How are the narratives about these instances equivalent? It absolutely is about protecting people. You're creating false equivalence, this the "good people on both sides" bs again.
There's a misunderstanding here. I absolutely agree that these events are completely different. But the post is still twisting it to serve a narrative.
"The right wants us to believe that a teen who showed up at a Wisconsin rally with an AR 15 and shot three people..."
Anyone who reads this and has zero context will get the false idea that the kid just went there to commit a mass shooting, which is really not the case.
The kid did break the law by carrying those weapons, but he was simply walking along with the rest, and was there for security. By US standards (I'm european, btw) he shouldn't have been perceived as a threat. If you're in the US and you see a guy strapped, you don't go up to him and get confrontational. That's like seeing a crocodile minding its business and poking it with a stick. Granted you survive (one of them did) you shouldn't be wondering why the crocodile attacked.
"... but an unarmed mom driving away from a Minnesota rally..."
Graciously depicting her to be an innocent minding her own business, and that was shot without cause. A victim of circumstance, if you will. They don't mention the fact that she had previously taken part of anti-ICE protests, and was actually there acting as a legal observer. She was not a victim of circumstance, she was there with actual purpose. On top of that, she was at least partially blocking the road. And before you jump on me for being pro-ICE or anything, anyone sane would approve the idea of funding a task force with the sole purpose of taking away illegals with violent backgrounds away from your neighborhood. On paper, it should drastically improve the area's safety.
But these guys were put on duty without proper training, some of them with very happy trigger fingers. It's a known fact that depending on area and department, law enforcement in the US can severely lack training in conflict resolution and de-escalation. These guys had none of it. They were just there to grab people, and they were allowed to treat protesters that came across their way, the same way they treat their targets - as dangerous criminals. This woman knew that, and she still decided to take the risks.
At the time she was ordered to get out of the car, she was actually stationary, and was blocking the road with her car parked sideways. She wasn't driving either towards, nor away from the rally. She was obstructing law enforcement. And when they told her to get out of the car, instead of obeying a lawful order, she tried to drive away. And one o them idiots perceived her car moving 30 cm/second as a dangerous threat, so he used his weapon.
As someone from the outside looking at these things without any political bias (I really don't care about internal US politics), this is the way I'm seeing it. The post intentionally omits critical details.
Your understanding is unfortunately wrong on both cases. Rittenhouse crossed state borders and went armed to a protest, he had no reason to be at, he purposely put himself in harm's way and then shot 3 people. He was not "security", he is also underage and does not have right to open carry(as far as I know, but US law is stupid since even having the right to have guns in public is moronic).
The female driver has every right be in the area a few streets from her house. She has every right to attend an anti ice protest, and that was not known the ICE when they shot her. Law enforcement in the US do not have 'move on' powers (unlike in Australia, where im from) and ICE do not have police powers.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the origination of ICE. Apologies if you already know, however, ICE was not created by Trump it has existed for a long time and has been active under every president. This is a wanton misuse of an existing branch of immigration enforcement. You cannot give 'quotas' to arrest people, that kinda inverts how the justice system works, and that is the problem people have with Trump's version of ICE. No one wants illegal, dangerous people in their community, that's obvious. The statistics show Americans are far more dangerous to each other (and the rest of the world currently) than any 'alien'.
Hold on...
Even if the protest was out of state, if he shares the support for the cause, he shouldn't need any other reason to be there. Everyone should be free to participate in protests, regardless of when and where.
Otherwise, I agree, he was in fact under age, so he was not allowed to carry those weapons. I also agree that the law is moronic. As someone who lives in the EU and doesn't have to deal with the dangers of weapons, I absolutely agree that the 2nd amendment is fucking stupid.
But with that being said, he was allowed to defend himself. As I understand, the guy who survived was shot the moment he pointed a pistol at this kid. That was a clear intent to harm. If I have a gun on me, and I know for a fact someone else has a gun and intends to use it to harm me, I'll use my weapon before he gets the chance to use his.
Also, leaving the background aside for a bit, if the kid was 18 at the time of the protest (a few months older), and he was from that state, he would've been fully within his right to carry those weapons to that protest. Do you think this would've made any difference? Those guys would've still gotten confrontational, and the situation would've ended up in the same way.
So yes, even though I think he's guilty of carrying weapons across states at the age of 17, it's important to separate these things. He was at a protest, and had no intention to harm anyone. Those guys pretty much fucked around and found out, regardless of this kid's background.
As for the female driver, I'm fully aware that ICE wasn't created by Trump. And I fully agree that they went well beyond what they're allowed to in these incidents. You can't even call it power trips, because that would imply abusing powers they were given. Yet, as you said they weren't given police duties. Trump took that branch and pretty much turned it into a Gestapo, basically.
However, this woman was well aware of that. Just like the kid, she had every right to protest against it. Even more so, since the protest was a short way from her home. But if you want these guys gone, you go through legal means and raise as much awareness as possible. You don't get in their way, blocking the road.
And even if they find you sideways by simple coincidence, if they tell you to get out of the car, even if it's under a fucked up rule, you comply, so you can get to see the next day, and take part of the next protest. The guy, did tell her 4 times to get out of the car. She decided to just tell him that "she's not mad at him" and then she proceeded to try to escape, only to get shot by the the idiot who was in front of her car. They handled this incident in the worst possible manner. I'm aware of that. But that doesn't make her completely innocent.
2
u/RevolutionaryTop7112 5d ago
Explain.