Vigilantism is immoral

This is a category error. You wouldn’t say that “kicking is immoral,” or that “driving is immoral.” It just depends what you’re kicking and where you’re driving.

“Vigilantism” is the extrajudicial pursuit of justice. It involves breaking the law in some random corner of the world. However, none of that has any bearing on morality. The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. What the Supreme Court is doing now is legal. That has no bearing on whether it’s moral.

Are you actually asking why he was able to use self defense and she didn’t?

He was not threatening or instigating. When verbally provoked, he de-escalated by stepping away. He was legally present, just like every other participant. He was legally armed: state law has a specific exemption that allows older minors to carry rifles and shotguns. That fact always seems to get ignored, but it was that exemption that led the judge to dismiss that charge.

Many of the “protesters” (for example, Joshua Ziminski and Gaige Grosskreutz) were armed, some legally, some not. His decision to carry was not unusual.

Unlike many, including Joseph Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse was peaceably assembled; hours upon hours of video evidence shows he was not engaged in any sort of violent act, even after being occasionally verbally provoked. The worst you can say was that his presence in Kenosha that night wasn’t prudent, but that is true for everyone else who was there as well. You cannot reasonably argue that his presence was unusual, prohibited or that he was antagonizing; the video evidence conclusively demonstrates he was not. He was legally allowed to be where he was, and doing the things he was doing.

He was on camera, literally putting out fires set by arsonists, which is why one of those arsonists targeted him.

When physically attacked, he retreated, on multiple cameras and at a run, while being chased by an individual who had masked his face by tying his shirt over his head. Rittenhouse retreated until cornered. He was not obligated to retreat; he could have “Stood his ground”, but he elected to try to run away from the threat. He did not fire until that attacker had actually grabbed for his gun, which means he reasonably believed he faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm; that lethal force was necessary to stop that threat; and that he stopped using such force as soon as the threat had ended.

After stopping that first attack, he further retreated from numerous additional attackers, including a man he tried to viciously kick him in the head, a man who tried to hit him in the head with a skateboard, and a man who pointed a handgun at his head. He fired on all three, missing the second attacker, killing the third attacker. A fourth held up his hands, pointing a handgun away from Rittenhouse, and initially indicating he posed no threat to Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse held his fire, and began lowering his rifle. Only after the fourth attacker re-engaged, pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse, did Rittenhouse fire on him, wounding him, and ending his use of force as soon as that fourth attacker’s threat ended. He then continued to retreat, attempting to turn himself in to police, who directed him to leave. Again, all of this is on camera.

The fourth attacker - Gaige Grosskreutz - played a pivotal role in the second, third, and fourth attacks. He was live streaming. He is on camera talking with Rittenhouse as Rittenhouse ran from the the scene of the first attack. Rittenhouse is on camera, explaining that he was running to the police. Grosskreutz then, on camera, called for mob violence against Rittenhouse, instigating the second and third attack, while personally committing the fourth. He knew that Rittenhouse was trying to get to police, but he tried to kill him anyway.

The criticism of Rittenhouse rests on the assumption that he wasn’t allowed to carry a rifle in Kenosha that night. When we eliminate that assumption and start from the premise that he was allowed to be there, his behavior inoffensive and not unusual, his actions are a near-textbook example of self defense under extraordinary circumstances.

Kizer initially lost a ruling about introducing evidence that she had been trafficked. However, she won both of the appeals on that issue, and she was able to raise a “self defense” claim. Even her “confession” during police interrogation was thrown out: the state could not use it as evidence if it went to trial. She won every major ruling in her case, and set herself up with a fairly good legal defense.

So why did she lose her case? Because she quit. She refused to defend herself any further. She pleaded “guilty” rather than asking a jury to acquit her on the basis of temporary insanity from being trafficked. The law gave her ample opportunity to continue fighting, but she threw in the towel.

It is a travesty that prosecutors stacked charges on charges, threatening her with life in prison on the killing, and decades for arson and car theft. Accepting a plea deal fucked her over, and largely extinguished her ability to further appeal. But, ultimately, she gave up, pleaded guilty, and that’s all she wrote.

That’s funny because I was going to bring him up and decided not to. I think it’s insane he got off and what he did was very much murder as well, he knowingly and needlessly put himself in a dangerous situation as to warrant his use of a deadly weapon. There’s some similarities between the two cases in that regard imo.

I can understand it but that’s not the real question is it? The question posed was why one person was treated differently by the courts than the other.

The answer was because one person attacked their active abuser in self defense while the other escaped,then months later, in an act of revenge, planned and executed their murder and arson.

Of course, another key difference is that she took a plea deal. Which means she never actually went to trial. Her legal team knew self defense was never gonna fly either.