@sargentd said:
@MirkoS77: your reasoning blows my mind, I disagree with you so much I wouldn't even know where to start.
You speak as if Kyle was some how an aggressor for simply existing. You give an absolute pass to a man in his 30s threatening to kill a 16 year old while chasing him through a parking lot. Side note this adult was a convicted child molester of 12 year old boys.
You give the other guy a pass for trying to chase down this teenager and trying to beat him over the head with a skateboard.
You give the 3rd guy a pass who pulled out a Glock on the kid while tripped up on the ground . This guy also is a convicted felon who shouldn't have a gun.
Why do you demonize the 16 year old who was running for his life the entire night from these deranged psychopaths. Because he existed? Because he was there he deserved it?
Well, the feeling is very mutual. The defense of Rittenhouse is so asinine it’s mind-boggling to me.
The kid willingly entered a volatile situation where people were irrational in hate and consumed with feelings of injustice, introducing a tool of deadly consequence he had no right to, and could not, use to the reasoning he slung it for. Why do you (and others) not question for one second whether it is justifiable to introduce lethal effect into situations of extreme emotional instability and turmoil? You act as if this is a given, a prudent decision that should be applauded, and are so consumed with focusing in on the micro and specifics of the engagement that it doesn’t even occur to you to pull back and think NONE of it would‘ve even held the possibility of actualization had the kid never grabbed a rifle before he stepped foot in the streets. Again, the only rationalization of Rittenhouse’s actions there I can get is, “it was his right”. Sorry, that doesn’t merit any weight when people end up dead. You can never predict how someone will react at seeing a firearm in times of heightened emotions (or even in calm ones). Some may see it as a threat and be intimidated, some may view it as a challenge and be emboldened. Some may run, some may run at you. Some may draw down. Which is (big shocker), precisely what happened.
This goes to a bigger issue I have that our country allows the carrying of such weapons in the streets simply as a statement of principle, which is just loony toons cartoonish, but this is another discussion entirely.
Realize that when I am determining the broader responsibility of a situation, I don't concern myself with the specifics, but instead pull back and examine the discretion of individuals in placing themselves into positions that led to the consequences. There are some exceptions to this obviously as specifics vary wildly in case-by-case basis, but in this instance, Rittenhouse was a goddamn naive, boneheaded dunce in that discretion, and any justifications of his actions post hoc that cost people their lives are irrelevant to the point that he brought a deadly weapon into the mix.
HE did that. HE initiated setting the table for lethal potential. There is responsibility there.
Log in to comment