Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Bengalzona]

(11-20-2021, 05:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Respectfully, this is completely wrong.  Simply being in possession of a weapon in a state in which that is legal is not an indication of aggression.  Putting out a dumpster fire or asking people not to commit arson does not make it an aggressive act.  There is literally not one shred of evidence that Rittenhouse committed any aggressive acts that night.  There is reams of evidence that Rosenbaum and the other three involved absolutely did.

I did not claim that possession of the weapon was an act of aggression. My statement was "bearing a weapon and ordering someone to do something". That is aggressive. We accept it as part of law enforcement, but not as part of normal society. Claiming he "asked" people not to continue setting the dumpster afire colors the situation a certain way, but does not seem consistent with the situation. Perhaps it did occur that way. You and I were not there. It would not have made a difference in the case since Wisconsin statutes do not preclude the original aggressor from claiming self-defense anyway.

As I said before, the people Rittenhouse shot would have been better off drawing guns and shooting him during the confrontation at the dumpster fire. Two of them would still be alive and all three would be walking free after claiming self defense. I don't necessarily like that. But it does seem to be the way our society wants to go. Welcome to the wild West, or at least the idealized version of it.