I’ve done a 180 on this case as it’s gone on. There was no way you could realistically charge him with murder given the facts of the case. The prosecutors own witness statements completely sink...
I’ve done a 180 on this case as it’s gone on. There was no way you could realistically charge him with murder given the facts of the case. The prosecutors own witness statements completely sink that. And honestly that seems correct - manslaughter would also be a pretty big stretch. Maybe something about negligence.
Positively, I agree with you. Normatively, what the actual fuck. Apparently you can go out looking for a fight and use lethal force once you get what you wanted. There's some seriously ridiculous...
Positively, I agree with you.
Normatively, what the actual fuck. Apparently you can go out looking for a fight and use lethal force once you get what you wanted. There's some seriously ridiculous circumstances you could construct here. I mean, is there even an exception on the books along the lines of "if you started it, no self defence for you"? Or can I shove a random person on the street and once they physically fight back in any way, just light them up?
No. In the US, in general, stand-your-ground laws DO NOT allow the "initial aggressor" to use force in response to their victim using force. For instance, imagine you start a fight (without...
Or can I shove a random person on the street and once they physically fight back in any way, just light them up?
No. In the US, in general, stand-your-ground laws DO NOT allow the "initial aggressor" to use force in response to their victim using force. For instance, imagine you start a fight (without breaking another law in the process...), the other individual pulls a gun, and then you pull a gun. You are largely not covered by stand-your-ground if you shoot. An exception I can think of off-hand is Florida:
Alternatively, a defendant who is an initial aggressor may claim self-defense if: (1) in good faith, he or she withdrew from physical contact, (2) clearly indicated to the other person that he or she desired to withdraw and terminate the use of force, and (3) despite the communication and withdrawal, the other person continued or resumed the use of force. Fla. Stat. § 776.041(2)(b).
Also, generally if you broke the law before the need to stand-your-ground, it is not a viable defense. Shoving someone would probably constitute battery, thereby meaning your were the initial aggressor.
I mean it’s kinda true in general? It is your responsibility not to commit crimes regardless of provocation. From witness testimonies of their own actions, a gun was pulled on Rittenhouse first,...
I mean it’s kinda true in general? It is your responsibility not to commit crimes regardless of provocation.
From witness testimonies of their own actions, a gun was pulled on Rittenhouse first, in addition to vocal threats of bodily harm.
Personally I don’t think you should be allowed to casually carry large guns around in general , but unfortunately it is legal.
its very much a chicken or the egg scenario. If he wasn't armed up, he most likely wouldn't have been in these confrontations at all. But he was --- and the testimonials, like you said, show that...
its very much a chicken or the egg scenario. If he wasn't armed up, he most likely wouldn't have been in these confrontations at all. But he was --- and the testimonials, like you said, show that he was responding.
The whole thing is a mess. As a non-American, its still difficult to fully grasp the extent of the gun culture in the US.
To some extent, but it's generally not the fault of the person being assaulted that they were assaulting, regardless of whether they were being dumb or not. If there's a dipshit playing as a...
To some extent, but it's generally not the fault of the person being assaulted that they were assaulting, regardless of whether they were being dumb or not. If there's a dipshit playing as a wannabe militia member, that doesn't mean you can go assault them. Someone being obnoxious is not grounds for self defense against obnoxiousness. You are the one starting it then.
Even if the hypothetical gun laws I wanted existed, he would be charged under unlawful carry of a firearm, not murder.
yeah, that makes sense. I'm surprised he wasn't dinged on the firearm thing, but that's such an unbelievable loophole with the short barrel thing, if that was really all that saved him.
yeah, that makes sense. I'm surprised he wasn't dinged on the firearm thing, but that's such an unbelievable loophole with the short barrel thing, if that was really all that saved him.
Honestly the firearm charge was kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It was only a misdemeanor charge, so even if he had been guilty of that particular transgression, the only...
Honestly the firearm charge was kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It was only a misdemeanor charge, so even if he had been guilty of that particular transgression, the only consequence would've been a few hundred dollar fine (no jail time).
From an article written by Jamelle Bouie last year after Kenosha: In the wake of today's verdict, conservative politicians and personalities have been doing just that: Madison Cawthorn offers Kyle...
From an article written by Jamelle Bouie last year after Kenosha:
We should be appalled. But it appears only some of us are. Others are prepared to elevate Rittenhouse as a symbol of self-defense. It’s an ominous reaction, not the least because it might inspire other Rittenhouses to do the same, to travel to protests ready for the use of lethal force against protesters. Put differently, the extent to which Carlson and Coulter and Turning Point are representative of conservative thought on violence against protesters is the extent to which we may have to prepare for further Kenoshas.
