HomoSapien wrote:dougthonus wrote:If the reverse situation happened and a black protester shot three white people after repeatedly trying to run away and flee and after those people chased him, attacked him, and had numbers of force against him, and had him on his back with no possibility of escape, would you bring up his (not even criminal but hearsay sketchy) past?
That fictional black protester put himself in that situation and choose to be there, just like Rittenhouse by showing up that night.
I do not think you would bring up such details in this situation. Instead, I think you would say this black protester was defending himself from crazy white racists and did everything he could to avoid shooting someone (which would be totally true). I think if someone else brought up his past the way you just did that you would accuse them of outright racism and say their view was ridiculous (which it would be).
Since I'm here and have still have my capabilities, I'd appreciate it if you let me give my own argument rather than guessing what I'd say.
Firstly, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up race in this situation. My issues with him have nothing to do with his race (but thanks for building up several posts trying to suggest my reverse racism). Furthermore, the three people he shot were white, so I don't really see the argument that it was racially motivated. My issue with Rittenhouse is that he took it upon himself to play police and shoot people.
I find your hypothetical to be silly. We're dealing with something that actually happened, we don't have to make up an imaginary situation to try and prove some point. But fine, I'll humor you. If the situation were reversed, and a Black person showed up to a protest or even a riot with guns and started shooting people, I can assure you, my sympathies wouldn't be with the shooter --- even if he went there and shot up a bunch of racists. That is not how society can, or should function. I don't agree with or support the idea of looting (I get the impression that you think I do). This situation should have been left to the police to handle, not some 17-year-old with a semi-automatic rifle. Plus, being murdered for looting isn't exactly an eye for eye punishment.This isn't a situation where we don't know what happened and have to piece together different people's accounts of what happened and have to try to figure out his intention by guessing as to his character and conflicting reports.
You can literally go watch the video and see that when he fired his life was in obvious mortal peril and that he did not fire indiscriminately or go on some psychopathic rage killing spree.
First of all, there is gray area that you've failed to mention. The complaints about Rittenhouse from that night are that he was pointing his gun and threatening people throughout the night. It's pretty easy to see why people believed they needed to take his gun away. The first person he murdered was shot in the back (or possibly in the back of the head). That person ran at Rittenhouse, but Rittenhouse shot him from behind when he wasn't facing "mortal peril" from him. The guy had already retreated. That's murder. The second guy he shot had a handgun --- that is self-defense.Even if for some reason he is a violent psychopath under some other circumstances, which even mentioning is no different than describing Floyd as a violent criminal under different circumstances, you can watch the video and see that he was not a violent psychopath this night. He repeatedly fled the situation and only fired when he had reason to believe his life was at risk and fired a very limited number of shots.
To build an argument that a pattern of violence and psychopathic behavior isn't relevant in a situation where the shooter sought out violence is a weird stance. It is absolutely different than bringing it up in the Floyd situation and I'm disappointed that you are unable to see the difference and that you keep trying to conflate the two.
I agree that Rittenhouse's past is relevant, but details are scant right now.
His defense attorney says he was in Kenosha working as a lifeguard that day, then local businesses asked him to help defend their stores in light of the fires that were being set in prior nights.
Supposedly the gun never crossed state lines, and somebody shot at him first, which set off the whole incident.
He was also seen on video offering first aid to protesters earlier in the day.
Now I don't know if he was "looking for action." Maybe he was. Maybe his lawyer is completely full of sh*t. It's his job to put on a vigorous defense.
But I think lazy narratives have already been formed.
Some are calling him a white supremacist, and others are calling him a hero.
We don't know yet, but I think businesses have the right to defend themselves from getting looted and torched.
