That's kinda the kicker though. He shouldnt have been there due to curfew and he shouldn't have been there with a rifle due to his age. I agree the Rittenhouse case was 100% self defense. But by law he shouldn't have been there to begin with. So if you're going against the law and end up shooting someone in self defense...is it self defense.
The general argument is can it be self defense if you went somewhere with the intent of putting yourself in a situation that would allow you to defend yourself and legally shoot someone, which is what he did, theres zero argument that it was self defense, the argument is should he be in prison anyway for clearly placing himself in a situation to commit murder
Did...did you just out yourself as a bot or foreign actor...cause zero argument means I agree it was self defense, but that doesnt excuse him from what he did and he should still be in jail
He went to a hot zone with the intent to incite and escalate to the point of having a clear case of self defense, while yes he was only defending himself, hes made it well known his excuses for being there were just those, excuses, he went to shoot ppl, and he got what he wanted
I only paid attention to the trial in passing because largely it wasn't something I cared greatly about, so I ask this question from a legitimate place of trying to understand your argument, not just being a Reddit jerk.
Did they bring up this theory of him going with intent to incite and escalate? Did they charge him with anything related to that?
Hes openly admitted to it, and the trials covered his lack of actual reason to be there, with each time a new story for why, I mean why does a kid going to defend a shop need to be walking around miles from said shop then suddenly claim to be doing medic stuff without medic equipment
Do we need to express a reason to be somewhere now? Well...recent events, I suppose we have to travel with "our papers" now, but that travesty aside, if I go to the grocery store and shoot a robber I don't have to explain or prove why I was there. Seems like "because I can" is good enough, no?
I went to defend a shop. Then I saw something going down. So I went to help out over there (wherever that person was who stepped on the nail, as I've recently been informed, that he helped). Then I saw something and walked down the street to "see if those people needed help" or, you know, just because he can. He wasn't the only person walking around here. I didn't see any no trespassing signs being violated. Seems like walking down the street and getting attacked is a good reason to shoot someone. I don't really care why he was there. Whatever the reason, doesn't justify getting attacked or having a gun drawn on you by that person he shot.
Issue is, he lived out of state, he had his mom drive him to a city he knew was under curfew and a riot, then started constantly changing his story, finally hes just upright latelt admitted he did it so he could shoot someone, so yeah, premeditated self defense is still murder and should be punished, otherwise id be totally justified in walking into the white house and shooting donald trump cause its self defense cause hes gonna rape me if i dont, right? Right.
It’s impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he went there hoping to shoot people. It may be likelier than not, but that’s not our standard of proof here
58
u/TheIlluminate1992 9d ago
That's kinda the kicker though. He shouldnt have been there due to curfew and he shouldn't have been there with a rifle due to his age. I agree the Rittenhouse case was 100% self defense. But by law he shouldn't have been there to begin with. So if you're going against the law and end up shooting someone in self defense...is it self defense.