So why did the other medic, Huber, bring his gun? Because he wanted to shoot people, or because he thought he might need it if attacked himself?
One of the most common cognitive flaws among humans is in regard to projecting motives to other people. The entire point of the trial was to assess the circumstances and motives of undisputed s…
So why did the other medic, Huber, bring his gun? Because he wanted to shoot people, or because he thought he might need it if attacked himself?
One of the most common cognitive flaws among humans is in regard to projecting motives to other people. The entire point of the trial was to assess the circumstances and motives of undisputed shootings - were they self defense or not? If the prosecution won, those shot would legally be victims unjustly harmed; if the defense won, then those shot would be aggressors from whom he was legitimately defending himself. The judge ruling that the prosecution could not call them "victims" until the jury had made that determination was standard procedure, not to bias the jury by presuming the outcome of a self defense trial. It would be routine in other self defense cases as well (including with defendants of other races). This was according to lawyers in the area. But some liberal sources failed to mention that context, and implied or stated that the judge was being outrageous and biased.
Likewise, you are projecting motives to Rittenhouse. While awaiting the video or testimony, what I have seen so far in terms of Rittenhouse's actual behavior fits a model of self defense *far* better than one of intending to find somebody to kill. Does your model of a killer proud boy include peacefully treating protesters to first aid and never threatening anybody in any way until being physically assaulted? If you are taking those as just laying cover in hopes of later getting a chance to shoot somebody, then we are getting into dicey territory.
So why did the other medic, Huber, bring his gun? Because he wanted to shoot people, or because he thought he might need it if attacked himself?
One of the most common cognitive flaws among humans is in regard to projecting motives to other people. The entire point of the trial was to assess the circumstances and motives of undisputed shootings - were they self defense or not? If the prosecution won, those shot would legally be victims unjustly harmed; if the defense won, then those shot would be aggressors from whom he was legitimately defending himself. The judge ruling that the prosecution could not call them "victims" until the jury had made that determination was standard procedure, not to bias the jury by presuming the outcome of a self defense trial. It would be routine in other self defense cases as well (including with defendants of other races). This was according to lawyers in the area. But some liberal sources failed to mention that context, and implied or stated that the judge was being outrageous and biased.
Likewise, you are projecting motives to Rittenhouse. While awaiting the video or testimony, what I have seen so far in terms of Rittenhouse's actual behavior fits a model of self defense *far* better than one of intending to find somebody to kill. Does your model of a killer proud boy include peacefully treating protesters to first aid and never threatening anybody in any way until being physically assaulted? If you are taking those as just laying cover in hopes of later getting a chance to shoot somebody, then we are getting into dicey territory.