I will admit my mistake. Huber was shot in the chest. That does not take away from what I have said from the start. Rittenhouse's action were rash and he went to a fight he was not prepared for training-wise or emotionally.
A skateboard can be just as lethal as a baseball bat. Huber's actions were rash by trying to arm himself with Rittenhouse's gun, and Rittenhouse's actions were not rash, they were in self defense. You've been wrong from the beginning. Are you man enough to admit that yet?
I have said, for over a year, that Rittenhouse was naive, misguided, irresponsible, etc, but he was not guilty of the crimes he was charged with. Now you're still arguing with me, even though you've conceded all my points, even though you now agree with what I've been saying all along.
You can rant and rave all day long about his young age, the appropriateness of his being there, and his emotional preparedness as you perceive it, but the fact remains that Rittenhouse showed remarkable restraint and discipline given the circumstances. He tried to run away and deescalate the situation. He waited until the last possible instant before resorting to deadly force. He didn't shoot anyone who didn't attack him first. He immediately tried to turn himself in to the police. He was 100x more emotionally prepared to be there than Rosenbaum was, that's for damn sure.
Mouse, as always you state things without any factual evidence backing you up.
I did not say that the others were not rash. Nonetheless, they paid with their lives for their rashness. What consequences has Rittenhouse paid for his rashness?
debatepolitics.com
Total BS. I know difference as I have been in situations like that in my life. In addition, I have been around people that have been in the same kind of situations and mostly they agree with me.
That response I gave has to do with the attack on me that stated that a VAST majority of people think differently than I do and I proved him wrong.
Rittenhouse was not "rash" in any case where he pulled the trigger, because they were all in self defense.
Perhaps you are right Josie but that same mentality applies to you also. You are convinced of your view, much like i am convinced of mine. Nonetheless and given that I have been in such a situation before in my life and acted differently and had different results than what happened to Kyle, I happen to believe that the probabilities favor my opinion having more substance than yours.
Yes, you are wrong. If people thought like you, the laws would be changed. But they don't, which is why the laws don't punish people who defend themselves against attackers.
You're armed with a rifle that everyone can see. A guy who just threatened your life 30 minutes ago suddenly appears from behind a car and starts sprinting after you. You start running away, yelling "friendly friendly friendly!" but he doesn't stop. He's gaining on you. You turn around and point your gun at him for an instant while still running away. He doesn't stop. He's still gaining on you. You're about to be cornered with nowhere else to go. Then a shot rings out from close behind you and he screams "**** YOU!" as loud as he can. You turn around again to see him lunging at you at near point-blank range and reaching for your rifle.
Sorry, but I don't believe that for a second.
It probably won't happen, but I'd like to see Rittenhouse sue the pants off the slanderous media for their slimy and despicable coverage of his case. They are the reason so many are misinformed and thus outraged over the verdict.
do I need to remind you that two of the attackers were not armed?Yep, using Luckyman “logic”, you were wrong to be there since you obviously considering simply being there cause to be armed.