Stating others' opinions for them without surveying them at all, even to bolster your argument, is dismissive. It also shows a lack in theory of mind. — Kenosha Kid

To repeat ... this was a conscious choice to make a point about people getting annoyed and being dismissive. That is was a carefully laid trap is also part and parcel of my point about being 'angry'/'annoyed'.

If you view some ideas as 'abhorrent' then are you absconding from reason by doing so? Of course I think some ideas are terrible too in life but as an item for philosophical discussion I tend to look at why I feel that way as a point of interest if I can manage it.

Postmodernism has its positive quirks I think :D

Not to interrupt too much but I have remined constant by framing 'anger/annoyance' rather than just plain 'anger,' and when going to an extreme used 'blind fury'.

That makes no sense.

In addition it would be more helpful is I made some distinctions between 'opinion,' 'view' and 'belief'. :(

you are pre-emptively dismissing the opinions of others by replacing them with your own. If you're against dismissing opinions, why not find out what they are, rather than deciding what they are? — Kenosha Kid

I was putting forward an argument.

It is up to me to convince you that you do cast out opinions due to anger/annoyance and if I cannot convince you then my argument needs work in some way.

When I create a thread here, it's principally to survey critique. I'm inviting difference of opinion, the benefits of which are: 1) if my thinking is crap, friends here will demonstrate that, saving me from wasting more time on it; 2) if it's solid, I can demonstrate that to myself by defending it (like a thesis defense); 3) if it's kind of there but flawed, discussion will help develop the bits that need developing. — Kenosha Kid

That is standard. I am looking to rock the boat. If you are convinced you cannot fall out so be it.

I am inviting conflict with what I have put out. I want conflict. I don't see how anyone can be motivated to cast out an opinion without understanding that it is meant to cause conflict. If it doesn't it is going nowhere fast. If no one cares it is frustrating (annoying) as one puts out opinions to test them.

Perhaps I am just being too liberal with the term anger/annoyance for your liking. That is annoying and I can look to correct it.

I don't think ideas are really the source of anger, except horrible ideas. — Kenosha Kid

I think there is a problem here with referring to some ideas as 'horrible'. I don't see ideas as 'horrible' they are just ideas. Some have more use than others. Ideas that have no use are not 'ideas,' but there are certainly people out there who put forward things they call 'ideas' that I don't call 'ideas'.

Either way, I never stated that ideas are the source of anger. I stated that expressing an opinion is due to anger/annoyance. This doesn't have to be external and I'd suggest that is could be more commonly inward anger/annoyance (hence the need to get feedback).

If you're enraged by people not agreeing with you, however strong their counterargument, that seems like a personal problem to me. — Kenosha Kid

When people have strong personal opinions they are blind to reason quite often. We are all prone to this in day-to-day life and it is something we're meant to guard against on forums like this (but there are plenty of instances where this doesn't happen I'm sure you'd agree).

Extending to this extreme I concluded that out rational inclination are due to our irrational nature.

Look at this in the light of the first sentence that has bothered people (as it was meant to):

When we express an opinion or argument it is because we are annoyed/angry with something that causes us distress. We don't 'know' to what degree our view is right but we believe it to be better than other views posed. — I like sushi

The 'something' not necessarily a 'someone'. As the strain increases the so does annoyances and frustrations - be they directed where here or there. When the opinion held matters more and more to us then the price and tension is higher. Necessarily that which matters most to us will, inevitably, hold us in place because of a 'something' we will defend to the death (so to speak):

We don't 'know' to what degree our view is right but we believe it to be better than other views posed.

Given that being logic and rational is something we often hear as being productive in argumentation this begs the question as to why it is that when opposed we feel angered/annoyed rather than intrigued by another's perspective. The more another's belief contradicts our own the stronger the feeling becomes. The more this belief matters to us personally (for our own wellbeing and the wellbeing of those we care for) the more inclined we are to veer away from logic and rationality. — I like sushi

I think I could have written this much better in hindsight (as I knew would be the case). I did to make a delineation between a mere whimsical 'view' and a strong 'view'. Whimsy has it's place, but I wouldn't really call an 'opinion' a 'whimsy'. Throwing out some random thoughts is not he same as casting out an 'opinion' don't you think?

