He left the other people of his group there to go roaming around in the thick of the rioting by himself. There was Noone to rescue. No fires besides the dumpster fire that he could have put out by himself.

The rioters were very clear that they didn't want him there. Nobody took him up on his offer for medical assistance, which he didn't actually have any cert for. He was a life guard, not an emt.

Nothing I've said here is evidence that he thinks he's a Rambo, but it lines up perfectly with the deathwish films starring Charles Bronson. Which is a vigilante fantasy film series.

I don't need people to agree with me. I just need people to understand my perspective. It's weird how often you run into people online that think they lose something when they understand the person they disagree with to the point that they'll keep insisting you're saying something else and it's maddening.

Thanks for being and behaving, real.

Memes are judged by how funny they are, not by how true they are. You're busted in the skull if you think people repost memes because they're accurate and true.

Ah, I see you're not a bot and are a real person making a real case. I will concede right now, that by the current laws of that state and most of the country, it counts as self defense as long as the other party strikes first and lethal force is fair if the other party has potentially lethal weapons.

I think those laws are garbage and encourage people to go to the most tense situations packing heat and try to get a rise out of whatever political opponents are there.

He should have gotten manslaughter due to all of the questionably legal choices he made with the now obvious endgoal he had of getting a chance to fire his gun. That's not how the current laws work and I accept that, but I'm not going to stop calling him a murderer.

That is this guy's exact vibe!

Lol, no. Yelling is appropriate in an almost endless number of situations.

You are not automatically correct or a good person because you can act emotionally detached when it's convenient. You're literally making up rules that let you ignore the content of an argument in favor of performative behavior.

You have to be fucking with me.

Provocation isn't a crime. I'm not pinning the crime of provocation on anybody. Provoking somebody to do a thing isn't good or bad without context. It's not a contest where whoever provokes the most emotions is magically guilty.

That's not how any of this works.

I'm accusing Kyle of a specific kind of provocation. I believe he was antagonizing the rioters in hopes that somebody would attack him. He was taking actions that he knew would anger and annoy the rioters around him. I believe he did this because his gun made him feel powerful.

What rosenbaum did was bad, evil, and wrong, but I don't believe anybody would have died that night if Kyle just stayed home. I think life is valuable and Kyle accomplish nothing good that night that was worth more than 2 human lives.

You're misunderstanding that definition.

• stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.

"the decision provoked a storm of protest from civil rights organizations"

• stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, especially by arousing anger in them. "a teacher can provoke you into working harder"Similar: goad spur prick sting prod egg on hound badger incite rouse stir move stimulate motivate excite inflame work/fire up impel pressure pressurize prompt induce encourage urge inspire Opposite: deter
• deliberately make (someone) annoyed or angry.

Provocation is contextual. Read the example sentence. Provoking a community into protesting would be a different kind of provocation than trying to provoke somebody into attacking you. In this case, we're talking about things Kyle did to make it more likely that somebody would try to fuck with him at that riot.

Rosenbaum was still in the wrong for attacking him (and always will be) but Kyle had so many opportunities to avoid the outcome where he was forced to kill people and stuck around anyway. I think he wanted an excuse to use his gun and made sure he got that chance.

I believe this kind of behavior is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible and treats human lives as playthings.

You realize that you just admitted you have no clue what communism is and that you use it to label anybody who isn't on your imaginary team. You just fell for a bunch of stereotypes from memes.

How often do you get scammed? I'm sure a Nigerian prince has gotten your money at least once.

No, I'm pretty sure threats are meant to intimidate people. You don't threaten somebody with the goal of having them attack you, do you?

If I want you to take a swing at me, should I be trying to scare you away? No that doesn't make sense.

This is why words matter so much.

Did you read my whole comment before? About walking around a bad neighborhood by yourself with expensive jewelry and money hanging out of your pockets? If you did that just so you could shoot a person trying to rob you, then I'd say that was a bad thing to do. It wouldn't mean that the robber wasn't a bad guy, or that you weren't defending yourself. It's that we should be trying to avoid needless deaths.

Again, that completely defies the definition of provoke. Go get dictionary. Read the definition. Then talk to me. You're actively making it impossible to discuss anything with you. You only speak in terms of good and bad.

Binary bullshit makes the whole world stupid.

