He was never a vigilante. A vigilante is a person who assumes the role of law enforcement without proper authority. He was never witnessed trying to enforce the law. He was trying to guard private property, and was also witnessed administering some basic medical aid.
Sounds exactly like what Rittenhouse was doing to me. Should never have been there.
Well he was never witnessed trying to arrest or detain anybody, give lawful orders or hand out any penalties. Acting as private security, of any kind, is not vigilantism.
I'd disagree in that vigilantes don't tend to do that but rather take the law into their own hands. He was not hired as a security guard. Was he trained, licensed and old enough to be one legally?
Despite your personal beliefs, Kyle had every right to be there, armed, just like everyone else.
Doesn't make it right, moral or the people he killed who otherwise would still be alive, any less dead.
Rittenhouse didn't carry out an unprovoked attack on someone who was clearly armed. His attackers did. Perhaps they shouldn't have been there.
No idea why you want this wild west society where it's fine to shoot someone due to your predetermined set of parameters. To the rest of the world it seems absolutely deranged.
The parameters are the circumstances and the law. The circumstances were that three individuals attacked Rittenhouse to the point where his belief the force he used, being necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself, was reasonable. Which is what the law requires.
Why are you relieving Rosenbaum of any & all culpability? When Rosenbaum attacked Kyle, he was running to extinguish a car fire. A fact that ADA Binger acknowledged. How are you justifying the unprovoked attack on Kyle by Rosenbaum?
I'm not. I just don't think it is the actual point here.
What is the point? As far as I'm concerned the point is Kyle's right to self defense & the unprovoked attacks. Everything else (i.e. He shouldn't have been there, He was armed, etc.) is irrelevant.