Thanks for the response.
It is clear that partisanship, or to be more exact, bigotry against those who bear arms as civilians, is a part of this trial. It is also clear that there is a segment of the population that can't stand open carry, and that views protection of private and public property by citizenry to be highly outrageous, and a threat to society and the public order. Partisanship, on behalf of "protestors" and those more violent and destructive, is an added layer to the bigotry.
No, it's not bigotry towards those who bear arms as civilians. What people find outrageous, if you read my post, is a group of vigilantes grouping together and intimidating others in an extremely, chaotic and contentious situation (just like a gang), when the real law enforcement clearly ordered them to disburse. Could you accept, that perhaps they asked them to disburse so that amateurs would not add more violence to the already chaotic mix? I notice defenders like yourself, love to call them 'militia,' rather than the more obvious term, vigilantes. See what separates the two to me, is that militia
assist military and recognized professional in times of need, not obstruct them and disobey their lawful orders. In fact, those terms so proudly labeled, really a harken back to the civil war (before organized militia formally became National Guards), and I think most of the civilized world are quite beyond that.
Consider the prejudicial words you use "vigilantes", "gang mentality", "outside the law"... this animus is baked into your assumptions.
There's no assumptions there. I describe them exactly as they are. You, however, in your personal belief, ignore those facts, because you subjectively (against all common civilized people) believe they are a noble organized entity that bands together only to help others, when they were never asked to by an reasonable lawful authority (ok. Trump condones them and encourages them, but that's yet another very wrongful incentive to embolden them).
A thought experiment, let us suppose they were just people who wanted to act in the same capacity as civilian security guards, except doing it gratis without pay? Suppose one of them, also wanted to help people injured, and help fight property fires? In a non political context, this wouldn't be an issue, would it? In fact, it would be good Sarmatianism.
Except they are not. Beyond the fact that they are not assisting in any condoned manner, but doing it against the wishes of legal authorities. That's why we have organized law and order.
Deep down I think severe critics of Rittenhouse know that, so they feel compelled to color the narrative... a small group of people want to help a property owner, and so they become "vigilantes". If they do so in concert, they have a "gang mentality". If they verbally reply in like tone and content to those yelling for them to leave or else, they are "provacators". And if by their very presence with a firearm, just like many in the mob, are attacked by the mob...its their fault.
Yes, because that is exactly what is happening.
As I posted earlier, this is typical judge mentalism directed at the victim of a hostile mob, the belief that somehow the mob are innocent because they just had to do it, is blaming the victim for what is, in the end, the fault of those who attacked him.
And yet he was not really the 'victim,' of a hostile mob was he? He went there with zero authority and the knowledge that he was antagonizing an already volatile situation. And I notice you never addressed the real lawful victim who truly was the victim of a brutally hostile mob, while serving his professional duty as protecting our elected representatives in a sacred building on an extremely significant day. But they were somehow innocent, because, what? Trump and his acolytes were subtlety encouraging them, but taking no responsibility afterwards? It's an open question, why the difference of viewpoints in the two situations, one very legitimately in peril for his life (not to mention our very leadership and democracy at stake).
.