It is conflict of a sorts no matter how you wish to frame it. It may be for fun but someone will be annoyed/angered to some degree if they find it wanting. If we express an opinion surely we are looking for conflict?

What is an opinion for if it doesn't rile against something in some way? I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with. — I like sushi

Thanks for trying the charitable perspective though :)

It is not intent simply to be armed. There is a case where someone got involved in a fight walked out to his car, took out his gun and then proceeded to shoot his attacker.

The technical difference here being he was provoked then retreated to his car to get a gun with intent of getting his rifle and shooting the other person. He was not initially armed with a gun and attacked.

Carrying a gun (in and of itself) in Rittenhouse's instance is not viewed as intent to cause harm or to act in conflict. Sounds kind of crazy in the situation he was involved in but that is the law.

I am not condoning the law just stating what it is. That is why I suggested an outline for an alternative law regarding protests that would shift away from armed conflicts.

So we're on the cusp of dismissing each other. That is not a pleasant experience.

How do we not dismiss each other's positions/ideas/beliefs OR how do we dismiss each other and move on without loss?

We can call someone a crackpot theorist and ridicule them but that will openly encourage anger/annoyance. Ignoring/dismissing them will also cause anger/annoyance. If anger and annoyance are generally counterproductive to rational discourse and rational thought how can we trust our own opinion? If we can to what degree?

My minimal conclusion here is that being completely rational beings would make us stagnated and unable to move forward or backwards. The rational mind without an irrational nature is utterly useless. — I like sushi

Intent to look for conflict based purely on your opinion. That wouldn't stand in any court I know of.

A seventeen year old walking around with a gun in The Netherlands isn't legal is it? I think part of the ire involved is that many think he shouldn't be allowed to walk around with a gun - myself included - yet the law there doesn't disallow it. On top of this, as we all know, the law isn't a simple universal formula.

Such public cases are also a difficult thing to handle. There doesn't appear to be a good legal reason to have accused him with murder in the first place. This is the power of public opinion as there was clearly evidence that he acted in self-defense from the footage instantly available so without a clear cause to accuse someone of murder the chargers were brought forward prematurely - which neither protects the accused's rights nor helps the prosecution as they've had little time to reward anything. He may have been charged and arrested simply for his own personal safety too given the atmosphere at the time and what was happening.

The event was given political priority as it looked to suit different narratives that were and are highly politically charged at a highly politically charged time. These things are difficult.

The big question is will we see a change in the law for youngsters carrying weapons? I am pretty sure Rittenhouse would have taken a different course of action if he'd known exactly what would happen to him. If so are we likely to see him backing laws to prevent people like himself from having their life and other lives turned upside down due to naivety, stupidity, and/or immaturity?

Will there be a law that states carrying firearms during a protest is illegal? This would make some fear the police perhaps so how about during protests having both the citizens and police disarm themselves as standard procedure? Then if any bad element of the protesters cause damage to property then call in clearly marked police who are armed to deal with them and keep 'regular' police unarmed.

That is just off the top of my head and I'm not saying it is ideal by any means but I think something like that is at least a step in the right direction.

You seem to suppose that a relaxed resting state is abnormal and that we generate tension to enliven ourselves and our social scene. Conflict, intense emotion, tension, etc. make us feel better. — Bitter Crank

Not sure I would frame it like that. I was perhaps thinking as simple resistance to items that are our ‘axis mundi’ (the core of our existed experience). Maybe such opposition and strong feelings towards something hit at some underlying hidden aspect of us?

