I believe about 50% of the population are still pretending. Just look at the CNN, ABC and MSNBC coverage. I have 3 examples in this thread with sources showing they are still brainwashing their audience.
Truly amazing.
What I would like to ask them is, if you think that Rittenhouse deserved to die with no legitimate right to defend himself with force in that moment, then are you comfortable applying that rule to every rioter who was there? Take absolutely any person in that crowd. Take one of Rittenhouse's victims if you will, or anyone else. They actually made the choice to leave their house, drive down to where this stuff was happening and essentially decided to be there and quite probably engage if they were in the majority. That means they also have no right whatsoever to defend themselves because they made a really stupid decision to go and be present in a volatile place we're no good was happening.
In fact, presumably, they would have even less of a right to self-defense then Kyle did, because their decision to join the rioters would be ostensibly even stupider and more wrong than Kyle's decision to join whatever the heck he considered himself to be.
Really, has anyone asked this yet? If Kyle has no right to self-defense because he made a stupid decision earlier that was totally unrelated to the moment in time in which someone was about to inflict bodily harm on him, why can't we apply that to every person there? They made an even dumber decision to go participate in a riot!
The problem with this argument is that it just goes round and round until you can see how it would apply to most any average person on any given day when they make dumb decisions and then later, face threats. The argument just doesn't work and won't work ever. At the end of the day, a person has a right to defend themselves even with great force against a threat they reasonably perceived to their life, and the only exception should be
if they clearly and provably provoked the actual thing that was happening to them in that moment, in that same scene.
You can't just say I don't have the right to defend myself at 5:00 p.m., because I made a bad decision at noon. It just doesn't work like that, and I don't think any jury is going to agree that it does. Despite all the breathless rants of 'racism, racism' by the Joy Reids of the world.
Now for anyone who is going to say that's fine, I don't think the rioters do have any right to self-defense. That's not enough. The rule would have to also apply to anyone who showed up at that place, for any reason which was not actually illegal.
It would have to apply to the press, curious observers, an old grandma, and everyone else.
This whole trial can be disposed of with two sentences.
Kyle Rittenhouse did not provoke the immediate fight that threatened his life. Kyle Rittenhouse was not engaging in illegal activities.
The only possible exception to this would be if his violation of the firearm law was a felony. And that would be a bit of a stretch, since I highly doubt that every 17-year-old who illegally holds a firearm while hunting is charged with felony murder if someone dies in a hunting accident that they didn't cause...
The arguments for the side that wants Kyle guilty are just so tenuous and grasping at straws. God forbid they actually be applied to the general populace, tons of additional people would be guilty.
Now the Ahmaud Arbery case is totally different.
@The_Doc_Man that case is the perfect example of vigilantism. Those men need to be incarcerated.
PS, further examination of the WI law reveals that prosecution for violating that law is going to be very,
very unlikely.
