Has vaush ever walked back his kyle rittenhouse debate arguments?

I don't care if you get upset at the term "submit to the mob" I'll keep using it so long as it is an apt term to use (which I have proved it is).

What makes Rittenhouse act in self-defense is two-fold. For one, he had killed Rosenbaum in self-defense. Rosenbaum, after all his threats, chased and lunged at Rittenhouse who only had a split second to react after turning. Secondly, any perceived threat by the mob of Rittenhouse should have dissipated when Rittenhouse was running AWAY from the mob and towards the police line.

When the mob decided to be judge, jury, and executioner (they said to "beat him up") they left Rittenhouse no choice but to act to protect his life which Rittenhouse did in the most restrained way possible (he only shot those directly attacking him).

If you haven't even committed murder (Rosenbaum was killed in self-defense), tried to leave the situation, but are infinitely attacked by a mob then yes you will necessarily have to engage in self-defense infinitely.

There are cases where there is a threat to your life but you shouldn't be granted self-defense. Active shooters in schools shouldn't be granted self-defense in court just because the kid trapped in the classroom with him tried to stop him with force. But this isn't the Rittenhouse case at all. Rittenhouse was no longer an active threat, had never shot into the crowd, and the mob had the ability to retreat. They were not trapped with Rittenhouse.

Also, as I referenced earlier, you can try to apprehend Rittenhouse if you want. If you genuinely believe there's a threat then you should be afforded some legal protection in court. That was the case for those who tried to apprehend Rittenhouse, who I believe weren't even charged. But that doesn't mean Rittenhouse wasn't acting in self-defense.

/r/VaushV Thread Parent