Whether or not he was "invited" is of ZERO consequence. If somebody was trying to destroy my property or harm me or my family, then I sure as hell would hope my neighbors not wait for my "invitation" before coming to my aid. This is yet another an attempt to paint Rittenhouse in a negative light however you can. Fortunately, none of the s**t you are throwing sticks.Sapper Redux said:aTmAg said:Sapper flat out called it "murder" despite the video clearly showed it to be self defense (and got 9 stars for it).Macarthur said:
And that's why you're strawmanning this thing. No one on here has said self defense is a bad thing and rioting and looting is good.
"Self defense." He was at property he wasn't invited to, armed and clearly looking for confrontation. He legally met the definition of self defense once the confrontation began, but the whole picture is far less complementary to Rittenhouse.
There was NOTHING wrong with the fact that he was armed (clearly or he would have been convicted of that). He was entering an area with violent people. He would be STUPID to not be armed. And if he was "looking for a confrontation" he would have shot long before he did, rather than try to run away before getting cornered and then shooting.
Your entire argument is akin to blaming a woman for her rape by saying "she shouldn't have been there", "she shouldn't have been dressed that way", or "she was looking for it." It's a disgusting argument.
You literally have ZERO facts on your side.