There is some validity to your view. In times of danger and threat we are on high alert, physically primed for action. Your 'tension' in other words. IF someone presents an opinion that cuts across one's most basic and cherished thinking (somebody says, for instance, that we should institute a forced abortion program to cut own the excess population) we might well experience tension, arousal, and would start marshaling arguments against this view. — Bitter Crank

Yes. It is more clear cut in some cases. I did frame this as anger/annoyance rather than plain anger. I am of the belief that we are driven by how we ‘feel’ about something first and foremost and this is where this line of thinking stems from and why I’m looking for argumentation against it.

Most of the time, though, other people's opinions do not rile us up that way. We can deal with others' opinions without tension developing. — Bitter Crank

In which case we ignore them or don’t take them seriously (see reply from T Clark) which then leads to the opening up of anger/annoyance for one party. I would say most of the time someone is riled. If not the discussion/debate/argument quickly dies and can hardly be called such.

At any rate, I think our "go to state" is one of quiet, restful, homeostasis--most of the time. Still, I recognize that sometimes we like to pick a fight, just for its excitement value--or tension. — Bitter Crank

Why do you think this? What are you basing this on?

I wasn’t suggesting that anger/annoyance is the way we reply only that something akin to it is the core motivation. If we agree with what someone says and have nothing more to add we may at most say ‘well done’. If we oppose the view we necessarily find something at fault and we don’t like this, yet such dislike can be an understanding of our own short comings, shorting comings of others, or (more likely) an admixture of both.

Stating the ‘we’ you took offence to. You are arguing against my opinion which was clearly displayed as rhetoric and/or as a hypothetical position to attack.

Anyway, have a appointment …

Your view clearly opposes mine and you feel obliged to comment.

Is there no anger/annoyance in your heart that I spoke for you? If not why comment? What drove you to comment. What is an opinion for if it doesn't rile against something in some way? I cannot see how anyone can hold any opinion if there is nothing for it to conflict with.

This is kind of the position I am putting up for discussion.

Overall I think the video will do a good job with the exception of saying he 'fell over' without mentioned he'd been pelted with objects and that is why he fell to the ground - it is pretty hard to squeeze in every detail though in a brief video.

The nuances in laws state to state is likely something many don't really give too much consideration (especially non-native citizens of the US as they're used to ONE law across the lands rather than multiple iterations/interpretation of one law).

To have success in life it pays to serves others. You may call this 'selfish' but if it acts to helps out others then that necessarily removes the burden from yourself PLUS gives a degree of satisfaction I'd say?

Intelligence? That is a whole can of worms! I'm not convinced that being intelligent makes you a 'better/worse person' in any way.

If we're just talking in terms of IQ alone neither a reasonably high IQ nor a reasonably low IQ have much to do with someone's character.

All neurotransmitters do multiple things. It is better to think of neurotransmitters as keys which fit holes that turn on or off numerous items (some that act against each other).

What happens a lot (regarding the neurosciences) is researchers say one thing then journalists run with it and misrepresent it. This is probably something that happens more in the neurosciences than most other fields as it is effectively a new field of research and the amount of ground to cover within it grows exponentially day by day.

F.I.R.E.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZqBsLm7TuM

Heard of that?

I think the ability to communicate instantly is not something that will destroy democracy. I would also say it is untrue that media outlets over the past two decades (anywhere in the world) haven’t been somewhat of a detriment to democracy to some degree.

Now we can see the problems of democracy and we find that we’re all responsible and should check and double check our sources and keep in mind that what we might be hearing may actually be quite false.

The more sensitive the subject the more dangerous it is to stack evidence to back your beliefs and abscond from and derail others. I think younger generations are more adapted than older folks realise as they’ve grew up with the ability to communicate on a global scale.

I think @apokrisis did a good job of answering this.

People will assume 'surprise' to mean the everyday 'surprise' unless the technical term is outlined.

In simpler terms it merely refers to differing from the norm and something I find interesting about the 'Free energy principle' - in terms of the cognitive neurosciences - it how this plays off Inhibition of Return (IOR) in terms of awareness and attention.

