I’m not defending what he did. Never did. Never will. I am simply not saying that by doing what he was doing that he was therefore a) justifiably attacked by rioters and b) unable to defend himself from attackers if that happened.

More interesting is you paint a defender as an aggressor in the same sentence.

I think there’s a pretty large gap between being acceptable and not being justifiably attacked by a mob of armed rioters.

You are the one focusing on crimes. I wanted to make sure you recognized that the people attacking Rittenhouse were also committing crimes. In fact, going back to the statute I listed, arson actually is a crime that can lead to a felony murder charge. So can battery.  

Why did Joshua Ziminski have a gun? He didn’t shoot anyone but fired the first shot (a so-called warning shot) that was the in some people’s eyes the moment that Rittenhouse stopped running from his attacker and started standing his ground.

You keep making jumps. He premeditated arming himself and defending property. He didn’t plan on shooting someone. No more than the guy who attacked him with a gun (who went there to commit crimes armed with a gun) planned on shooting people.

You are jumping to premeditated murder simply because he illegally armed himself. Premeditated murder means he, with a cool head, planned a murder. This guy was attacked and shot his attackers. You are saying that since he had an illegal gun, he cannot self defend with it. That’s nuts. That means if you know someone…

Your legal analysis is lacking. Let the system figure this out. These incidents were largely caught on film and a jury will hear from the witnesses. You making ridiculous arguments that piggy back one crime into another are not needed.  

I don’t know if this guy is ultimately going to be acquitted or not, but surely you can imagine a scenario where more than one person try to attack an armed person and that person is justified in shooting both of them. I don’t think anyone claims he shot into a crowd.

They can bring in nearly anyone if that person is cooperative. Serial killers who go quietly are arrested, tried, and convicted. This is true regardless of color.

I think you are confusing envy with greed. Greed is give me everything I can get so I am better than everyone. Envy is wanting what the other guy has. They are not opposites. The envious person is seeking the same thing as his competitor. The greedy person is seeking more. There is no fair share for the greedy.

You are confusing how police treat an otherwise lawfully behaving open carry person with a person the police have been called to take into custody for a violent crime.

Sure, but you can’t really compare the U.S. to other countries.

No biggie? It’s horrible. I point it out not to say no biggie. But to point out that even the noblest intentions run into reality. You can wish away the problem of violent police but then you have to replace them with something. We saw what that looked like in CHOP. It looked like police except they were worse trained…

I don’t see how you can so easily distance justice and envy.

The Golden Rule is understood by everyone. They did a study where there were two monkeys in glass boxes. The monkeys could see each other. Both were happy to perform a task for a slice of cucumber. Then they gave one of them a grape instead. And the other saw this. The other monkey was excited to do the task for a…

Shoot the dude’s feet? Just like that, huh?

Just so I understand you, you expect human beings to take a job where their own survival is secondary to something else. I know of one job like that. Secret Service on the President’s detail. That’s the only job I can think of where a person is expected to put the life of another in front of their own as a part of the…

“Literal millions” of innocent civilians!?

Well, that is often true. Punching someone is an assault. Yet mutual combat is legal. You and someone else can agree to punch each other. If you steal something of mine it’s a crime. If I steal something of yours in return, now it’s more like a civil disagreement.