Quote:
Originally Posted by OptimalTates
Buddy, is this like the Jacob Blake thing where you don't know what was happening but made up your mind and won't back down despite facts?
Rittenhouse was running when he was attacked. He got punched in the head, he took a step or two and fell down, and was on the ground when he shot the latter two people.
I'm totally in agreement with you if some guy picks up a skateboard and you're 60 feet away you can't shoot him. Duh. But when you're on the ground being smashed by one, shoot away.
|
This, like the court case, is an interpretation of what happened. You are only looking at what happened at the point where he considered himself in danger. Others are taking the events that led up to that moment in context and acknowledging that he placed himself in that situation. That's where the difference of opinion comes into play. It's also why people with various experiences have different opinions. It also raises questions that you continue to refuse to try and understand that would implicate him as a willing participant in his own situation and not a victim. The Chief of Police said that Rittenhouse should not have been there and had no reason to be there. That has to come into play.
If Rittenhouse was there to protect property, why was he roaming the streets? Shouldn't he have been manning the property he was supposedly protecting? Rittenhouse maybe could have run faster and been more evasive if he didn't have an eight pound AR-15 hanging around his neck? There is so much more to this than just the "he was on the pavement and had to shoot" narrative. How he got there, what he did to draw attention to himself, and what caused the engagements are also important.
I think the defense did a masterful job in creating the red herring. I think the prosecution were weak in building their case and made it easy for the defense to use the self defense argument. This is a bad legal precedent and I think we will look back at this as a mistake, with all parties to blame.