Originally Posted by
Krastyn
I'm being accused of being dishonest because my interpretation of events differs from theirs. I've said repeatedly the facts don't back up what has been said. So before you mount your high horse trying to say I'm maligning anyone who disagrees, I'm being maligned to begin with, for my opinion. It's quite telling that you're directing this at me though. not the person who initially misframed, who happens to agree with your interpretation of events.
Then you apparently can't read very well:
I have repeatedly said that based on the evidence released so far he will be found innocent. I've also said he's an idiot, and shouldn't have put himself there in the first place with a gun.
Under the law, whether or not Rittenhouse's possession of the rifle is legal or not has no bearing on weather or not he is entitled to self defense. This is not an opinion, this is fact. Much like how a convicted felon barred from posession guns can use a gun in self defense, and be found not guilty, but will still be found guilty on the posession.
If it isn't illegal, then why do you need to specifically state "crossing state lines"? Why does it matter that Rittenhouse crossed a state line to get somewhere, when other people traveled farther to reach the same place, but didn't cross a state line? It's not even one of the charges he is facing.
Which still requires the actual conviction of a crime. Rittenhouse was in Kenosha working that day. Unless that Shift was booked that morning or the night before, it's going to be hard to convince anyone that his intent when he crossed the border that morning it was to shoot 3 people, instead of go to work.
Why is it only intent for Rittenhouse, and for no one else?
So if Rittenhouse wearing gloves is intent for him to commit a crime, Rosenbaum putting on a mask before engaging Rittenhouse would show the same.
The fuck it doesn't. The application of self defense doesn't matter if you were armed or not prior to the encounter. You're effectively arguing that any person in an open carry or concealed carry state who walks through any unsafe part of town is guilty of murder if the are attacked.
I don't deny that he intended to bring protection if the situation arose. Having a gun does not make him guilty. How it was used is what does.
Do you have a statistical representation of that? The majority of protesters and counter-protesters on any topic don't often engage in violence. It's the extremes on both sides.
If the protesters were so non-violent, why did Rosenbaum chase down Rittenhouse? To give him a hug? Why did the "paramedic" say his biggest regret was not pulling his gun sooner and emptying his clip into Kyle? It doesn't matter what proportion of which group is violent. What matters are the people involved in this case.
He's entitled to his opinion. But if he's going to go on a paragraph long rant about how I'm being intellectually dishonest, and his only backup is his opinion, it's fucking hilarious.
One of the pillars of a successful self defense is that you tried to get out of the situation. That you were left with no other choice. Rosenbaum actively pursued Rittenhouse, threw an object at him, and then upon reaching him, tried to take his gun (all part of the criminal complaint). Rosenbaum at no point has a claim to self defense. Well, he could claim it, but has no grounds for it. The only thing that will matter (as we've discussed before) is whether Rittenhouse's response was proportional.
And if you want to play this card, then a conviction of murder proves nothing either. So if court rulings mean nothing, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.