Some insights about the Rittenhouse’s case

About the Kyle Rittenhouse’s case, on those online debates, I learned a lot about discussions and arguments. On those debates, you can clearly see when the opposite side is arguing with the aim to seek and truly know the truth, and when they are arguing just because they want to tease.

I’ll show the difference between the two patterns:

On the Rittenhouse’s case, I saw that a bunch of people were saying things like:

“he’s not a Kenosha citizen, he’s not supposed to be there”.

Ok, but supposing that Kyle was a Kenosha citizen, would you agree he acted in self defense? The opposite side would probably say:

“Perhaps, but he’s still too young to carry a gun”.

Ok, this can be true, but supposing he were older, you’d admit he acted in self defense? Again, the opposite side probably would get attached to other argument:

“Yeah, but it’s not his duty to protect community, that’s the cops duty”.

When you see the pattern of arguing, whenever the opposite side is stuck in this argumentative spiral, you can see the person disagrees with you for ideological and sentimental reasons (thus, anti-scientific, as Eric Voegelin would say), there’s none genuine interest to acknowledge the truth.

When this happens, the opposite side will get attached with the most superficial and accidental facts and events, meaningless, thus (it is said accidental ’cause those kinds of events makes no real difference, I mean, the whole case could’ve happened without any of this and the final result would be the same).

Kyle could be black, 13 yo, whatever, the final result would be self defense nonetheless. It’s valid to ask what such a young kid was doing in a place like that, but is never valid to doubt if Kyle acted in self-defense, the situation is pretty clear.

Although, analyzing that case through non-ideological lens, the left wing is not completely wrong about some arguments on the Kyle’s case.

I’ve watched the whole trial, and I found out Kyle didn’t break any law. According to the second amendment, Kyle has the right to form militia and protect properties from his neighborhood. But, being honest, even if it’s not illegal, its inconvenient for a young kid to expose himself in a situation like that.

He was not in a shoot stand, he was on the real life. A young kid is not supposed to calculate and evaluate the infinite tons of grey attached to that situation. When you are dealing with crazy people, you have — unfortunately- think for you and for these ones who don’t have their head in the right place.

Kyle could’ve avoided the death of those two guys if he were enough mature to evaluate the consequences of being alone in a mad crowd with an AR 15, of course that dangerous mix is a recipe for a disaster.

But at the end, as I prior said, people has to know the difference between the ESSENTIAL and the ACCIDENTAL which are particularly involved in grey situations like that. Despite Kyle’s mistakes, the final result was self-defense, no matter what happened.