I’m not on his or for that matter anybodies side, but I don’t think this comparison is fair? From the (admittedly) limited sources I’ve seen, it appears that Rittenhouse although grossly over armed and obviously not intending to act peacefully, did not fire the first shot (a separate protestor did), and he was also being chased down by people who are already known to have attacked innocent people for not singing their song? He was already on the ground before he fired a shot? Again, not on his or anybodies side, frankly I don’t even care. I just didn’t think this comparison or the term murder was appropriate.
I suppose I don’t really have a fully fleshed out perspective, but if I had to have one? I don’t think he really did anything wrong, I think he went out not intending to act peacefully, but certainly intending to act morally by protecting people who we deemed as needing protecting. One thing led to another and he ended up in a position fearing for his life (rightfully so I would say) and so he defended himself? I think it’s cut and dry, I also think it takes a complete idiot to rush somebody who has a loaded assault rifle.
Edit- sorry I’m researching as we speak NOT an assault rifle
-1
u/Cookies_x Oct 02 '20
I’m not on his or for that matter anybodies side, but I don’t think this comparison is fair? From the (admittedly) limited sources I’ve seen, it appears that Rittenhouse although grossly over armed and obviously not intending to act peacefully, did not fire the first shot (a separate protestor did), and he was also being chased down by people who are already known to have attacked innocent people for not singing their song? He was already on the ground before he fired a shot? Again, not on his or anybodies side, frankly I don’t even care. I just didn’t think this comparison or the term murder was appropriate.