In the wake of today's verdict, conservative politicians and personalities have been doing just that:
From the family of one of the victims (also in the article): You know, maybe the jury's verdict is correct -- maybe our gun laws are actually so overly broad that someone can create danger, rile...
From the family of one of the victims (also in the article):
Today’s verdict means there is no accountability for the person who murdered our son. It sends the unacceptable message that armed civilians can show up in any town, incite violence, and then use the danger they have created to justify shooting people in the street. We hope that decent people will join us in forcefully rejecting that message and demanding more of our laws, our officials, and our justice system.
You know, maybe the jury's verdict is correct -- maybe our gun laws are actually so overly broad that someone can create danger, rile up a crowd, and then murder people when they feel threatened by the situation they've created. But isn't that just evidence that the laws are deficient? If Rittenhouse's action were legal, shouldn't our laws be updated so that they won't be next time?
I'm generally pretty neutral on gun politics, but I find it deplorable that America's devotion to the Second Amendment means that I doubt we'll see any restrictions on guns at rallies, even if their presence has a chilling effect on demonstrations. In fact, I'm sure this verdict will embolden gun-wielding counterprotesters, who will feel more compelled to use them.
Worse yet, I hate that Rittenhouse has become some sort of folk hero -- what he did was objectively awful, regardless of whether his actions could be legally justified or not. Frankly his presence was never requested, and even if we grant him his Constitutional right to protest, there was absolutely no reason for him to bring a weapon. And yet the response from conservative leaders isn't to admonish him for his poor judgement but to invite him into their echelons.
Based on trial coverage, has anyone really been expecting a different outcome? What the trial has shown is how extremely broken many "self-defense" and "stand-your-ground"-style laws are. The...
Based on trial coverage, has anyone really been expecting a different outcome?
What the trial has shown is how extremely broken many "self-defense" and "stand-your-ground"-style laws are.
The concepts behind these laws can sound moral, workable and reasonable. The actual wordings of the actual laws that have been put on the books many places certainly are nowhere near that.
Irrespective of this case, many of these laws desperately need changing.
Also the legality of a 17 year old openly carrying an assault style rifle in the middle of a protest without parental consent? (I really didn't follow anything about the trial other than...
Also the legality of a 17 year old openly carrying an assault style rifle in the middle of a protest without parental consent?
(I really didn't follow anything about the trial other than headlines, so excuse me if I am factually off base here.)
There aren't any federal laws defining a minimum age for gun ownership (except handguns, iirc), and open carry is generally less restricted than concealed carry. Legality concerns would be mostly...
There aren't any federal laws defining a minimum age for gun ownership (except handguns, iirc), and open carry is generally less restricted than concealed carry. Legality concerns would be mostly centered around how he obtained the gun (I haven't been following this too closely).
I don’t think the Wisconsin legislature intended for it to be legal for minors to carry rifles outside of hunting, but the text of law ended up loopholing it into legality. More broadly, as a gun...
I don’t think the Wisconsin legislature intended for it to be legal for minors to carry rifles outside of hunting, but the text of law ended up loopholing it into legality.
More broadly, as a gun guy, I think it should be legal for pistols, up to localities for long guns (outside of hunting, which should be legal barring obvious exemptions like NYC, DC, or Chicago). Ideally there would be a uniform law, but the differing structures of municipalities by state makes this complicated.
(oh, i see) I'd personally like to see brandishing laws extended to disallow open carry in public / densely populated areas. But I also don't know enough about gun laws to even qualify as an...
(oh, i see)
I'd personally like to see brandishing laws extended to disallow open carry in public / densely populated areas. But I also don't know enough about gun laws to even qualify as an armchair lawyer, and don't know how that would affect other areas of law.
The thing that bothers me most about this whole situation is how it was the result of the right-wing media that sought to delegitimize any form of protest that took place last summer. Literally...
The thing that bothers me most about this whole situation is how it was the result of the right-wing media that sought to delegitimize any form of protest that took place last summer. Literally millions of people around the world took to the streets and social media to denounce the social and legal conditions that Black Americans are subjected to, but instead of looking at the conditions that led to those protests, right-wing media outlets like Fox News, OANN, The Daily Wire, etc., hyper focused on the relatively small amount of violence that took place. By the end of June, you have the McCloskeys waving guns at peaceful protesters like a couple of psychos. Instead of recognizing the mistake after their arrest, right-wing media doubled down and made them martyrs. Then they get the support from the president and the GOP. Then they get pardoned on August 3rd. On August 23rd, Jacob Blake is shot. August 24th, the McCloskey's speak at the fucking Republican National Convention. During their four minute speech, they talk about how the government and Democrats are more content with protecting rioters and looters than good old white American people and their property. The very next day, Kyle Rittenhouse travels to Kenosha and kills two people. Crazy, right?
