Let’s start with what we agree on. Arson, rioting and other mayhem are not protests and have nothing to do with exercising free speech. In my opinion rioters should be shot, just not by teenagers who lack the judgement to make a life and death decision in the absence of any training.
--
There are lots of ways to intimidate free speech. Clubs, rocks, baseball bats and guns will have a factor when one side is armed. The more any intimidation is allowed at a peaceful protest, the more free speech will be diminished. There have been numerous instances of this abuse by both the left and the right in the past couple of years.
--
The third victim was another “good guy with a gun.” Gaige Grosskreutz testified that on the night of the shootings, he believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter, saying "people were pointing out the defendant, saying he had just shot somebody, that he's trying to get away." At some point, Grosskreutz testified, he drew his pistol.
--
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html
--
An armed teenager had no reason to be in this dangerous situation, but he was never even admonished by the court. Teenagers, especially teenage boys lack the judgement to make life and death decisions, especially without any training. There’s a reason that auto insurance companies charge the highest premium to insure male drivers between 17 and 26. This is a group that has proven, time and time again, that they lack sound judgment. They do stupid things because they never foresee the consequences of their actions.
--
When protesters are allowed to arm themselves at a legitimate protest (not a riot like Kenosha) whether it’s with clubs, rocks, or guns, it is for the purpose of intimating the opposition. I don’t believe there is any place for any type of armed intimidation because soon both sides will be armed. I don’t see that as progress in a supposedly democratic society. And I certainly don’t care if the intimidation comes from the left or the right, it’s just wrong.
--
As for the verdict, I have no power to change anything, but I don’t have to like it. I called it narrow because it ignored important aspects that should have been considered.
1. Is it right for an armed teenager to assume the roll of a law enforcement officer, an officer who has a degree of training?
2. Why wasn’t the parent held responsible for the actions of their minor child?
I raised five kids, I was well aware of my parental responsibility until they turned eighteen and were considered adults under the law. I made sure I knew what my kids were doing and what they were up to 24/7 because that’s a parent’s responsibility.