Kyle Rittenhouse verdict was correct; quick thoughts on the background

First, twosiderism and tribalism, whether fueled by BlueAnon or by "antifa" on the anti-Rittenhouse side, or certainly by wingnuts?

Not welcome.

My takeoff is a non-wingnut, mainstream but thoughtful liberal, Eric Levitz of the NY Mag. He's more thoughtful and less tribalist, by far on both, than NY Mag peer Jonathan Chait of the bullshit that Trump was a Russian agent since the 1980s, with an assist from Wikipedia.

Basic facts?

Rittenhouse had a right to that gun;

Rittenhouse was running away from Joseph Rosenbaum et al;

Rosenbaum was unarmed with a gun, but apparently DID have a chain, but Joseph Ziminski, part of the same group, allegedly fired in the air;

At the same time, Rosenbaum threw a bag at Rittenhouse and (may have) hit him, but in any case, under Wisconsin law, "assault" does NOT include actually striking a person.

Rittenhouse then turned, Rosenbaum reportedly lunged at him, then Rittenhouse fatally shot him; 

Anthony Huber then hit Rittenhouse in the head with his skateboard;

Rittenhouse then fatally shot him;

Gaige Grosskreutz, armed!, then approached Rittenhouse brandishing (cliche alert) his handgun, and Rittenhouse shot him.

All three victims had criminal pasts, Rosenbaum felonious, while Rosenbaum was violent and bipolar. Contra the first link (BlueAnon Snopes) citing the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, as a media member myself, I believe referencing past criminal records, definitely when felonious and possibly when misdemeanor, if relevant, is a thing to do. Also, Judge Bruce Schroeder, refuting BlueAnon claims of bias by him, wouldn't let jurors hear of Rosenbaum's past, which was a win for prosecution.

The prosecution? Most of its antics (they were) that Schroeder ruled out of order WERE out of order. Prosecutors were either planting grounds for an appeal, or, speaking of appeals, doing a vox populi to say "we tried."

In any case, Wisconsin's "stand your ground" law isn't really that, and isn't really nutbar, when compared to say, Florida.

Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there. Agreed. A semi-kid had no place there.

Now, the big tribalism.

If you're a leftist, indeed, or even a liberal, and you support gun control, that means for EVERYBODY.

Grosskreutz had a concealed carry permit. Whether in Wisconsin or Texas, we have too much of that shit.

Beyond that, this shows the mob-like tendencies of much of the so-called Antifa. I've been in peaceful antiwar, environmentalist and gay rights protests. Had a Joseph Rosenbaum been around, I would have gotten the hell out of there.

Antifa? This shows to a T its tendency toward anarchism as part of its mob behavior. I've decried that and its Black Bloc roots as part of decrying the Black Bloc for 20 years.

==

As for claims Rittenhouse is a white supremacist? He flashed the OK sign when making bail and released from jail. Some people claim that this was the white power circle sign, a claim that's been refuted when made in some other cases. Unless I get shown something more unambiguous, I reject that.

In fact? He now claims to support BLM.

==

Meanwhile, Jonathan MS Pierce, British philosopher of sorts but I believe now resident here in America, has joined the #BlueAnon tribalism, and I posted this blog link there with comment.

"Good" philosopher that he is, he's accused me of tu quoque. In turn, I said my inferences were realistic, and accused him back of appeal to the crows (of his readers) and bulls-eye fallacy, on the grounds that if he didn't want to engage in tribal crowd appeals, it's reasonable to infer that he could have said other things bout the case and its background and chose not to. On "tu quoque" claims? An argument from silence, re my reasonable inferences, plays differently today than when used about New Testament manuscripts of nearly 2,000 years ago. Jonathan could have stated other facts in evidence beyond what he did, chose not to, and has chosen not to in responses to me. Paul and the Gospelers, from what I've heard, weren't on social media and blog sites. (I also went Caesar on him, with: καὶ σύ, τέκνον.)

On the "neither side should have been there"? First, Rosenbaum should have been institutionalized, of course. That said, after Huber and Grosskreutz showed up, they had the choice of not associating with him. And didn't. Grosskreutz claims not be be part of the so-called "antifa." We'll never know about Huber, of course. But, I color myself skeptical. That said, antifa has too much roots in the old Black Bloc. That's one reason actual BLM people in places like Portland don't care a lot for them. I believe it's called "wilding" in your Britain, Jonathan?

 May St. David of Hume, speaking of professional philosophers, forgive me for breaking the old "is / ought," but, theoretically Pierce should know better to engage in tribalism. On the other hand, Hume himself was a racist and as prince of empiricists, offered up non-empirical claims to justify his racism. Heidegger was a tribalist as a Nazi fellow traveler. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Tippling Philosopher Pierce ain't alone, though. At the Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf notes that universities, that is, university administrators, are largely doubling down on their already existing tribalist narratives.