Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
This.
If Rittenhouse shows up to that protest sans AR15 then the need to defend himself probably never arises.
He himself created the circumstances in which he would be required to defend himself by creating the escalation that led to the events.
If you wander into an open crowd with a gun, and I'm talking a rifle strapped to your chest in open view, you're going to create some problems that never existed in the first place.
I know its America and guns are more commonplace, but wandering through a protest with a rifle is going to scare some people into actions they likely otherwise wouldnt take.
If he'd just been some unarmed guy, he'd just have been another face in the crowd. Nobody told him to wander through a protest with a gun.
American or otherwise, guns scare people. Add that to an already high-tension situation and you're just lighting the match.
He is absolutely the author of these circumstances through his own actions.
But of what I've seen, this Judge appears to have a desire to see him exonerated.
|
I'd be careful with this argument Locke. Guns are legal and can be carried. In this case, he's underaged so hes breaking that law.
Causation is not something that can be proved. People threatened him because he had a rifle, why didn't everyone react then and not just a few guys.
This is bordering on the argument of a girl getting raped at a party at 3AM, arguing on the side that she shouldn't have been at said party at 3AM.