Thread by @EveKeneinan

If B attacks A in such a situation that A has a reasonable fear for his life, A is justified in defending himself by e.g. shooting B.

If C, D, and F see A shoot B, and decide that A is an “active shooter” and proceed to attack A, then A is justified in shooting C, D, and F too.

It does not matter whether what C, D, and F believe about A. What matters is what A believes about C, D, and F. And it would be entirely reasonable for A, after just being attacked by B, and then attacked by C, D, and F, to suppose them as great a threat as B was.

It does not matter that A was armed.

It does not matter that A came prepared to defend himself.

It does not matter whether A “crossed state lines” to get there.

It does not matter that A cried on the witness stand.

It doesn’t matter.

None of that matters.

Many people, mostly Leftists, seem to feel that “Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there in the first place.” They therefore assign some kind of moral guilt to Rittenhouse because he was, in fact, there, where “he should not have been.” Then the shift this guilt to the shootings.

So they reason like this

1 Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been there
2 So KR is guilty of “having been there”
3 So KR is guilty
4 KR is charged with murder
5 But KR is guilty
6 So KR is guilty of murder

This is ridiculous. It doesn’t matter of Kyle is “guilty of having been there” It doesn’t matter if Kyle is “guilty of in some way opposing a BLM riot.” It doesn’t matter if Kyle is “on the wrong side of history.”

All that matters is whether Kyle was justified in shooting.

And, of course, Kyle was completely justified in shooting the men he shot.

The video evidence is clear.

Anyone, you or me, would be entirely justified in thinking our lives in danger from these assailants and in defending ourselves with deadly force.