But why is minimising surprise the very same as living longest? — Banno

Because 'minimising' doesn't mean 'eradicating'? I don't really understand this question unless you took 'minimising' to mean 'reduce to nothing'. It might also be a case of conflating this in terms of 'evolution,' 'information theory' and actual 'physical energy'?

Neuroplasticity - yes, children's brains. However, hazarding a guess, going out on a limb here, most modifications/adaptations are in software and not in hardware. — TheMadFool

The brain is highly plastic in juvenile development. As an example a kid (aged 8 yrs I believe) who had half his brain blown out due to a stray bullet still went on to get a degree at university. When components are lost other areas grow to take over (another case of a child born without a cerebellum being able to walk).

I don't see what sense it makes to talk about hardware and software when referring to the human brain in reasonable detail (even as an analogy it can often give the wrong impression).

Brilliant! Reminds me of The Day Today and Brass Eye.

Wow! Okay bye bye.

Because it has to opposed in some way? My view of a hero is actually more like batman than robinhood. I think true heroes knowingly and purposefully cause themselves pain, distress and suffering (at extreme levels) to help/protect/further others.

Robinhood was aimed more specifically at tyranny. I wouldn’t complain strongly about him being framed as a hero but he doesn’t quite fit my rigid definition.

You claim the witness said he was not guilty. That is untrue. — Kenosha Kid

The witness admitted he was shot in self defence. That is basically the same as saying (in that instance) he wasn’t guilty. I didn’t mean to imply he said anything about his guilt regarding the deaths.

It was a pretty clear cut case as I tried to outline in the post you picked those first sentences from. Even clearer for anyone who bothered to watch a significant proportion of the trial - which is how I know what I am saying isn’t due to newsreel clips, chat show parading or social media comments (some of which are scarily absent of the most basic facts and others of which perpetuate blatant lies at both ends of the spectrum).

I’d rather people move to discussions of how to address people being shot by poorly trained police officers for next to no reason. It is clear enough in the US that simply complying with the police as much as possible isn’t always going to end well.

Can you see a future in the US where police officers carrying firearms is unusual? I think that would be the ideal to work towards but I’ve no idea how that can be achieved anytime soon nor what the incremental steps towards it would look like. A starter would be addressing police training and who is allowed to openly walk around with guns.

In the country I was born I have never seen a police officer with a gun. In fact I cannot ever recall seeing a gun in that country other than on TV.

Try watching large portions of the actual trial. He was clearly not guilty and the guy he shot (who didn’t die) also said so.
— I like sushi

No, the guy he shot who survived admitted he'd pulled a gun on him. This alone can't acquit him. For instance, of the murder of the two unarmed men. — Kenosha Kid

I never said it did. Why you focused on that puzzles me given that I gave a blow by blow account of what I learnt from watching the trial directly after those two sentences.

So you don't care about what you said viz. luck (Gettier cases) explains stupidity (I like sushi's razor)? — TheMadFool

It is pretty hard not to reply when you are claiming a quote you wrote were my words.

What actually said was this:

I was actually trying to sneak in that what he is really talking about (underneath) is more or less about plain bad luck framed as Stupidity.
— I like sushi

In reference to the specific definition of Stupidity given in the context of that thread.

I don’t see anything here other than some doctrine I don’t care about and some terms used that lack definitions.

Ignorance meaning what and knowledge meaning what? What is absolute and/or is there ‘absolute’ knowledge? Can anything we know everything about really make sense in the real world? What is ‘the real world’?

Why do you frame the “western” view as having ignorance as a singular ‘poison’ and what does any of that have to do with knowledge and luck other than some brief mention of Gettier?

The above is not what I would call ‘fleshing out’ at all. Let me go blow by blow:

In Buddhism there are The Three Poisons:

1. Moha (ignorance, pig)

2. Raga (greed/sensual attachment, bird)

3. Dvesha (hate/aversion, snake) — TheMadFool

I don’t care.