I think it's extremely dangerous to have this attitude. I can't find a single person in this thread who's condoning the killer's abhorrent behavior. But his behavior was pretty obviously legal. If...
I think it's extremely dangerous to have this attitude. I can't find a single person in this thread who's condoning the killer's abhorrent behavior. But his behavior was pretty obviously legal.
If the laws aren't changed, more people will die. The chilling effect on demonstrations, and the way in which thugs with guns get to behave is left unchecked.
You know, maybe the jury's verdict is correct -- maybe our gun laws are actually so overly broad that someone can create danger, rile up a crowd, and then murder people when they feel threatened by the situation they've created. But isn't that just evidence that the laws are deficient? If Rittenhouse's action were legal, shouldn't our laws be updated so that they won't be next time?
People need this wake-up call for how crazy current gun laws are a number of places in the US. Declining to have this conversation on a large scale will cost lives.
Who'll get legally (but obviously morally indefensibly) be killed by a thug with a gun while actively participating in democracy next?
To prevent that, this conversation and wake-up must be had. The laws must be changed.
I agree. The comment "rationalizing" the verdict is entirely arguing from a perspective of "given the laws we have, this is what we could expect all along". That is not at all defending KR,...
I agree. The comment "rationalizing" the verdict is entirely arguing from a perspective of "given the laws we have, this is what we could expect all along". That is not at all defending KR, condoning his behavior or even accepting of the legal status quo.
I could accept closing this thread because of what has not yet been said, but what was said here so far is fair imo. I mean, realistically, a topic like this one has the potential to end up in a shouting match, but we're no bit closer to that than when the thread was started, quite the contrary.
I don’t think what the defendant did qualifies as domestic terrorism. Tagging this as such seems dubious. Granted showing up to defend someone else’s property with a means to kill is a kind of...
I don’t think what the defendant did qualifies as domestic terrorism. Tagging this as such seems dubious.
Granted showing up to defend someone else’s property with a means to kill is a kind of vigilante justice we don’t need in this country. The kid and the person that gave him a gun should be in prison.
I don't want to be a pedant here, but the definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." That's exactly...
I don't want to be a pedant here, but the definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." That's exactly what Rittenhouse did, so I think the tag here is appropriate. Although the word "unlawful" apparently no longer applies.
Honest question, do you consider the Proud Boys terrorists? Their modus operandi is to travel around to left-wing protests, march around them fully armed in order to intimidate said protestors,...
Honest question, do you consider the Proud Boys terrorists? Their modus operandi is to travel around to left-wing protests, march around them fully armed in order to intimidate said protestors, and occasionally pick fights in the hopes they can kill anyone who fights back using the "self-defense" excuse. And that's not much different than what Rittenhouse did in Kenosha, IMO.
You didn't really respond to my point. Rittenhouse checks every one of the boxes of a domestic terrorist according to the definition. You can't just repeat your point that "he's not a terrorist"...
You didn't really respond to my point. Rittenhouse checks every one of the boxes of a domestic terrorist according to the definition. You can't just repeat your point that "he's not a terrorist" without providing any evidence why that is the case. "He's not a terrorist because he's not a terrorist" is not much of an argument.
He specifically went to Kenosha in response to a Black Lives Matter protest after the Kenosha Guard alt-right militia group made a Facebook post asking for "patriots willing to take up arms and...
He specifically went to Kenosha in response to a Black Lives Matter protest after the Kenosha Guard alt-right militia group made a Facebook post asking for "patriots willing to take up arms and defend" the city. On the night of the shooting, he went to a private car dealership with the intent of "defending" the business. In an interview with The Daily Caller, Rittenhouse said "people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business." Before he went to Kenosha, he expressed support on social media for the Blue Lives Matter movement.
Going to a BLM protest with the stated aim of "defending" private businesses with a gun is a massively political statement. I don't see how anyone in attendance on either side could be nonpolitical in such a situation.
Just wanted to say that this sort of phrasing feels very "no politics in video games." I don't understand how anyone could construe people participating in a protest to be nonpolitical. But aside...
Everyone there was political to you
Just wanted to say that this sort of phrasing feels very "no politics in video games." I don't understand how anyone could construe people participating in a protest to be nonpolitical.
But aside from that, the distinction between Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse for me is intent. Grosskreutz went there to protest, not to shoot people and intimidate them with guns. His actions were defensive in that way.
However, I do understand the point you are getting at, and I'm sure my definition of terrorism is way more lax than yours.
I certainly don't want everyone who advocates for (and acting on) punching Nazis to be considered to be domestic terrorists.
I am someone who advocates for punching Nazis. I think resisting fascism with violence is often necessary and a moral good when it is necessary. However, if there was a person who went to an alt-right protest specifically to punch Nazis, I would classify that as terrorism, despite agreeing with it.
