> Personally I am sick and tired of the way this character is now put forward as some kind of saint, in my book he's a multiple murderer and there isn't anything that will change that.
If you refuse to accept any concept of self defense then of course your going to convict him without looking at the evidence. By your standard it’s impossible for someone to defend themself with lethal force as the use of that force would be automatic guilt.
> There is such a thing as intent and I don't buy for one second the self defense angle, that's akin to me tooling up with a bunch of weapons, walking into a bar fight and then shooting people that come after me and claiming self defense.
Walking around your neighborhood is not walking into a bar fight.
Furthermore anyone that charges at someone open carrying a rifle clearly demonstrates intent to kill. The right to defend oneself does not come from the laws of man, that’s an innate right.
> Of course the violent right now have their poster boy and a fantastic fig leaf to engage in some more of this, beware of sowing wind, you'll end up reaping storm.
What a sad interpretation. A boy shot three men that tried to kill him. Interestingly, all of them turned out to also be convicted felons who likely were not out for any peaceful reason. One of them even had an illegal hand gun that he admits he pointed inches from the boys face before the boy shot him. It’s a great verdict because it shows the jury wasn’t swayed by the massive amount of misinformation about the circumstance.
> There is a reason more civilized countries have decided that the state should have the monopoly on violence. This isn't 100% ideal either but at least it stops this kind of excess.
The events leading up to the Rittenhouse shooting were explicitly caused by the State giving up their monopoly on violence. They refused to enforce the law and let a bunch of rioters burn down half the city. They demonstrated that they will not protect your property or even your life.