In Western traditions, from how philosophy, was (unfortunately) such a big deal, there's only one summum malum: — TheMadFool

Why? Because you say so? And if I take this as a given why does it matter?

Western philosophy, I reckon, sees/views the lack of knowledge as the root of all suffering. Buddhism too, by some accounts, traces all suffering back to not knowing. — TheMadFool

So what? You give me an opinion. Let’s see if the next line divulges anything …

Unfortunately for us, as Gettier demonstrates with his Gettier cases, there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic. — TheMadFool

Knowledge in what form? I could repeat myself about the question of Justified True Belief as being used in ‘real world’ (clearly open to uncertainty) and in the abstract (truths in the abstract in set limits with set rules).

Am I correct in assuming you’re only interested in ‘knowledge’ framed in the ‘real world’ as in with vague speech and limit data?

Never heard of ‘Hackliste’ but it appears to mean a hierarchy of some kind.

I guess we could create a Hackliste for Buddhism as follows:

Prime evil: Ignorance

Lesser evils: Hate, Lust/Greed — TheMadFool

What is that for?

If you just asking how we judge and nothing more then I’m puzzled why you don’t just ask that and instead use ‘knowledge’ and ‘luck’ as a way to get to grips with this problem - without articulating exactly what you mean by ‘luck’ and ‘knowledge’ as these are the key elements you’ve chosen.

This could be boiled down to an example perhaps? How about this question in relation to whatever you’re trying to look at …

Is it better to steal from a thief or a murderer? Which is more justified? Is there any way to decide between the two that can be agreed upon?

This is the kind of moral investigation people shy away from. Ou can offer another more closely related to whatever you mean if you wish and show me via that what our point/question is.

Failing the above maybe reiterating certain Gettier cases might help here?

there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic. — TheMadFool

Like I’ve tried to get across a number of times this ‘believing’ is key. Outside of the abstract ‘logic’ looses rigidity. We apply it in the real world because it is the only thing we know of that works in limited instances with 100% accuracy if the limit remains constant and rules are followed exactly without exception.

In the real world errors occur due to bad/good luck, lack of data (not necessarily ‘knowledge’ but that depends on how we’re distinguishing terms?) and/or entropy (the ‘real world’ is not necessarily a static item like constructed abstractions are). No one has an answer to the relation/separation between consciousness, the physical world and mathematics - we’re not omnipotent.

This is the kind of quandary where nihilistic notions often begin to germinate. There are different reactions where people lean into the nihilism, or generally side more readily with physical positivism or metaphysical ideals.

Yes. — TheMadFool

You were talking about ‘knowledge’ and ‘luck’ right in terms of the Gettier problem? That is what I was talking about.

isagree. Nothing systematic about luck. — TheMadFool

‘Entropy’ is ‘systematic’? I don’t understand. How do you define luck? I view it as a simple distribution issue. Some people will necessarily have things go for them more than against them and vice versa.

As the old physics joke goes ‘if you don’t know what something is just call it Entropy’. There is nothing systematic about something we know understand … or is there? :)

I've been over morality numerous times before and noticed a reluctance from many to make any serious kind of moral investigation.
— I like sushi

And you're not one of them? :lol: — TheMadFool

Poor wording! ‘Refusal’ for ‘reluctance’. We’re all reluctant as it is painful. I don’t ‘refuse’ to but I can understand why people make excuses not to cause themselves distress and pain.

If you can flesh out what it is you wish to discuss a bit more I’m game :)

or every single thing he did that night was heroic — Miller

That is a hard sell to say the least. I guess you might have a certain view of what a ‘hero’ is that I don’t share.

You provided evidence that was summed up by questions that were not clear with an explanation that amounted to ‘Yes’ for each answer.

