He probably shouldn’t have bought the gun, but saying something is someone’s fault because they “shouldn’t have been” somewhere they have a legal right to be is cringe.
Right, but you wouldn’t be put on trial for endangering the sharks lol
Look, there are good arguments to be made of Rittenhouse’s guilt, you’re just not making them.
Part of me feels like the standard neoliberal talking points on the matter were engineered by conservatives to reduce the credibility of their conclusion.
There are two components, really: legal guilt and moral guilt. Legally, he definitely purchased and transported a firearm illegally, and then shot three people with said illegally-purchased firearm. Morally, you generally don’t bring a rifle somewhere unless you expect you may have to use it, and you don’t bring a rifle to a riot unless you expect you may have to use it against rioters.
In the best case, he grossly underestimated the probability that he would have to use it, which turned the small net benefit of his presence as a “medic” into a major detriment in that two people are now dead. He also failed to recognize that possessing, brandishing, and using a firearm at a riot would directly lead to being attacked (in 2 of the 3 shootings, IIRC). It should have been obvious that an angry crowd wouldn’t have all the facts, yet would know that the person who just fired an AR-15 is dangerous and attempt to subdue them.
In the worst case, he went there specifically because of the possibility he would get to shoot people, rather than in spite of the possibility. The fact that he went without his parents’ permission—which hopefully wouldn’t have been granted—, as well as that he brought an illegally-obtained firearm, lends credence to this argument. IIRC, the prosecutors were unable to produce evidence that this was his intention, but the possibility can never truly be ruled out, and his publicity and associations following the trial suggest hey may have possessed malicious intent. After all, for someone who supposedly didn’t want to see BLM protestors dead, he sure works for/with a lot of people who basically do.
Wow, sounds like he shouldn’t have been there at all!
No, he should have. Until maniacs started trying to kill him, he was cleaning graffiti, handing out water bottles, giving first aid, and putting out fires.
He was doing a lot more good there than any of the rioters, especially the ones who tried to kill him (and started the fires he was putting out–reminder that Grosskreutz initially threatened Rittenhouse in response to having his dumpster fire extinguished).
I wonder who he was giving water bottles and first aid to…
Literally whoever asked. He spent a lot of time walking around yelling “medic” and “friendly”, so that people nearby knew they could flag him down if they needed help.
He wasn’t anti-protesting at any point. I believe during the trial it was confirmed that he administered first aid to a minimum of 8 people.
Also, given that friends and half his family lived there, he had more of a connection to the area than any of the violent, destructive scumbags rioting there. I can’t blame him for wanting to protect his community, especially one that the police abandoned when rioting began.
Wow, sounds like he shouldn’t have been there at all! What monster forcibly brought this 17 year old kid into that situation?
He probably shouldn’t have bought the gun, but saying something is someone’s fault because they “shouldn’t have been” somewhere they have a legal right to be is cringe.
I have a legal right to go swimming in shark infested waters.
Probably not a great idea though, right?
Right, but you wouldn’t be put on trial for endangering the sharks lol
Look, there are good arguments to be made of Rittenhouse’s guilt, you’re just not making them.
Part of me feels like the standard neoliberal talking points on the matter were engineered by conservatives to reduce the credibility of their conclusion.
Define guilt.
Wrongdoing, I guess?
There are two components, really: legal guilt and moral guilt. Legally, he definitely purchased and transported a firearm illegally, and then shot three people with said illegally-purchased firearm. Morally, you generally don’t bring a rifle somewhere unless you expect you may have to use it, and you don’t bring a rifle to a riot unless you expect you may have to use it against rioters.
In the best case, he grossly underestimated the probability that he would have to use it, which turned the small net benefit of his presence as a “medic” into a major detriment in that two people are now dead. He also failed to recognize that possessing, brandishing, and using a firearm at a riot would directly lead to being attacked (in 2 of the 3 shootings, IIRC). It should have been obvious that an angry crowd wouldn’t have all the facts, yet would know that the person who just fired an AR-15 is dangerous and attempt to subdue them.
In the worst case, he went there specifically because of the possibility he would get to shoot people, rather than in spite of the possibility. The fact that he went without his parents’ permission—which hopefully wouldn’t have been granted—, as well as that he brought an illegally-obtained firearm, lends credence to this argument. IIRC, the prosecutors were unable to produce evidence that this was his intention, but the possibility can never truly be ruled out, and his publicity and associations following the trial suggest hey may have possessed malicious intent. After all, for someone who supposedly didn’t want to see BLM protestors dead, he sure works for/with a lot of people who basically do.
Don’t overcomplicate it. I’m not trying to systematically determine some deep truth here.
17 year olds should not grab guns and go to dangerous riots. Simple as.
You probably should be, if you care about it so much.
17 year olds should not grab guns and go to dangerous riots. Simple as.
Yes, and reducing that argument to
Is still not wrong, per se, but totally eliminates any mention of his illegal activity.
Thanks tips
No, he should have. Until maniacs started trying to kill him, he was cleaning graffiti, handing out water bottles, giving first aid, and putting out fires.
He was doing a lot more good there than any of the rioters, especially the ones who tried to kill him (and started the fires he was putting out–reminder that Grosskreutz initially threatened Rittenhouse in response to having his dumpster fire extinguished).
I wonder who he was giving water bottles and first aid to…
Was it other people who hurt themselves while cleaning up graffiti?
So weird that there were fires to put out and injuries to tend to at a graffiti clean-up, and then suddenly these maniacs showed up out of thin air!
Literally whoever asked. He spent a lot of time walking around yelling “medic” and “friendly”, so that people nearby knew they could flag him down if they needed help.
He wasn’t anti-protesting at any point. I believe during the trial it was confirmed that he administered first aid to a minimum of 8 people.
Why were so many people hurting themselves cleaning up graffiti? That’s wild
Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Most of the injured were rioters rioting and causing destruction and havoc to the town.
Sounds like the perfect place for a 17 year old kid.
It was courageous of him to go to a potentially dangerous place like that just to try and undo some of the rioters’ damage. I’d rather a thousand of him be there, than any amount of the thugs who did things like burn down local businesses, and assault and injure people trying to stop them from doing so, even if it’s an elderly employee in his 70s holding nothing but a fire extinguisher.
Also, given that friends and half his family lived there, he had more of a connection to the area than any of the violent, destructive scumbags rioting there. I can’t blame him for wanting to protect his community, especially one that the police abandoned when rioting began.
It’s not courageous to allow and encourage a 17 year old kid to be put in a dangerous situation where he may be killed to protect some property.
That’s a garbage take.