- Reaction score
Everyone can agree that a 17 year old kid had no business being there. But because he shouldn't have been there doesn't mean he isn't allowed to be there. We have never held the poor decisions of the victim against them.
Once he was there he was entitled to be unmolested by the rioters. As soon as Rosenbaum pursued Rittenhouse (after threatening to kill him if he found him alone) and lunged for the weapon, it was self defense. The fact that Rittenhouse house tried to flee on multiple occasions, is all anyone should need to know ad to whether this was legal or not.
As longs as we can agree no 17 years olds should have been their, not just Rittenhouse, I can tow your line.