Well, he was provided the weapon once in Wisconsin. But you’re right, he should have stayed home. The killer.
It’s like the song Uncle Sam Blues, where the protagonist is going off to war, and realizes that he will be able to kill people without breaking laws. Rittenhouse saw his opportunity and didn’t miss a beat. Even got more than one!
Yes, it was. His father, extended family, and best friend lived there, and he had a job in that community that he worked at that day.
It wasn’t the community of several armed and violent people in attendance, and he lived much closer to the scene than a majority of the victims. But he was the guy with armed with a semiautomatic devil maker, so, fuck him I guess?
If being a dumbass is a crime, I’m sure there’s no shortage of potential prosecutions to be had.
Humans have a bit more agency than lions. That’s a silly analogy. In the United States, being ‘provoked’ by a hat, a word, or the presence of a non rioter is not sufficient to allow one to attack the so-called provocateur.
You are correct, they were provoked by the presence of a deadly weapon.
That’s just untrue. Your opinion of what ought to be true doesn’t make it so. This is fundamental so I’ll repeat it. What one wishes reality to be has no influence on what reality is.
Furthermore, your assertion isn’t logically consistent.
Which is irrelevant. You can’t claim you were provoked and attack someone who is behaving in an apparently legal manner. Walking down the street is legal.
Could you state that in syllogistic form?
You are posting on a predominantly far left site. The sympathies are going to be with the far left anarchists/rioters.
Carrying a semi automatic weapon the street in the middle of a riot is a provocation.
That’s your opinion. And what does “a provocation” even entitle you to legally do?
I have less sympathy with the rioters than with Rittenhouse, but that’s not in the OP.
Nothing - that’s why Rittenhouse is on trial
This is not remotely true. Is this just a personal belief? It is not law.
The SDMB is never further from its stated mission of “fighting ignorance” when ignorance intersects: a white person, using a gun, to exercise self-defense. A large number of people here simply wish that their personal dislike of gun owners and their personal belief that you shouldn’t be allowed to be in public with a gun were the law. But all the wishing in the world doesn’t make that true.
This is a good point and needs more analysis. It seems to be taken as a given that anyone in Kenosha that night who wasn’t part of the BLM march “deserved” to be beaten or assaulted because their very presence was some sort of provocation.
“He didn’t belong in that community.” What? So I need permission from locals to travel? Or, alternatively, If I don’t have the permission I deserve to get beaten or cannot defend myself? What is the message with these statements?
Right, and if that’s the assumption we’re making, then it’s 100% valid to question all the people setting fire to cars, dumpsters, businesses etc. What were they doing there that was valid behavior? Many were committing crimes etc.
You are aware that “deadly weapon” include more than firearms? Knives, swords, brass knuckles and weapons of all descriptions fit the bill, as well as pens, pins, pencils, rocks, forks, tire irons and chains.
The first three at least are legal to carry where I live, and the rest likely are too. I can go to the mall or walk around downtown with a knife on my hip and knuckle dusters in my pocket with a fucking sword strapped to my person. I could pass by guys carrying long guns or pistols openly anywhere I went except bars and hospitals and the like. I can spend a night living it up in a bar with the knuckles and a 5.5” knife in my pocket. All legal.
I wouldn’t even bat an eye at a guy with a gun slung across his chest because it’s just hanging there. The minute he starts finger fucking his trigger he’s gonna find a few strangers standing across from him waiting for their mutual wet dreams come true, and he probably knows it.
I think there’s a pretty clear line you can draw there, though. He’s the one who actually killed someone. I think it is perfectly reasonable to take into account (what seems to be a very reasonable assumption) that he was there with at least a premeditated willingness to be put into a position to defend himself, and to do so without hesitation. I think the comparison to Zimmerman is apt in that sense, if not in others, and I think it is silly to dismiss out of hand the notion that, you know, there are people who would love to find themselves in a situation where it was reasonable to blow someone away in self-defense.
In other words, there is some percentage of Americans who are kinda into the idea that someday maybe they’ll kill somebody in self-defense. And that is very distasteful to a lot of people. And if Rittenhouse was one of those people, it stinks of unfairness for him to claim that he was defending himself.
(edit–this in response to Martin and UltraV, although the post above is uh. not completely irrelevant)
I’m not sure I’ve ever heard the word “premeditated” to describe someone’s willingness to be put into a position to perform legal actions before…