Black privilege(u.smutty.horse)
No. Read the constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Was the kid part of a well regulated miliia? (no)
Was he helping with the security of a free state? (no)
Does the law against murdering unarmed people infringe on his right to keep and bear arms? (no)
Are there videos of him actively pursuing people with the intent to potentially cause harm? (yes)
Was he instead supposed to stand in front of a person's business, to offer security for that business? (perhaps)
Did he do that? (no)
Could he have avoided pursuing and murdering people? (yes)
Is he guilty of manslaughter (1st, 2nd, or 3rd degree)? (yes)
Will that mean that he'll spend much time in jail? (no, perhaps 2 years for each charge = 4, and out on parole in 3)
Is he a hero for racists and gun lobbyists, who've sent him $500,000? (obviously)
Should others feel free to do what he did? (no)
Will they do what he did if he gets a lenient sentence? (perhaps)
Do you want to live in a society where you can be threatened by a person with a gun, though you are unarmed, and you are then murdered?
Actually, he was part of a militia. They were there to defend property owners against the riot mob. You may not understand the rules concerning how a militia can form and operate. Your statements on him pursuing the mob and not trying to avoid having to shoot people are flat out wrong using the video evidence available to everyone. I'm surprised because you are usually more careful with your facts here.
Yes - they can call themselves whatever they'd like, and many of them remained next to the businesses they wanted to protect. I have no problem with that. It was NOT, however:
A well regulated Militia
This is the main problem. The kid thought he had immunity to walk around intimidating people. Even if he mistakenly killed 2 of them, it's still manslaughter, for which he should face justice for those deaths. He had the ability to stay with the so-called militia, next to the buildings, but did not.
did you watchthe video, he was running away from the crazed mob, then knocked down, then shot them in self defense
No offence, but you need to read up on what a militia is and not what your idea of what it is. In the U.S., a militia is a gathering, or group, of citizens whose goal is to be ready to be called upon in a time of need. They cannot be "organized" or have structure.
Excellent - let's consider primary and secondary sources for our underestanding of the second amendment, and its approach to "a well regulated militia" (a better version of an 'organized' militia). James Madison wrote that amendment, so that it would be possible for civilian forces to counteract potential tyrannical develoopements in the federal government. Anti-Federalists were worried at the time that the federal government had too much power because it also had a standing military (per the Constitutional Convention. Anti-Federalists wanted to limit the federal government's ability to violently oppress citizens. What Madison also wanted to protect against was mob rule and vigilantism, in addition to government oppression. By allowing for a potential REGULATED militia, he and congress developed one of the important aspects of government "checks and balances". For example, the increasingly militarized police forces, as well as armed vigilante mobs, are both to be avoided with the help of these checks and balances. Problem is: right-wing movements in D.C. and around the country are acively trying to DEREGULATE everything, so that the right-wing .1% and corporations legislate only for themselves while inciting violence among the 99%, with mobs of armed and unarmed groups arguing over basic facts (eg. basic human rights &c). Here's a secondary source.
This is the statement that bothers me the most here. Are you willing to put yourself in the shoes of the three men who were shot? Are you making excuses for them because you identify with them? Do you think and act like they did? If not, stop apologizing for them. They were evil men. I haven't seen any evidence of you being evil.
Again - my note here is about the law, which is not a fluid concept in this case. It's very specific. It's not appropriate in any circumstance for an armed person to try to intimidate WITH A GUN an unarmed person, with the likelihood of murder. Not even cops are expected to do this, and thus carry tasers &c instead. This is definitely not an apology for anyone. It's obvious. It's the law.
Grosskreutz came at rittenhouse with a gun, that is why he got shot. the other used a skateboard as a weapon
And again, you are being way too kind in your opinions of those he shot and way too harsh on the kid. These men attacked a man who was open carrying and appeared to be there only to help the LAW ABIDING community. He and his friends spent the day cleaning up what the rioters and looters had damaged. Intimidating? Who was he hurting, even if was being intimidating? Are you condoning his murder at the hands of the rioters because he gave them a bad vibe? If I wear a shirt that says "Black/White/Asian Power" and it has a picture of a closed fist, does that give others the right to physically attack me because they felt intimidated?
One more question: have you seen the videos of the shootings? All three men were shot while they were attacking a man with a gun running away from them. One cornered him and attacked him with an unknown weapon to Rittenhouse while another rioter was shooting a pistol into the air. Two were attacking him while he was on the ground and trying to take his gun away. The last one put a pistol to his head but it misfired. So you're telling me they all felt intimidated at these points in the timeline? Ok, two questions.
I've seen the videos. It's obvious he could have avoided murdering two people.
I always find it funny when you state your case point by point. When it comes time to provide a rebuttal, those who you are replying to either don't reply back or if they do they ignore what you said and try to argue a point you never made.
Shalom