I did my best to offer up reasons for your Yeses but never held that they were your reasons. I also asked if you’d watched much of the trial which you didn’t answer so I a inclined to belief ou haven’t (rightly or wrongly).

You set out the questions and answered them with a simple ‘Yes’. I probed and you accused me of fallacies. I do actually want to know the reason for the Yeses but if you’re unwilling so be it.

@Miller Ask yourself if you wish to provoke people or to present a reasonable point in a calm manner.

The main problem is people don’t want to talk as much as they want to shout at each other about why they are right and someone else is wrong.

There is nothing ‘heroic’ about what he did. There are clearly a number of people who are not aware of several facts about this case and that is not exactly unusual.

1. Did R defend himself with his AR-15?

Yes — 180 Proof

Perhaps we can go through these one at a time?

Starting with number 1 I don’t think ‘Yes’ is sufficient. How do you know he defended himself rather than attacked someone? When we ‘defend myself’ what do we mean?

It could be proposed that he in fact went out with the intent to shoot someone and looked for conflict. If so what evidence could there be that would back up this position and is the evidence strong enough to warrant us to take it seriously?

2. All but one of his victims were unarmed?

Yes. — 180 Proof

The judge in this case did not allow the people you refer to to be called ‘victims’. The one that was armed was moving towards Rittenhouse and pointing his gun at him when he was shot (he also said that Rittenhouse acted in self defence).

The other two involved circumstances where they were actively lunging at Rittenhouse. Were they merely trying to disarm him? In the first shooting this doesn’t seem to be so as there were threats to kill Rittenhouse. In the second instance Rittenhouse was on the ground after being attacked by several people. The second person shot was trying to take his gun from him during this attack on Rittenhouse. I don’t see how it isn’t a reasonable threat under the circumstances.

3. Did R go well out of his way to unjustifiably put himself in harm's way?

Yes. — 180 Proof

This is what I would call an unclear statement without any attempt to mark out what is meant by ‘unjustifiably put himself in harm’s way’. Where is the line between justified and unjustified? To say he went ‘well out of his way’ is unclear.

If you meant geographically that doesn’t really hold up given that he had relatives living in the area. This may be assumed when you hear people talking about him ‘crossing state lines’ which sounds like a long long way away, but he couldn’t hand himself into the police in Kenosha.

That aside, it was foolish and naive of him to go alone. He did state in the trial that he was cut off from his original group and the police wouldn’t allow him through. He should’ve realised that things were getting heated maybe? Whether he was aware or not of the danger he was in he did go out alone to apparently deal with a fire in a car. This was stupid. Would I call this going ‘well out of his way’ to ‘put himself in harm’s way’? Going well out of his way is at best a stretch, but putting himself in harm’s way was clearly the case given what happened. He reported trying to make his way back to the group he had found himself with but the way was blocked by those who then proceeded to chase him and threaten him.

What part of this, or other points reported in the trial, lead you to the ‘Yes’ answer?

4. Was R's three casualties the only one's shot during the entire, heavily policed pro-BLM demonstration that night in Kenosha?

Yes. — 180 Proof

Heavily policed yet there were no police around during the shootings. Rittenhouse was not going to ‘get away’ and he was moving towards the police yet people were attacking him with violent intent (ie. hitting him about the head or trying to stamp on his head). If you watched enough of the trial you would know already that he didn’t simply shoot the first person who threw a rock at him.

Other than you maybe trying to portray that the police were all around I don’t see much relevance to this point.

5. Weren't (mostly) unarmed demonstrators, exercising their constitutional right to protest (and the moral principle of civil disobedience), more justified defending themselves against R brandishing his AR-15 than R was against them?

Yes. — 180 Proof

If they were attacked by Rittenhouse. They were not attacked by him though. If someone with a gun is running away from you and trying to avoid conflict you are absolutely not justified in any violent action against them and any serious violent action against them could be framed as ‘wantonly and unjustifiably putting yourself into harm’s way’ more so than someone having a weapon and offering medical aid to people.

