LogFAQs > #946868342

Corrik7 posted...

I haven't seen enough details to know if he incited violence or not. What I had seen said he hadn't been. Then there was a conflict of some sort that is unclear that ended up with him shooting someone (not sure what exactly happened here). Then the second shootings were defending himself from the mob, but, yes, you cannnot claim self-defense here if you were at fault in the first exchange, which I am unsure of the details of what happened at that point. If he wasn't in the wrong in the first exchange, then the whole thing is self-defense. If he was wrong in the first exchange, then it becomes murder across the board.

That's why a jury will have to figure that one out with the evidence.

I am taking aim at DYL's claim that Rittenhouse and Scalise are on the same page basically.

And this is exactly where you lose me and I suspect many others.

There is a belief that he had a right to be there and his presence there is not inciting violence in and of itself. I disagree.

The idea is that he went to help restore law and order and brought a gun to defend himself vs he went to instill fear in and power over a group of people and brought a gun with himself to help.

I believe the latter.

Granted, I'm left leaning, and I don't see guns as defense like many people on the right do. I see guns as enforcement and power. "Don't fuck with me. I will shoot you." That's the message. That is, to me, inciting violence.

---

Tribe Time!