Two years after an attacker shot five volunteers before a Black Lives Matter march in Portland, Oregon, killing a 60-year-old woman and leaving one of her young friends paralyzed, a new visual investigation of the attack reveals that the assailant tried to provoke a stand-your-ground situation, daring three women to fight him, before suddenly opening fire when they refused.
Hey man how many times have we both had this argument with someone? Probably more than once. Some version (I say that because I’ve seen slightly different nuance in other summaries but can’t be bothered at the moment) of the summary from the prosecution’s closing argument is more or less what I think happened: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/15/us/kyle-rittenhouse-verdict-wisconsin-national-guard/index.html
I believe Rittenhouse went there looking for exactly what he made sure he found. A reason to use his shiny new gun on those antifa/blm/liberal “rioters” that Fox News et al insisted were burning cities to the ground all across the US. He succeeded in doing so, in circumstances that would later be ruled as legal.
You clearly disagree, and that’s A-OK. But I’m not interested in changing your mind, and you aren’t going to change mine, so unless someone else feels like having this argument with you, I suggest you don’t waste the time typing one up.
Lumping together violent, opportunistic criminals like Rosenbaum with BLM is something I would expect of the right. Not everyone who shows up to a protest shares the cause. Some are there just to pick up new home furnishings. Some are there to watch the world burn.
The prosecutor’s case failed because it is nothing but a compelling narrative, contradicted by hours of video evidence. You didn’t watch much, if any of that video evidence. I did, and the jury did. Neither of us found the prosecutor’s case particularly compelling.
LOL if I ever do that (vs portraying the view Rittenhouse would have been fed prior to his arrival) I hope someone calls me out on it.
The jury saw the video that was allowed to be shown. Don’t believe this one was.
https://nypost.com/2021/08/20/kyle-rittenhouse-dreamed-about-shooting-people-days-before-kenosha-video/
I’ve seen it. From your link:
The presence of the weapon means this was not shoplifting. This was armed robbery. He witnessed an armed robbery in progress.
An armed robbery in progress is 1. Reasonably considered to be a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm to every person within range of the criminal’s weapon. No lesser amount of force could reliably stop that threat, so lethal force was also 6. necessary for that threat to be stopped before the criminal wanted it to stop.
Are you aware of the criteria for “defense of others”? These armed robbers provided all 6 of the criteria necessary for anyone to fire on them until the threat they posed had ended.
That’s not vigilantism. That video demonstrates he had a solid understanding of the laws governing use of lethal force in defense of self and others.
Welp, as I said you aren’t going to change my mind, and I’m not interested in changing yours. I’ve already taken this discussion further than I would have liked, so good day to you, Sir or Madam.
It’s clear that one of us doesn’t understand self defense.
I think that everyone should be taught the laws governing the use of force, in high school, before anyone is old enough to legally acquire a firearm.
Everyone. Not just gun owners. I think everyone needs a consistent understanding, because there are obviously some major misconceptions in the public’s current knowledge if half the general public thinks he’s a murderer and half think he’s completely exonerated.
Some show up with guns hoping for an opportunity to get away with murder, but those are just human lives, why care about them more than the precious home furnishings?
Wow you actually wasted time typing up a response