>But you have a young person being driven to a counter-protest by a parent
This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case:
https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...
This is where I stopped reading, because you're incorrect about basic facts of the case:
https://news.yahoo.com/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-1838...
OK great, the mother wasn't involved, TIL. But the rest stands, there is so much wrong with the whole picture leading up to the (inevitable) tragedy.
When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?
Then you misunderstood the thesis of my comment. Who provided the transport was the least part of it.
The main idea is that the picture is pretty damn f'd up when teenage civillians are going armed to protect private property at/from a protest.
That his mother didn't drive him makes it slightly less messed up, but the overall picture of US society it paints is pretty much the same giant WTF as it was before.
I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.
> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage
Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.