I don’t agree with the gun laws in the US and I think he is guilty of being naive. He clearly understood the situation was potentially dangerous but he almost certainly underestimated how dangerous. I hope this instance will bring a change to the laws. I see no good reason why anyone, let a alone a teenager, should be allowed to walk around openly displaying a firearm of any kind - and I would include the police in this too unless it was special forces police. I think any change in the law will be quite difficult as I see no reason to disallow members of the public from owning firearms. The problem becomes how and why weapons are carried and to regulate their use. Also, not having regular police armed is problematic in the US too due to the proliferation of firearms. It is easy to idealise what should be but it is difficult to transition sometimes.

More focus on the incidents that led to the protests and how police are trained and recruited is better all round for everyone. Politics and media don’t seem to be helping the situation so more protests and demonstrations are something I would actively encourage even though they will inevitably be used to bolster this or that political agenda, or as media content for the sake of increasing revenues for media outlets.

I’ve said it before though. I don’t see the US surviving as one unit into the next century so I’m just looking at how nations may split up with minimal conflict and how they such splits can be used to make things better rather than assuming such historical moments have to involve violence and death.

Yeah, because he was white. That's the point. — James Riley

You missed my point. I meant in respect to someone black carrying gun because that is what I said. You sound emotional so I’ll stop.

I meant if they were there during the shooting.

You see, that the thing about video. I saw the cops all butt-hole buddy with him before the shoot. That's my outrage. Had he been black, he would have been on his face, or shot down like a dog. — James Riley

Maybe, maybe not. I’m sure given the circumstances the police were extremely mindful and trying to avoid such a thing though so I wouldn’t just assume they’d shoot someone black on that night for carrying a gun. Arrested? Very likely.

Pretty much. That was the source of my outrage. — James Riley

If the police were there it would have been different. They weren’t. That was one failing but they were literally pushed out. The incident that sparked the protests and riot should be the focus not Rittenhouse - I don’t see the use in framing Rittenhouse as hero or villain (just a naive teenager).

Done that already. Did you watch any of the trial? I assume you maybe caught some media snippets and not much more by your reaction.

Shortly after the initial incident, I saw videos and heard stories. My heart became bad. Very bad. Especially when I heard about the conduct of law enforcement officers who had interactions with the shooter before the shooting.

I decided my thoughts were bad for me, and that I could put it out of my mind, at least temporarily, by honoring the rule of law and awaiting action, if any, from the justice system. Some time went by.

Then the verdict came down, and my heart went bad again. — James Riley

If you interested/concerned then why not watch the trial and put your mind at rest rather than listening to stories? It looked crazy to me so I watched large portions of the trial. I still think it’s weird that a 17 yr old, or anyone, can walk around with a gun. That said, he clearly acted in self defence.

Try watching large portions of the actual trial. He was clearly not guilty and the guy he shot (who didn’t die) also said so.

Running away from people and being attacked whilst on the ground is not putting oneself in a position where you wish to use the full force in your possession.

Carrying a weapon (in this case) wasn’t and isn’t provocation in the eyes of the law.

Running away from and trying to deter someone screaming that they wanted to kill you isn’t provocation.

Falling to the ground after being chased and pelted by a mob, hit and kicked in the head and neck isn’t provocation.

Shooting someone who points a gun at you isn’t provocation.

Rittenhouse is guilty of being naive. He is a teenager though so that isn’t exactly shocking. I can only assume you have a vested emotional interest in this case yet cannot believe you actually watched much of the trial when you state ‘not self defence’.

I personally don’t see why a 17 yr old should be allowed to carry a gun around legally. It is insane to push for someone to be sent to prison for following the law instead of looking to change the law.

From what I can tell there is outrage simply because he was white and the police didn’t shoot him. There are clearly too many cases where the police use excess force resulting in the death of people. It would be manslaughter at least if they weren’t police officers.

He is guilty of being naive but not much more.