At the crux of the matter, Kyle Rittenhouse was merely standing at a place located on Earth.
The concept of protecting "property" (not his own, to boot) with his AR15 may be "implied", however that is merely an implication, whether or not he was actually going to open fire on individuals seeking to damage said property is irrelevant to the discussion entirely, because he didn't open fire on someone enacting harm upon said property.
What did happen, however, was that someone attempted to inflict harm upon his person and charged toward him after making an explicit threats to inflict harm upon him because of his frustration with Kyle's implications.
If someone were to have begun lighting fire to the property and Kyle just indiscriminately shot him, then we would be looking at an entirely different situation. However, thats not the case. When pedoboy charged him while blustering threats of harm, he made a greviously stupid error in judgement that places Kyle's actions in the justified realm of self-defense. Had he merely disregarded Kyle and lit the place ablaze, one could raise considerable questions as to whether Kyle would have, or would not have, actually shot him, and therein lies the stupidity of our Darwin Award recipient.
|