Well, no, it certainly isn’t classic victim blaming. If it were classic victim blaming everyone who’s complaining about it would be the ones doing it. Classic victim blaming is when you blame someone who isn’t a complete dipshit for a situation that they didn’t actually directly cause.
Was it a statement on the wrong side of the current state of American law? Yes. Classic victim blaming? Of course not. Incredible how quickly any conversation about anything in America becomes just an escalating fusillade of coopted buzzwords.
That this was mainly a smokescreen and had the most to do with trying to bring in Federal charges. It was quickly shot down from a legal perspective, but the continued discussion about this is mainly how the left is trying to spin the case.
Basically, you are correct…10’s of millions cross state lines, and they are generally meaningless in the US except if you do something illegal across state lines it can bring in the Federal government and agencies like the FBI.
In this specific case, however, Rittenhouse was only like 20 miles away from where this took place (which, while a long way in Europe is really not in the US ). IIRC, he had friends in the city involved, and his dad(?) was from there, so he had ties.
Several of the others involved in this, especially the first guy weren’t from Kenosha either, and I think the first guy (Rosenbaum) was from Texas, again IIRC. I think one of the guys involved was from another town that was fairly close, but I’m going from memory and am not really anywhere to look it up.
Agreed. He was a self-imagined “volunteer guardian” whipped up by his own information sphere’s bubble to believe he had anything to accomplish there. Who really would be of little use in a real battle against proper fighters but who bought into the whole notion that by a display of armed defiance the other side would scatter and not even get close to him.
Those idolizing him in the RW are merely using him to advance their agenda. They’ll massage the story to overlook the loser crying on the stand about how scared he was and instead build him up as some sort of steely-eyed, steely-nerved Charles-Bronson-in-Death-Wish character… and I suspect he is at a point where he’ll be succeptible to embrace that and begin to believe it himself. Because the alternative (I fucked up and killed two people) may be too much to bear.
I believe that whatever the legality of the specific charges, Rittenhouse was wrong to have put himself in this situation to begin with, and bears moral responsibility, and the verdict in no way “vindicates” the delusion that it’s perfectly fine to go to wherever there’s trouble and make an armed display to Put Them In Their Place. However… yet I cannot join with the many people who I’ve seen in these various threads who are somehow existentially convinced that he went there looking forward to sate his thirst for someone’s blood and that there can be no other reason why he could have.
Meh. The level of legal protection we give to people dangerously waving around weapons is embarrassing. I’m not satisfied we understand everything that went down prior to the shooting. It’s likely Rittenhouse was making threats while swinging his dick around and the other guy felt threatened enough to fire his own weapon. They were all acting like reckless assholes.
Does that include rioters swinging clubs and chains? Or armed people in CHAZ? Or the many rioters in Kenosha who were also armed? Or are we judt singling out people on the right who attempt to live by the same rules as the rioters?
Assuming facts not in evidence, this looks like pure projection. You have no idea how Kyle Rittenhouse behaved earlier other than what the stereotype of ‘right wingers’ in your head tells you.
The things we actually know he did beforehand include helping to put out fires and clean graffitti. Do you know a lot of dick-swinging assholes who scrub graffiti off of things? He strikes me as more of an Eagle-Scout type who went there to ‘protect civilization’ or some such and got in over his head. But I could be wrong as well, because I don’t know the kid - and neither do you.
He exhibited poor judgement in open-carrying a rifle in a dangerous situation. What was going on in his head is not available for us to debate.
He was carrying a semi-automatic weapon and actively seeking out a dangerous situation. That tells me all I need to know. My feelings are the same for anyone who brought a weapon into that situation. Any weapon of any kind. Dick swinging assholes, the lot of them. This is the story of a bunch of idiots doing shitty things to get each other killed.
What? Sure it is. This is IMHO. My take is a lot more sympathetic than many. I’m giving him the benefit of a doubt that he never intended to harm anyone. He was a young kid with no clear understanding of the potential consequences of his actions. Shame on whoever gave him that gun, encouraged him to take it, or otherwise endorsed his actions.
Guns deter people from committing crime or other actions all the time without actually being used to shoot anyone. Having someone defend a home or a shop with a gun is almost certainly going to deter a crowd from destroying the place
Saying that you only need to protect a place from people with weapons makes no sense either. An unarmed mob can (and often was) destroying places.
Given the ravings of the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, the Bugaloo Bois, and others of that ilk, especially lately after the Rittenhouse verdict, we may be in need of some such laws.
Just clarify that being afraid of the gun you yourself brought into the situation is not sufficient justification for self-defense. If he was that worried about someone taking his gun, then he could have avoided the problem entirely by not carrying it.
This does not conflict at all with the Second Amendment: You’re still allowed to carry a gun if you want; you just accept the risk of disarmament by doing so. It’s not society’s fault that guns are dangerous.
Counterfactual disproven by the facts of the world we live in. He wasn’t illegally attacked by members of a violent mob. He was legally attacked by citizens acting in self-defense. And yet, as a direct result of his actions at every step of the way, people got shot. By him.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. He (presumably Rittenhouse) was legally attacked by citizens acting in their own (the mob?) self-defense? If so, then why did the jury find for Rittenhouse? Or are you saying he (Rittenhouse) was attacked and legally acted in his self-defense, which is what the jury seemed to find?
I don’t think a mob is ever legal in an attack…and an attack is not usually legal either unless you can demonstrate a real threat and self-defense (i.e. an active shooter that people in ‘the mob’ are trying to stop). Which was what the prosecution was trying to make but didn’t adequately sway the jury to.
Well, okay, if you consider California to be sort of “rectangular”, then a diagonal line from corner to diagonally opposite corner. Not that anyone ever actually drives such a route. I’m not sure if there even is a road with such a route.
Who said anything about “a mob”? I was talking about the law-abiding protestors who attempted to stop a shooter. Have any of them been convicted of any crime in their actions against Rittenhouse?
I was trying to clarify what you were saying and used ‘violent mob’ because the poster you were replying to used it. Basically, who were you talking about? What I quoted was unclear, to me at least…thus me asking you to clarify. I think you’ve done that now.
As to charges, no, as far as I know, none of them have been charged with anything (though I haven’t followed this all that closely). As for ‘law abiding protestors who attempted to stop a shooter’, that is the case the prosecution was trying to paint…unsuccessfully. I have to say that this is as much spin as the ‘violent mob’ meme, but YMMV.
At any rate, when you said contrafactual, you were referring to the ‘violent mob’ part then?
I didn’t say I think it was a good way to go. I said it may become a necessary way to go. And that’s a shame. And it’s the farthest-right most violent corners of the Republicansphere that are making it so.
). IIRC, he had friends in the city involved, and his dad(?) was from there, so he had ties.