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.
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.