Then, let’s be fair, in the absence of any evidence, he gets the benefit of the doubt, particularly in court. Agreed?

That being said, he won the case and is walking around a free man. Its the moral argument Im making. I certainly would not want my son doing this, nor would I allow it.

Rittenhouse was never witnessed provoking people, goading them, antagonizing, threatening anyone, pointing his gun at anyone, trying to start an argument or a fight, looking for any excuse to shoot. Nothing. So I am struggling to see what the supposed immorality of his conduct actually was.

I'll Kiss. 1. A child having a weapon of war. Bad. 2. A child having a weapon of war at riot. Bad 3. A child having a weapon of war at a riot, not his property, bad. 4. Kyle called a friend saying he killed Rosenbaum, but not medical care. Bad 5. Gross* could have shot him. He didnt.

Also, I wouldn't give too much credit to Gaige Grosskreutz / Paul Prediger's apparent benevolence. He wishes that he had shot Rittenhouse, and has made several comments about that since, both to his buddy Jacob Marshall in the hospital, and directly. He was just too slow.

He didnt shoot and could have. Im guessing he wasnt a pro like Kyle having just shot two people with no empathy whatsoever. For normal humans, its hard to pull the trigger, even when you know you should.

He wasn’t given the chance to shoot. What empathy was Rittenhouse supposed to have? He reasonably believed that doing so was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, remember?

He had his gun out prior to his arm being vaporized and had been moving toward Rittenhouse. He could have shot him several times.

Wait..Gaige wasnt. Brah..

He testified that he called the first number in his recent calls list, which happened to be Dominick Black as Black had called him moments earlier to send him down to 63rd street to the reported Duramax on fire. Why is that ‘bad’? Do you not suppose he could well have been in shock?

He didnt try to call 911. Ive been in shocking situations and I called 911. Particularly the time I was tboned and still managed to immediately call the police. I didnt call my friend I bought my car from and say, "I just probably killed someone, lawls."

You probably weren’t alone in a potentially hostile situation like he was either, where human nature makes people feel like they need back-up and support. You talk a lot about empathy, but struggle to see why a 17 year old who had just been jumped and had shot that person might phone his friend.

It was a semi-automatic rifle, to civilian specification, not a weapon of war. It is not inherently immoral that he was in possession of it, even at a riot. What he did with it is what must be judged as good or bad. It is not ‘bad’ that he wanted the means to protect himself from potential violence.

Ah yes, the 556 bullet meant to kill small rodents....not to kill humans and it certainly wasnt standardized by NATO forces and totally isnt a near identical to the 223. Those tiny little bullets are just to have fun with and arent used for war. Ever.

He was carrying a widely available, civilian specification rifle. Would you refer to a pistol as a weapon of war? They are carried as a sidearm. It’s just rhetoric, man, to make it sound far more dangerous and thus heinous. Come on.

Depends on the bullet. Thats what actually matters and not the semantics you are using. That bullet was designed to kill humans in war. Period.

So other bullets don't kill people? People don't get killed when shot with handguns? It's a nonsense argument. The only reason people use "weapon of war" in argument is because it sounds grand, and makes it sound more heinous. It is rhetoric, the same way people like to use "crossed state lines".

Now ur being disingenious. Lets draw it out with crayons. Are you more likely to die being hit in the leg with a .22 or .556? You are essentially saying swords arent weapons of war becauase knives sometimes kill people. God you people are dishonest.

The Khindris, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the shooting of Jacob Blake, had lost a fortune in uninsured stock to rampaging idiots. It is not difficult to see why they might have reached out to Nick Smith to watch the properties on night three.

I wouldn’t either, but in terms of a moral argument, what did he do that was immoral? It was naive maybe, and unwise, but immoral? Those civilians who descended on Kenosha in a bid to defend property did so because of what they saw as the unjustified destruction of peoples’ livelihoods.

This entire time ive conceded he "won" the court case, I just dont agree with 2 things. 1. The original statute WAS intended for hunting. What sense would it make otherwise? 2. The cops in the community clearly had a bias and Kyles posts prior to the shooting show ill intent at best.