but... that's not even relevant to this. He testified why he went there. If he says he went there, armed, to protect businesses then that alone is a admission of vigilantism (though to be fair he'd be as much a vigilante if he went there armed with a pipe or even unarmed). A citizen should simply have no business doing that, that is literally law enforcement's job.
I suppose you technically could be armed in a powder keg of an area and not be a vigilante but... that's simply not rittenhouse's situation. He testified why he went there. The reason he gave for being there is textbook vigilantism. He went there to act as a vigilante.. That he technically didn't "enforce the law" is a non issue here. Not that a vigilante can in any capacity enforce the law. You might as well argue that batman is a vigilante when he is feeding criminals their kneecaps but not when he is brooding on top of a gargoyle...
So, he didn't in fact actually do any vigilantism then.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Yes, there's a point, Mr. Too Cowardly To Directly Respond.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
--- Double Post Merged, ---
When? Where? Kyle said "I went there to be a vigilante" did he?
Ummm, no. You can't 'be a vigilante' without, you know, actually being a vigilante. Is he a LARPer? Sure. Wannabe? Yeah, maybe. But you have to act in a certain manner or else you are not the thing you claim.
Umm, yes, that's exactly what Batman is - a defacto vigilante. He, and I know this is going to be hard to swallow, DOES things that a vigilante does. As in he ACTUALLY does something. That by extension makes him a vigilante. I'm not sure anyone would argue Batman ISN'T a vigilante figure. And, when pressed as to why, they could point to any number of things - just pick any comic book ever.
Thing is, I don't think most right wingers will agree since he had a gun and shot BLM protesters, two who have a bad past (that most people didn't know about until after the fact). They'll deny vigilantism even though it fits the definition perfectly. Check out how they keep getting him to appear in their shows and whatnot, no accountability whatsoever.
What I am saying is not about the trial or it's results. It's about just in general what he was doing there. Which is vigilantism (let alone profoundly idiotic and disturbing). The trial just wasn't about vigilantism. It was about whether what he did was self defense (on which he had the facts on his side) and then the other charges which he was let go over technicalities.
How should he be held accountable?
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Well, legally it is. But, also the results underpin the logical arguments as well.
Being somewhere is vigilantism
No, the DEFENSE was about self-defense. The prosecution was very much that Kyle was acting as a vigilante.
If by 'technicalities' you mean what was found to be spurious charges, then yes. I'm assuming you're talking about the gun charge.
Teenagers shouldn't be legally allowed to go looking for trouble with a firearm. Would you consider that a ridiculous statement?
Where am I talking about the trial or results? I'm also talking about what he was doing there, and he'd still get support even if it was him killing the protesters in cold blood.
www.theatlantic.com
It doesn't even need to be limited to that. The fact is more white people die at the hands of police than any other demographic, but people have such insane biases that talking about the dynamics of bad policing in minority communities and how they're disproportionately effected by it renders the entire conversation moot to them.
But higher percentage of Black people are killed by police than any other race or ethnicity. Though either way, we need to talk about how policing is done, assuming lot of white victims were killed unnecessarily by police. Especially when mental health crisis is going on, and the police are called when they're not equipped to handle that.
You were talking about more white people being killed?
which political affiliation do you want to hear from though?
Both, honestly. kckk is an example of a right leaning person that can hold a respectful conversation with someone from a different political affiliation without being bad faith. They exist.
