His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests).
Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he’s been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system.
His “actions” were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked.
Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat.
It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat.
why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in “self defense” is vigilantism.
why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their “life threatened for no reason” and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse’s situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches?
He was damaging property to protect lives?
His stated purpose of being there and taking his gun was to protect property (by taking lives if necessary) from people who were damaging property in order to protect lives (the BLM protests).
That’s an aside you’re imbuing, he never said the above.
Huh. I don’t really consider Kyle Rittenhouse a valid source of my moral philosophy, so I’ve never heard his manifesto before.
Considering the lack of consequences for his actions, and that he’s been paraded around since by the party that won the election, it shows the moral philosophy of the country and its legal system.
His “actions” were nothing but him stopping people who were in the act of trying to murder him unprovoked.
Despite all of the ridiculous politicization of the events in Kenosha that day, that is the fact of the matter. His life was directly threatened for no reason, he tried to flee, was eventually cornered, and used his weapon to stop the aggressor from making good on his threat.
It is not immoral or illegal to use lethal force to protect your life from an imminent threat.
why was he there in the first place? Inserting yourself into a dangerous situation so that you have an excuse to shoot someone in “self defense” is vigilantism.
why was he invited to speak at political events after the fact? Lots of people have their “life threatened for no reason” and exercise their right to self defense, none of them have been invited to speak at political events. What was differnt about Rittenhouse’s situation that made him a good candidate to give speeches?
Maybe don’t attack people you disagree with to give them an opportunity to live out their vigilante fantasies?
Because grifters gonna grift and America is obsessed with celebrity and political turmoil? He was a very useful political pawn so they used him.
You’re not being very clear here.
Are you blaming the Left for Rittenhouse shooting people? So much for personal responsibility.
Why was he a useful pawn? Was it because he killed people in order to protect property and people liked that?
Cool straw man, bro. Unless you think or you think I think The Left is a hive mind.