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home.
The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up.
Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset.
I don’t know what you’re basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help?
If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you’re sad that MAGA celebrates him we’re on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with.
Okay, your talking about the guy who actually attacked Rittenhouse, not claiming that Rittenhouse was attacked so much by the left that he was driven to vigilantism.
So, 2 main responses to that:
Rittenhouse engineered a situation in which if skateboard guy had killed Rittenhouse that also likely would have been dismissed as self defense. (Crazy guy was walking around threatening people with a gun).
Someone attacking Rittenhouse still doesn’t address my question of “Why was he there in the first place?”
See, this is why I was confused by your reponse. I asked “Why was he there?” “Someone attacked him while he was there” does not answer the question why was he there in the first place? so clearly you must have meant something else.
(See? I restated the question and clarified why your response was irrelevant. I didn’t just say “Red herring” and act like I won something.)
I don’t know where you got your information about Rittenhouse being reported to be a “crazy guy walking around with a gun” prior to the shooting, but I’d never heard that before.
To protest, obviously. Same as the other side.
Either way, painting Rittenhouse as some 4D chess champion genius enough to “engineer” that attack and legal self defense is bizarre. He’s just some fucking kid who brought a gun to a protest and someone called his bluff by attacking him.
(See? You’re finally getting past some of your hilariously wrong assumptions about me.)
I don’t know where you got your information from, Rittenhouse had directly stated he was there to protect property. Not to protest. (Property that wasn’t even his.)
He brought a gun to protect property (taking lives to protect property) from people who were protesting the loss of lives (damaging property to protect lives).
You put far too much faith in someone’s words over their actions. Following your logic: The Jan 6 insurrectionists were “just there to visit” therefore it wasn’t an insurrection?
Dude showed up to yap about a political issue. Someone attacked him. He defended himself. Case closed. If nobody had attacked him and he just started shooting people to take lives in order to protect property like you say he intended from the jump, he’d be in prison like he deserved.
“he didn’t mean it” is not a legal or moral defense.
If someone’s officially stated reasons damn them then there is no reason not to take them at their word. That doesn’t mean everyone has to be taken at their word, but there are more argumentative steps involved in going from “You say X when it was actually Y because…” than in saying “You claim X, so let’s assume X is true…”
I’m not going to argue with you about his “true” reason for being there when Rittenhouse himself says otherwise. You say he went to Yap about a political issue, I say he went there to have an excuse to shoot someone. So let’s meet in the middle at Rittenhouse’s stated reason. His official reason was “to defend property” which he stated in court. And that was deemed perfectly fine by the legal system and the people parading him around to give speeches.
As far as the the legal system and the people supporting him are concerned, Rittenhouse went there to defend property, ended up taking lives as a result, and that is perfectly fine.
He’s very obviously just virtue signaling to the MAGA crowd. I’m just surprised someone from outside his target demographic fell for it.
His reasons for driving there, prior formed or thought up after the fact, are irrelevant. If you attack someone with a gun in the US, there’s a pretty high chance they’ll shoot at you. The jury would have no reason to take his explanation for his presence into account. Either he was there legally or he wasn’t. He was, hence the acquital.
And why would that work with the MAGA crowd? Is it because they believe “you can kill people to protect property, you cannot damage property to protect people”?
And if you believe there’s a pretty high chance someone with a gun is going to shoot you, it’s legal for you to attack them in self defense. Arguably neither Rittenhouse nor the person who attacked him broke the law.
I am not saying he should have been found guilty based on existing laws. I’m saying it’s really fucked up that he went somewhere he had no good reason to be, with a gun, with a stated intention of using that gun to protect property that wasn’t even his, and not only was there no consequence for it he was actually rewarded and celebrated for doing so.
Whatever his “real” reason for going there, regardless of the actions of other people, the simple fact is Rittenhouse’s presence directly resulted in deaths that would not have occurred had he stayed home.
The fact that so many people think that is perfectly fine is fucked up.
Mostly the MAGA crowd wants BLM to suffer at any cost and enjoys when anyone left of them is upset.
I don’t know what you’re basing the assertion that the deceased had reason to suspect Rittenhouse was going to shoot him. If memory serves from photos and testimony of the incident, Rittenhouse was getting chased down by a guy with a skateboard who swung on him, he fell down and then shot the guy. If you think someone with a gun is going to shoot you, why would running at them help?
If you agree that he should have been acquitted and you’re sad that MAGA celebrates him we’re on the same page about everything except your feeling that MAGA values and American values are 1:1. That and you seem to think that anyone who harbors ill will in their heart towards their attackers forfeits the right to self defense, which I disagree with.
Because you think they are going to shoot someone else.
I don’t think they’re 1:1, but by all available information MAGA values are at least 50% +1 of American values and the law of the land.