usually just having people armed is enough to deter others from looting

So the plan was to threaten people with a gun and people are surprised he got attacked?
What do you think the plan would have been if someone ignored the gun and went after damaging property anyway?

in the end in the US trials are by jury

Unless they’re by a vigilante or a cop giving someone a death sentence. Then they “had it coming.”

Yeah, if some psycho comes running to grab my weapon, you have every right to defend yourself

And if some psycho has brought a weapon to a dangerous area to threaten people with you have every right to defend yourself by attacking them and trying to take their weapon.

It is possible for situations to exist where both parties believe their life is in danger could claim self defense for killing the other. That is the situation Rittenhouse created here by going somewhere he had no business being with his gun. If any of those people he shot had killed Rittenhouse they could have claimed self defense and it likely would have been successful because their lives were quite literally in danger, evidenced by the fact that he killed them.

Yes, because they worked at that place and it fucking sucks that people would come to it to burn it,

I don’t know if this is different in the land where property is king, but I worked in retail and was told “If someone tries to rob you, let them. It’s not worth risking your life for. property can always be replaced.”
So if the correct course of action if someone claims to have a weapon in their pocket is to hand over all the money in the till, how does it make any sense at all to try to stop looting during a riot with a fire extinguisher?

No, they should not have been looting. Also, he shouldn’t have been there attacking people with a fire extinguisher, what did he think was going to happen? The person punching him was also wrong to do so. It is possible to have situations where everyone is wrong.

The point is, why was the riot happening? Ignoring the cause (cops freely shooting black people unnecessarily) and focusing on “but but but THE PROPERTY!” to try to distract from the issue at hand really shows people’s values.

“Mansplain” is derogatory.

I agree that it is derogatory to mansplain to someone, like to tell an expert in a subject that they don’t know what they’re talking about and thinking that’s okay because they are a woman.

He went there to help defend stores

And how was he going to defend the stores? With a gun. Anyone who knows anything about guns will tell you: you do not point a gun at a target you don’t intend to kill.

So he went there to shoot people in order to protect property that wasn’t even his and he had no connection to.

I don’t know what drama you have with property when the people that were killed were killed because they attacked someone that was armed. So yeah stop whining about that.

If we could go back to my original post, I was not complaining about the people who got shot, I was pointing out Rittenhouse’s own stated reasons for being there:

he was at the demonstration to “protect businesses and provide medical assistance.”

He brought a gun to an area he had no business being in to protect property. With his gun. What did he think he was going to do with it if not shoot people (take lives) to protect property?

get mad when they attacked rittenhouse and found out.

So people attack Rittenhouse and he shoots them in retaliation - perfectly acceptable
This guy attacks people with a fire extinguisher and gets punched in retaliation - Completely unacceptable

the shooting of Jacob Blake which was 100% justified as it turned out the dude was abusing his girlfriend and pulled a knife on the police when they tried to arrest him.

And the legal punishment for that is losing your legs? Cops in the UK take down assailants with knives all the time without paralyzing them for life. If they then had a jury sentence them to have their legs cut off people would call it barbaric, but again, put them in front of an American cop and “they had it coming.”

I would not hit an old person because they used a fire extinguisher on me

Old man or no, he was assaulting people with a fire extinguisher and got assaulted in return. Why didn’t he “have it coming”?

I wouldn’t even fucking be looting and burning a random store to begin with.

Oh right, because property is the most important thing and the property was in danger. “Won’t somebody please think of the property?!”

Nobody is saying all white men are like this, what they are saying that it is only white men who do this.

Being a white man who is aware of the stereotype, I in no way feel attacked by it. I do feel aware that I need to be careful not to interrupt my colleagues or to mansplain things that I may be less knowledgeable about. This response from me is beneficial to both myself and the people I interact with.

Right, because property is more important than people.

Your only way of disparaging these people is “they were damaging property!” Which last I checked did not carry the death sentence.
Put them in front of a jury and a death sentence would be monstrous, put them in front of a vigilante and “they had it coming for stealing!”

What live are people protecting

From the article:

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest where the shootings took place was held after Jacob Blake, a Black man, was left paralyzed from the waist down after he was shot by a white police officer.

When the state treats a group of people’s lives as less important than property, people are going to react to that.

Or by punching an old man in the face that had a fire extinguisher

I watched the video, the man was using the fire extinguisher on people, how would you respond if someone was using a fire extinguisher on you?

How does someone else paying for them affect you at all in a SINGLE PLAYER GAME?

By causing my single player game to be purposely designed to be worse so that they can “sell me the solution” through micro transactions.

Remember kids: If you purposely insert yourself in dangerous situations that you have no reason to be in, you can find an excuse to kill people with your gun! PEW PEW!

Reading comprehension dude: WHY DID HE GO THERE WITH HIS GUN? What did he think he was going to do with it? He thought to himself “Some stranger’s property might be damaged” and went there, with his gun, to protect property he had no actual connection with. Because the property of strangers is more important than the lives of strangers.

Back to your original comment

before we start losing more people due to your virtue signaling bull crap 😂

And I made the simple point that having Rittenhouse as a speaker is far louder “virtue signaling bull crap” than anyone calling him a murderer.

Why do you care so much?

Says the guy responding with multiple paragraphs.

you’re just trying to win a dumb internet debate

No, I’m just making a straight forward point. The fact that you think this is something to “win” really explains a lot.

Let me simplify it lil bro:

1. me no likey Rittenhouse but me no care
2. he involve in mucho famous court case
3. he so popular and some people, good and bad, want to hear he talk
4. he be innocent so he no murder no body, he self defensed.
5. you no likey outcome of case? 2bad so sad. U objectively wrong 🤷‍♀️

Ya, I’m not going to bother trying to parse any of that.

So back to my comment:
He can go there, with his gun, to potentially take lives to protect property.
This is because the protestors are not allowed to damage property to protect lives.

Derek Chauvin was charged and convicted, had he been acquitted of any charges, you bet your ass he would’ve been doing speeches for the alt right group.

You’re making my point for me. When these people get booked to speak it speaks volumes about the people booking them and the people going to listen to them.

What if it was about being in one of the most famous cases of all time?

Then a lawyer, a legal expert of some kind, would be a better choice than the guy sobbing on the stand that apparently didn’t understand “if I go to this place and bring a gun I might end up shooting somebody.”

You understand the difference between a typical felony charge and the killing of two individuals and wounding another during a civil right protest, right?

Yup, that’s why if it would be absurd to invite someone to speak for being charged with robbing a store, then it is insane to invite someone to speak for being charged with the killing of two individuals and wounding another.

Why did he go there in the first place? To “protect property” with his gun.

Calling out now: someone is going to get arrested for showing up at one of the properties with a gun to “defend it.”

Trump will do nothing to de-escalate the situation, (will probably make it worse) and then will distance himself from it when the guy gets shot.

The protester groups were tipped off of when the new tickets would be made available, so they reserved nearly all of them so they could interrupt, sabotage, and eventually stage a walk out.

So the protestors were going to stage a walkout, but Rittenhouse stayed on stage for the entire allotted time without them doing so. Also he only had 30min on stage but 2 hours afterwards to visit with supporters and answer their question.

Yup, no holes in that story.

he was at the demonstration to “protect businesses and provide medical assistance.”

Remember kids: you can take lives to protect property. You can not damage property to protect lives.