The comparison of a child being armed and forcibly thrown into the fray of a riot is an especially ridiculous false analogy. Also, a lot of that “property” is small businesses which literally are people’s livelihoods. They’re not just random buildings. You don’t have to kill someone to ruin their life, you know.
Let’s not pretend we don’t both know how blatantly obtuse you’re being.
Kyle Rittenhouse made the decision to go and try to protect his community, on his own. No one forced him. He also chose to legally arm himself for his own protection, as a precaution (a decision that proved to be very prudent). Then he went into town and spent hours repairing rioters’ property damage, and helped anyone in need who took him up on his offers of bottled water and basic medical aid.
You’re so full of shit to act like he wasn’t there to get into trouble
Name one action he took while there that could reasonably be described as ‘trying to get into trouble’.
And no, merely ‘showing up’ doesn’t count. No one was bothered or even cared that he showed up, he was a completely mundane presence in Kenosha until Rosenbaum threatened to kill him for putting out a fire.
You’re the one desperately grasping at straws. The facts simply do not support this assumption.
and larp as medic.
It’s confirmed he helped at least 8 people medically. Even if he had zero medical training and had nothing but bandages with him to put on scratches (in fact, he had some training he got in his capacity working as a lifeguard), that’s still 100% a positive thing to do.
You’re right, he wasn’t forced. So he should have stayed the fuck home.
The rioters should have stayed the fuck home. He had every right to protect his community, and infinitely more justification to be there, than any of the scumbags who did nothing but trash the place. Cope.
Instead he entered a predicable situation, and predictably, it turned deadly.
Are you saying he should have predicted that putting out a dumpster fire would cause his life to be threatened? Are you actually impaired?
Also, what kind of ridiculous logic is this? “Just let rioters destroy whatever they want, get out of their way.” No. They fucked around, they found out what happens when you try to murder someone who’s armed and knows how to use his weapon. The attackers are 100% at fault for how deadly it turned. They provoked. They aggressed. They chased when Kyle fled. They attacked.
And they were handed the consequences. They close to forfeit their lives by trying to take another’s, because he extinguished a flaming dumpster that was trying to be used to blow up a gas station. Let’s not forget THAT little detail–Kyle probably saved several lives by putting out that fire, in addition to his own when he protected it from violent criminal scum who are such garbage that they’ll try to kill someone for stopping them from blowing up a gas station.
Grabbing his gun and showing up instead of staying the fuck home.
Nope, already explained why this isn’t troublemaking. If it was, then how could it be that no one gave a shit about him when he showed up, even though he was obviously, unmistakably armed, with a long rifle? It’s literally insane to describe ‘existing while bothering nobody’ as troublemaking. Wisconsin’s an open carry state–there was, as evidenced by the non-reaction to his arrival, nothing strange about his existing in that place with a rifle on his person.
Are you actually, literally trying to argue “he was standing there, menacingly!”? (even though literally nobody was ‘menaced’ by him–in fact, in a way, it’s kind of incredible to me just how willing Rosenbaum was to threaten his life and chase him down and try to kill him with his own gun, having no weapon of his own…although the fact is that THAT LITERAL DAY, Rosenbaum had just been released from a mental health facility after a suicide attempt, so I think there’s a plausible argument to be made that he was actually trying to get himself killed (oh yeah, he also screamed “shoot me [hard r n-word]” multiple times))
You can’t have it both ways, either it was an innocuous graffiti clean up, or an armed line of defense. Stop trying to frame it both ways.
I “can’t have it both ways” by saying multiple factual things? Sorry, but multiple things can be true, especially when they don’t contradict each other at all. These are all facts:
He did clean graffiti.
He did arm himself for protection.
He did equip himself with a medical kit as well, and he treated at least 8 people that day, as evidenced during the trial
He did guard a car dealership for a time, at their request. One of his group was even given access to the roof of the building to help surveil the area
All you people always get reduced to the same ridiculous argument: “the mere fact that he was there constitutes aggressive behavior, therefore not self defense.”
No. Not how it works. “Existing while armed” is not provocation/aggression/brandishing in a place where open carry is legal, ya dopes.
I wonder what he armed himself for protection from…
The mental gymnastics required to reconcile the notion that he wasn’t putting himself in an unnecessarily dangerous situation, but that he still needed a fucking gun to protect himself is just astounding.
I wonder what he armed himself for protection from…
Anything. It’s a precaution.
the notion that he wasn’t putting himself in an unnecessarily dangerous situation
Nobody said that. He knew he was taking a risk and potentially putting himself in harm’s way, but he made the decision to take that risk, to do what he felt was the right thing to do (i.e. go to Kenosha try to prevent some of the damage, and also use what limited medical training he had to help anyone who needed it).