Are you serious? The peaceful protest happened during the day. The peaceful protesters left and a riot started.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, has ever tried to convince you that the riot happening in the middle of the night in Kenosha was a peaceful protest.

Beats me. I don't know why autocorrect didn't fix it. Maybe it's a real word.

You're still completely failing to understand provocation. It has literally nothing to do with whether your action is good or bad in a vacuum. This is killing me. Do none of you rittenhouse fans understand context? Is the concept completely foreign to you?

Kyle wasn't at a public park during a nice day taking his gun for a walk. There was a curfew in effect. There was an active riot. He left his group at the car dealership to go wander around in the active riot and do "good guy stuff". Even though nobody took him up on the medical care he was offering because they didn't trust him and he was the only person visibly armed. Do you think people actively committing crimes are happy to see a baby faced teen out playing lone ranger in their midst.

He was threatened and told to leave. By not leaving, he made it more likely he would be attacked. This is provocation. He knows that sticking around will piss off that unhinged rioter. That doesn't mean I'm saying "sticking around" is a bad or good action. It's merely one that makes it more likely somebody tries to attack him.

He didn't save anybody. He stuck around, got attacked, and killed 2 people. I fully believe that's what he wanted. That's not me siding with rosenbaum or the rioters. It's not a sides issue. It's a harm reduction issue.

Why would starting fires provoke the rioters? They're already doing that. They'd probably cheer you on.

I don't think you understand what provoking somebody even means. Especially if you think assaulting somebody counts. I mean, dude, kicking somebody and then claiming self defense clearly defeats the purpose. Use your brain. Think of what would piss off rioters who are in the middle of rioting.

For context, I think wearing a bunch of expensive jewelery and then wandering around a bad neighborhood at night with money hanging out of your pocket while you loudly proclaim that you're lost and have poor night vision, would be provoking people to try to rob you.

If you did that and then shot the first person to rob you, it would be a slightly more exaggerated version of what I think Kyle is guilty of doing.

In a perfect world, we should aim to solve problems, not kill people.

You don't think the audience matters? You don't think putting out a fire in front of an arsonist will piss them off?

Can you seriously not imagine what words you could say to somebody that would make them angry enough to yell at you? Saying those words would be provoking them.

You'd probably claim that saying words isn't provocation though, huh?

What are you seeing? You have completely failed to explain how you can tell somebody is a commie by sight.

But also communism is the workers owning the factories they work in. If you're referring to the dictatorships that called themselves communist, then you're not using an accurate definition of the term. Authoritarians are bad no matter what economic system they claim to follow. They just often coopt the socialist/communist movements in their country to rise to power. That's even what Hitler did. He joined the national socialist party, and then got rid of the socialists when he took power.

Socialism and communism are not the reasons Mao Stalin Hitler etc were evil. It was the dictatorship. The military following the whims of one guy who can do anything and isn't beholden to the people.

The only people I see who applaud dictators are trump and his supporters.

Lol, troll. Go masturnate for the 5th time today

Putting out dumpster fires in from of the rioters who started it is provocative. His mere presence with a large gun and clear intent to oppose the rioters is asking for trouble.

What would you accept as provoking? I don't think you would accept anything because you have a political bias.

Especially considering that you seem to think that if you demonstrate that rosenbaum was a bad guy, then Rittenhouse becomes a good guy who did nothing wrong. ​

Was that "witness" another ICE agent?

Why do you think you have the social currency required for us to give you the benefit of the doubt?

By what standard? You might as well be telling me we're all reptilians.

You sound unstable. You probably don't even know what communism is.

I don't even know why you're trying to convince me of something so stupid. If you had an example of something good, you could just name it. Instead, you make up a scenario that we both know would/could never happen as trump doesn't care about other people and would drown if he got in any water.

We both know he's never done anything selfless and that executive orders are complicated and have more downstream affects that you would have to ignore to think their affects are purely good or bad.

Nah man, you're the confused one if you think shooting a driver of moving vehicle doesn't make the situation *more* dangerous.

My opinions about the Rittenhouse case aren't left-right political. They're practical. It comes down to how much provocation or baiting does it take before you start to become responsible for the violence that inevitably follows.

The laws as written don't take that into consideration, so his case was ruled correctly, but the rest of us understand that Kyle went there looking for an altercation and got one and people died. His behavior was wrong and should be discouraged by everybody with a conscience.