> There is a reason more civilized countries have decided that the state should have the monopoly on violence

There are only two kinds of individuals that argue someone shouldn't have the right to self defense or the right to keep and bear arms: A) someone naive to history and the purpose of that rifle on the labourer's cottage wall or B) someone attempting to argue in bad faith as they wish to disarm them to do evil to.

It's clear here based on your shown bias, wanting to paint certain political opponents as "violent", but then ignore the other side of the spectrum that caused this situation to develop, that was literally burning the town down, we can determine that you fall into group B here. Some of us watched our family trees get erased because individuals like yourself feel that only the authoritarians should have access to firearms throughout history, and some of us are not OK with that behavior.

Not happening, but you can try to come and take it.

> Personally I am sick and tired of the way this character is now put forward as some kind of saint, in my book he's a multiple murderer and there isn't anything that will change that.

If you refuse to accept any concept of self defense then of course your going to convict him without looking at the evidence. By your standard it’s impossible for someone to defend themself with lethal force as the use of that force would be automatic guilt.

> There is such a thing as intent and I don't buy for one second the self defense angle, that's akin to me tooling up with a bunch of weapons, walking into a bar fight and then shooting people that come after me and claiming self defense.

Walking around your neighborhood is not walking into a bar fight.

Furthermore anyone that charges at someone open carrying a rifle clearly demonstrates intent to kill. The right to defend oneself does not come from the laws of man, that’s an innate right.

> Of course the violent right now have their poster boy and a fantastic fig leaf to engage in some more of this, beware of sowing wind, you'll end up reaping storm.

What a sad interpretation. A boy shot three men that tried to kill him. Interestingly, all of them turned out to also be convicted felons who likely were not out for any peaceful reason. One of them even had an illegal hand gun that he admits he pointed inches from the boys face before the boy shot him. It’s a great verdict because it shows the jury wasn’t swayed by the massive amount of misinformation about the circumstance.

> There is a reason more civilized countries have decided that the state should have the monopoly on violence. This isn't 100% ideal either but at least it stops this kind of excess.

The events leading up to the Rittenhouse shooting were explicitly caused by the State giving up their monopoly on violence. They refused to enforce the law and let a bunch of rioters burn down half the city. They demonstrated that they will not protect your property or even your life.

> He didn't. He drove out of state to a new neighborhood... with a gun. Thats asking for trouble.

You’ve been lied to. Repeatedly.

His father, grandmother, best friend, and job were in Kenosha. Yes he lived a short distance away in another State, but he was in town nearly every day. It was his neighborhood.

And he didn’t “bring a gun across state lines”. He was given possession of one, in Wisconsin, which is legal for a 17 year old.

Nothing you posted there is true, you didn't follow the case did you? There is nothing illegal with him living on a state line like that and traveling. He also did not cross any border with a firearm. He also traveled less distance than Rosenbaum did.

Seriously, this was covered in the case.

His father lived there, and he didn’t drive out of state with a gun. This is just factually wrong. I recommend getting your information from the trial itself as much of this is spelled out quite clearly.

He drove out of state ...

Okay, so Rittenhouse lives in Antioch. You can pull up Google maps to find that the state line is 1.3 miles -- not even as the crow flies -- away.

And the folks he shot? Drove farther to get to the locale than he did.

Juries are instructed to rule according to the law. Whether the law is "right" or "wrong" is a different matter altogether, and it's not what the trial was about.

How much of the trial did you watch?

Enough to be sick of it.

This is not how you run a civilized society. The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons. But please ignore me, and ignore the future consequences as well, this isn't going to solve anything.

> The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons.

Do you also feel that way about the armed vigilantes on the other side of the incident? Was it ok that Gage Groskreutz was menacing people with his gun, and was never charged with a crime, and never even had his gun confiscated?

There were many armed civilians that night with guns, why are you only concerned about Rittenhouse? Is armed vigilantism if a militia says that it is "anti fascist"

Obviously, yes, but we're not discussing them, we're discussing mr. Rittenhouse.

Weird, because you were just talking about society. Don't move those goalposts.

I agree that events leading up to the shooting were problematic. If respected media commentators had not glorified riots or villianized the justified police shooting of Jacob Blake, or if the Mayor of Kenosha had requested further National Guard in advance of the second night of riots, or if the police had not abandoned downtown Kenosha to a mob armed with rifles and handguns, none of this would have happened.

The immediate consequence of the shooting was an end to destructive riots in Kenosha. As an American, I hope future consequences include a tapering-off of destructive pointless riots. If you come to my town, threaten to kill a kid defending local homes and businesses, light a bunch of the town on fire and then pursue and attempt to kill said kid, you deserve whatever happens to you. If Rittenhouse hadn't been armed, he'd likely now be dead.

You conveniently omitted George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Philando Castle.

The riots were not glorified. It was the outcome of the unjustified violence against African Americans.

"threaten to kill a kid defending local homes and businesses"

Rittenhouse is the one who is armed. People might not have attacked him if he's not brandishing a firearm.

Police brutality in another state doesn't give you the right to burn down my livelihoood, burn down my home, or kill me. Unfortunately, NPR and the Washington Post led many to believe otherwise last summer [0][1].

Many rioters openly brandished rifles and handguns. One such rioter fired the first shot of the Rittenhouse incident [2], contributing to Rittenhouse's (true) belief that he was under attack. Rioters sent a 70-year-old man to the ER on the first night of riots in Kenosha, breaking his jaw and knocking him out when he tried to stop them burning down a business. Rittenhouse saw all this on TV before he went to Kenosha next day to help clean up riot damage. Incidentally, the parts of Kenosha that burned were mainly minority-owned small businesses and apartment buildings [3].

If you threaten to kill someone, chase them down a dark street and then attempt to kill them at a riot that you started, the fact that they're armed and you're not means squat. Don't try to kill kids and burn down their towns. You'll live longer.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/there-no-d...

[1] https://spectatorworld.com/life/antifa-aesthetic-washington-...

[2] https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/580073-detective-sh...

[3] https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/new-york-times-buried-...

Maybe not glorified, but certainly whitewashed. The "Fiery but Mostly Peaceful" chyron will remain in memories for a long time. [1]

[1]: The Hill: "CNN ridiculed for 'Fiery But Mostly Peaceful' caption with video of burning building in Kenosha" https://archive.ph/oTwP7

"Rittenhouse is the one who is armed. People might not have attacked him if he's not brandishing a firearm."

Interesting argument, especially given the video clearly shows Jacob Blake, whom the police shot, was threatening said police with a knife. And he was the "reason" for the protests & riots.

> This is not how you run a civilized society. The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons.

You may be right, and personally I agree with you that bringing a rifle to a partially violent protest should be illegal, and that Rittenhouse is no hero or role model, but nothing you said has anything to do with whether this was murder or self-defense. Even if his possession of the gun had been 100% illegal, that would be a different charge.

It feels like you're conflating several questions: (1) whether Rittenhouse is a good or bad person; (2) whether it should be legal for people to walk around at night with a giant rifle; (3) whether what happened in this particular instance was murder or self-defense. All three of these are actually completely unrelated questions.

And you are ignoring the events that led up to a kid walking around with powerful weapon in the middle of a riot. In your other post, that is now flagged, you talked about how other countries have a "monopoly on violence". That monopoly was lost in Kenosha when the cops didn't intervene and the governor of the state refused to call in the national guard to put in an end to the riots.

Dangerous political gamesmanship between Trump and various mayors and governors got people killed, destroyed a ton of property, and has done permanent damage to the social fabric of this country.