• Tyfud@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        In a sane world he would have perhaps participated in the BLM protests because his education wasn’t full of right wing religious propaganda.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Wow, sounds like he shouldn’t have been there at all! What monster forcibly brought this 17 year old kid into that situation?

          • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            He probably shouldn’t have bought the gun, but saying something is someone’s fault because they “shouldn’t have been” somewhere they have a legal right to be is cringe.

            • null@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              I have a legal right to go swimming in shark infested waters.

              Probably not a great idea though, right?

              • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Right, but you wouldn’t be put on trial for endangering the sharks lol

                Look, there are good arguments to be made of Rittenhouse’s guilt, you’re just not making them.

                Part of me feels like the standard neoliberal talking points on the matter were engineered by conservatives to reduce the credibility of their conclusion.

                  • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    8 months ago

                    Wrongdoing, I guess?

                    There are two components, really: legal guilt and moral guilt. Legally, he definitely purchased and transported a firearm illegally, and then shot three people with said illegally-purchased firearm. Morally, you generally don’t bring a rifle somewhere unless you expect you may have to use it, and you don’t bring a rifle to a riot unless you expect you may have to use it against rioters.

                    In the best case, he grossly underestimated the probability that he would have to use it, which turned the small net benefit of his presence as a “medic” into a major detriment in that two people are now dead. He also failed to recognize that possessing, brandishing, and using a firearm at a riot would directly lead to being attacked (in 2 of the 3 shootings, IIRC). It should have been obvious that an angry crowd wouldn’t have all the facts, yet would know that the person who just fired an AR-15 is dangerous and attempt to subdue them.

                    In the worst case, he went there specifically because of the possibility he would get to shoot people, rather than in spite of the possibility. The fact that he went without his parents’ permission—which hopefully wouldn’t have been granted—, as well as that he brought an illegally-obtained firearm, lends credence to this argument. IIRC, the prosecutors were unable to produce evidence that this was his intention, but the possibility can never truly be ruled out, and his publicity and associations following the trial suggest hey may have possessed malicious intent. After all, for someone who supposedly didn’t want to see BLM protestors dead, he sure works for/with a lot of people who basically do.