Bringing up the old news Kyle Rittenhouse trial, I found it fascinating how even after the trial, people vilified the man and even thought he got away with cold blooded murder. As someone who watched the entire trial, it was very obvious that the man should not have been prosecuted for the case. But the media, and especially social media, seemed to gang up on the man due to their own insecurities and directives. I would not be surprised to see this behavior come from communist entities like the CCP, Australia, and the EU, but seeing it come from American social media (although notably less) was still interesting. Did anyone have a reaction to the dishonest arguments that the trial provoked? I mostly saw it as par for the course for the corporate agenda shills, but it still was very eye opening to the human condition to me.
The only social media I'm on is LinkedIn and Reddit, so my view is limited. What I saw was a lot of reactions from people who didn't understand the laws in Wisconsin. At first I didn't understand the law and thought he should have been found guilty on the firearm possession charge. Then when the charge was thrown out I looked at what the law is and understood why it was thrown out. Then I questioned why it wasn't thrown out at the start of the trial and why the prosecutor tried to bring a charge that was completely invalid. I think it comes down to the difference between what is legal and what is ethical. There are many who view abortion as unethical and given the opportunity would see the law changed to make it illegal so that people having abortions would be charged. I believe there's a trial pending in Texas already given their recent changes. The difference is that in most states abortion is well known as legal and is done by a professional. The laws in the Rittenhouse case are less well known. The average person doesn't know that Wisconsin allows minors to carry a firearm if the barrel is at least 16 inches. Then what constitutes self defense varies from state to state as well. Then there's the question of who started the confrontation and who was defending themselves. I believe the results of the trial are just based on Wisconsin law. I also feel that ethically Rittenhouse should not have been there.
It's quite sad that the laws are unknown however, since it is the foundation of what our country was built on. The 2A is supposed to be an unalienable right, aka a right given by God, per the constitution and bill of rights, that shall not be infringed upon. What he was doing was the definition of constitutional carry, being that he was openly carrying an AR-15, and not concealing the weapon. You may smugly roll your eyes, but if you follow the trends, those countries without citizen owned firearms are the ones with the most draconian lockdown measures and overreaching governments, and the correlation is quite clear Concealment of the weapon is where I would say the law can be interpreted a little bit of a gray area ethically. I am far in favour of concealed carry, but I don't think there is anything unethical about arguing against concealment in good faith. Which is still ironic because one of the perpetrators who attacked Kyle were illegally carrying a concealed pistol. Kyle Rittenhouse was able to clear a jam out of his AR15 mid combat at those attacking him. The people who attacked him were mentally unstable pedophilic felons. As far as who should of been there, Kyle was very well organized and knowledgeable with the weapons he carried, and actually did know some first aid techniques. He was basically a young naive church goer trying to support his community. A community which he had ties to, as his father worked there. But he didn't realize that the people at the riot were mainly degenerates with ill intent. Not sure how ethically you could say he shouldn't have been there while still saying it ethically matters who started a confrontation, given that he had every right to be there as rioters did.
The supreme court has held up laws states have setup around carrying firearms, so I don't get where you're saying it was a "constitutional carry". "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nothing in the constitution mentions anything about open vs concealed carry. The charge was thrown out, so it's a moot point in my mind. Personally I believe concealed carry is better for everyone than open carry. People who are afraid of firearms will be more at ease. People who have malicious intent are less able to determine who is armed and may be able to stop them. People who carry are less likely to be confronted. As for Rittenhouse, yes, he handled the rifle well. Clearing the jam, only firing a single round instead of panicking and firing several, putting more bystanders at risk. The character of the people involved doesn't come into play for me either. It's just a matter of who was the instigator and who was legally acting in self defense. In this case, Kyle was acting in self defense, so he was rightfully found not guilty. I didn't say it ethically mattered who started the confrontation, I said it legally mattered. That's why I agree with the verdict of the case. Ethics are subjective, and in my mind it comes down to "Two wrongs don't make a right." I don't agree that he was supporting "his" community, but he was supporting a community that he has ties to through is father. Had he gone there just to help provide medical attention if someone needed it, I'd have no issue with what he was doing ethically. Had he been on the roof of a business defending that specific one, like the famous picture of the Korean immigrants during the King riots in LA, I'd have no issue with what he was doing ethically. What I view as unethical is being down among the crowd roaming with a gun.
