My biggest issue with this whole thing regarding Kyle Rittenhouse is the focus on everything AFTER the 1st murder. Everything AFTER the first murder is irrelevant to determining whether or not what he did was self defense. Because in a very literal sense, he was defending himself

But the question is this:

Does what he did count as self defense?

My answer is no.

Why? Because he violated several laws to deliberately put himself in harms way with a loaded weapon.

He essentially deputized himself to uphold some misplaced sense of civic duty. But here's the thing: That wasn't his fucking job. He had no authority to do what he did. Again, he broke several laws in putting himself in that situation.

Just because the cops let him do whatever he wanted, does not mean he had any legal authority to do what he did. That wasn't his property. That wasn't his town. That wasn't his state. He had no just cause for being there.

So the altercations that followed were the result of HIM instigating it. The people he killed would not have died had he not forced his way into a conflict that was the state's responsibility to deal with.

The cops shouldn't have let ANY of the militia members get involved with the riots. That's THEIR job. So this was their fault more than anything.

Lemme clarify the above statement.

It was the cops job to police the riots. Not the militia members nor any private citizen who did not have a vested interested in protecting specific property. So the cops should not have let the militias engage with the protesters.

With regards to the second murder though, one could argue that the person who chased him and tried to disarm him was wrong to do so, and should have instead retreated to safety. But even so, that comes down to ones personal morals on the matter of dealing with active shooters.

But the second victim wouldn't have even been in that position had Kyle not murdered the first victim. So it all falls back on Kyle.

One could argue that Kyle was trying to de-escalate the situation by retreating after the first murder. But the second victim couldn't have known that. So judging his actions by assuming Kyle's intent is a bad argument too.

The same applies to the third victim who was injured. You cannot assume they knew that Kyle was trying to flee and attacked him anyways.

Kyle was the X factor. Plain and simple. You don't have 2 murders and 1 injured without Kyle being there. So Kyle's defense hinges on the legality of his being there. And we all know, he had no legal grounds to do so. Even worse, he broke several laws to do so.

/end