That’s courageous, not something to criticize somebody for. It’s incredible to me that you’re too dense to recognize the blatant victim blaming.
And police shouldn’t murder people – how far back do you want to go?
You’re advocating for arming children and sending them in to defend property. That’s fucked, my guy.
The comparison of a child being armed and forcibly thrown into the fray of a riot is an especially ridiculous false analogy. Also, a lot of that “property” is small businesses which literally are people’s livelihoods. They’re not just random buildings. You don’t have to kill someone to ruin their life, you know.
Let’s not pretend we don’t both know how blatantly obtuse you’re being.
Kyle Rittenhouse made the decision to go and try to protect his community, on his own. No one forced him. He also chose to legally arm himself for his own protection, as a precaution (a decision that proved to be very prudent). Then he went into town and spent hours repairing rioters’ property damage, and helped anyone in need who took him up on his offers of bottled water and basic medical aid.
He did literally nothing wrong that day.
You’re so full of shit to act like he wasn’t there to get into trouble and larp as medic.
You’re right, he wasn’t forced. So he should have stayed the fuck home.
Instead he entered a predicable situation, and predictably, it turned deadly.
Name one action he took while there that could reasonably be described as ‘trying to get into trouble’.
And no, merely ‘showing up’ doesn’t count. No one was bothered or even cared that he showed up, he was a completely mundane presence in Kenosha until Rosenbaum threatened to kill him for putting out a fire.
You’re the one desperately grasping at straws. The facts simply do not support this assumption.
It’s confirmed he helped at least 8 people medically. Even if he had zero medical training and had nothing but bandages with him to put on scratches (in fact, he had some training he got in his capacity working as a lifeguard), that’s still 100% a positive thing to do.
The rioters should have stayed the fuck home. He had every right to protect his community, and infinitely more justification to be there, than any of the scumbags who did nothing but trash the place. Cope.
Are you saying he should have predicted that putting out a dumpster fire would cause his life to be threatened? Are you actually impaired?
Also, what kind of ridiculous logic is this? “Just let rioters destroy whatever they want, get out of their way.” No. They fucked around, they found out what happens when you try to murder someone who’s armed and knows how to use his weapon. The attackers are 100% at fault for how deadly it turned. They provoked. They aggressed. They chased when Kyle fled. They attacked.
And they were handed the consequences. They close to forfeit their lives by trying to take another’s, because he extinguished a flaming dumpster that was trying to be used to blow up a gas station. Let’s not forget THAT little detail–Kyle probably saved several lives by putting out that fire, in addition to his own when he protected it from violent criminal scum who are such garbage that they’ll try to kill someone for stopping them from blowing up a gas station.
Grabbing his gun and showing up instead of staying the fuck home. Easy.
You can’t have it both ways, either it was an innocuous graffiti clean up, or an armed line of defense. Stop trying to frame it both ways.
Nope, already explained why this isn’t troublemaking. If it was, then how could it be that no one gave a shit about him when he showed up, even though he was obviously, unmistakably armed, with a long rifle? It’s literally insane to describe ‘existing while bothering nobody’ as troublemaking. Wisconsin’s an open carry state–there was, as evidenced by the non-reaction to his arrival, nothing strange about his existing in that place with a rifle on his person.
Are you actually, literally trying to argue “he was standing there, menacingly!”? (even though literally nobody was ‘menaced’ by him–in fact, in a way, it’s kind of incredible to me just how willing Rosenbaum was to threaten his life and chase him down and try to kill him with his own gun, having no weapon of his own…although the fact is that THAT LITERAL DAY, Rosenbaum had just been released from a mental health facility after a suicide attempt, so I think there’s a plausible argument to be made that he was actually trying to get himself killed (oh yeah, he also screamed “shoot me [hard r n-word]” multiple times))
I “can’t have it both ways” by saying multiple factual things? Sorry, but multiple things can be true, especially when they don’t contradict each other at all. These are all facts:
All you people always get reduced to the same ridiculous argument: “the mere fact that he was there constitutes aggressive behavior, therefore not self defense.”
No. Not how it works. “Existing while armed” is not provocation/aggression/brandishing in a place where open carry is legal, ya dopes.
I wonder what he armed himself for protection from…
The mental gymnastics required to reconcile the notion that he wasn’t putting himself in an unnecessarily dangerous situation, but that he still needed a fucking gun to protect himself is just astounding.
Anything. It’s a precaution.
Nobody said that. He knew he was taking a risk and potentially putting himself in harm’s way, but he made the decision to take that risk, to do what he felt was the right thing to do (i.e. go to Kenosha try to prevent some of the damage, and also use what limited medical training he had to help anyone who needed it).
That’s courageous, not something to criticize somebody for. It’s incredible to me that you’re too dense to recognize the blatant victim blaming.