Yet every left person I heard with an opinion on the matter has said something along those exact same lines.
Rittenhouse was attacked. He shot no one before the attacks and no one after.
That is not "an eye for an eye justice". That is self defense and self preservation. Self defense is a human right.
Rittenhouse was attacked. He shot no one before the attacks and no one after.
That is not "an eye for an eye justice". That is self defense and self preservation. Self defense is a human right.
Which professionals? The cops? Courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. And it's weird because the the group of people mad about Rittenhouse and the group of people who are upset with how the police work overlap very heavily.
If we've learned anything from 2020 it is that there is rampant hypocrisy on both sides about protesting and police action. Neither left nor right can stay consistent on this and are just looking to score political points when convenient.
Which professionals? The cops? Courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect you. And it's weird because the the group of people mad about Rittenhouse and the group of people who are upset with how the police work overlap very heavily.
If we've learned anything from 2020 it is that there is rampant hypocrisy on both sides about protesting and police action. Neither left nor right can stay consistent on this and are just looking to score political points when convenient.
its like saying that a robber has the right to shoot someone they are robbing just because they pulled a gun on them. what rittenhouse was doing isnt legal in the first place.
its like saying that a robber has the right to shoot someone they are robbing just because they pulled a gun on them. what rittenhouse was doing isnt legal in the first place.
Neither of us clearly are lawyers, but it's not at all like a robber shooting you and claiming self defense. You're trying to invalidate his claim to self defense, but the specifics of the illegal act matters a ton. Jaywaking, performing tax fraud, smoking pot, or speeding wouldn't invalidate your right to self defense but breaking into a house would. Raping somebody would remove your claim of self defense. Context matters, but the pattern generally seems to be violent crimes invalidate it.
what rittenhouse was doing isnt legal in the first place
You'll have to be more specific, but I'm guessing you're saying he shouldn't have had a gun crossing crossing state lines. That's probably true, and he'll probably be prosecuted for that. But that doesn't invalidate the right to defend yourself. My understanding is he also worked in another state, so this isn't like a case of he decided to drive to a random state specifically just to cause trouble. Honestly his "crime" is a completely victimless crime and would probably be ignored were it not that he got caught up in this riot and the nationwide case. That was indeed poor judgement on his part, but he still has a right to defend himself.
Neither of us clearly are lawyers, but it's not at all like a robber shooting you and claiming self defense. You're trying to invalidate his claim to self defense, but the specifics of the illegal act matters a ton. Jaywaking, performing tax fraud, smoking pot, or speeding wouldn't invalidate your right to self defense but breaking into a house would. Raping somebody would remove your claim of self defense. Context matters, but the pattern generally seems to be violent crimes invalidate it.
> what rittenhouse was doing isnt legal in the first place
You'll have to be more specific, but I'm guessing you're saying he shouldn't have had a gun crossing crossing state lines. That's probably true, and he'll probably be prosecuted for that. But that doesn't invalidate the right to defend yourself. My understanding is he also worked in another state, so this isn't like a case of he decided to drive to a random state specifically just to cause trouble. Honestly his "crime" is a completely victimless crime and would probably be ignored were it not that he got caught up in this riot and the nationwide case. That was indeed poor judgement on his part, but he still has a right to defend himself.
doesnt change the part that it is not the "exact same logic". we don't use an eye for an eye justice, this isnt babylonia.