I wouldn't classify terrorism as exclusively happening on the side of the right (although the vast majority of instances of domestic terrorism are done by the alt-right), and as such, I don't think it's bad all the time. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. The allied resistance movements of civilians in WW2 were terrorists, but I think that we all agree that they were morally good.
We should also be aware that there are more types of political violence than just terrorism, namely, the violence enacted by the state. Police officers shooting tear gas canisters at BLM protestors is an act of political violence, but we don't classify it as terrorism because it's done by the state. Terrorism has a particularly bad reputation as inherently immoral, but I contend that it, like all political violence, is morally neutral. Of course, most political violence is morally bad, but when we classify it as "terrorism," we make it seem more wrong than state violence, when in reality, both can be either good or bad.
Of course, if you're a pacifist, you can take the position that all violence is bad, and that's okay as long as you equally condemn the violence of all parties (including the state).
Kyle Rittenhouse went to a charged, political demonstration. He claims he was there to protect property, yet nobody asked him to. As someone who had their life threatened by rifle wielding...
Kyle Rittenhouse went to a charged, political demonstration. He claims he was there to protect property, yet nobody asked him to. As someone who had their life threatened by rifle wielding domestic terrorists while protesting last summer, I can say I'm pretty certain his intention was to intimidate people of other political leanings. Those people I encountered were there to protect property too, but it didn't stop them from sending us death threats, pointing their weapons at us and trying to start fights. All the while, we were entirely peaceful, actively deescalated any confrontation, and followed all the rules. It has been the modus operandi of right wing "activists" (read: terrorists) for years: instigate, harm, blame, discredit.
I’ve done a 180 on this case as it’s gone on. There was no way you could realistically charge him with murder given the facts of the case. The prosecutors own witness statements completely sink that. And honestly that seems correct - manslaughter would also be a pretty big stretch. Maybe something about negligence.
Positively, I agree with you.
Normatively, what the actual fuck. Apparently you can go out looking for a fight and use lethal force once you get what you wanted. There's some seriously ridiculous circumstances you could construct here. I mean, is there even an exception on the books along the lines of "if you started it, no self defence for you"? Or can I shove a random person on the street and once they physically fight back in any way, just light them up?
No. In the US, in general, stand-your-ground laws DO NOT allow the "initial aggressor" to use force in response to their victim using force. For instance, imagine you start a fight (without breaking another law in the process...), the other individual pulls a gun, and then you pull a gun. You are largely not covered by stand-your-ground if you shoot. An exception I can think of off-hand is Florida:
Also, generally if you broke the law before the need to stand-your-ground, it is not a viable defense. Shoving someone would probably constitute battery, thereby meaning your were the initial aggressor.
I mean it’s kinda true in general? It is your responsibility not to commit crimes regardless of provocation.
From witness testimonies of their own actions, a gun was pulled on Rittenhouse first, in addition to vocal threats of bodily harm.
Personally I don’t think you should be allowed to casually carry large guns around in general , but unfortunately it is legal.
its very much a chicken or the egg scenario. If he wasn't armed up, he most likely wouldn't have been in these confrontations at all. But he was --- and the testimonials, like you said, show that he was responding.
The whole thing is a mess. As a non-American, its still difficult to fully grasp the extent of the gun culture in the US.
To some extent, but it's generally not the fault of the person being assaulted that they were assaulting, regardless of whether they were being dumb or not. If there's a dipshit playing as a wannabe militia member, that doesn't mean you can go assault them. Someone being obnoxious is not grounds for self defense against obnoxiousness. You are the one starting it then.
Even if the hypothetical gun laws I wanted existed, he would be charged under unlawful carry of a firearm, not murder.
yeah, that makes sense. I'm surprised he wasn't dinged on the firearm thing, but that's such an unbelievable loophole with the short barrel thing, if that was really all that saved him.
Honestly the firearm charge was kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It was only a misdemeanor charge, so even if he had been guilty of that particular transgression, the only consequence would've been a few hundred dollar fine (no jail time).
I hate our gun culture. 🙃
From an article written by Jamelle Bouie last year after Kenosha:
In the wake of today's verdict, conservative politicians and personalities have been doing just that:
From the family of one of the victims (also in the article):
You know, maybe the jury's verdict is correct -- maybe our gun laws are actually so overly broad that someone can create danger, rile up a crowd, and then murder people when they feel threatened by the situation they've created. But isn't that just evidence that the laws are deficient? If Rittenhouse's action were legal, shouldn't our laws be updated so that they won't be next time?
I'm generally pretty neutral on gun politics, but I find it deplorable that America's devotion to the Second Amendment means that I doubt we'll see any restrictions on guns at rallies, even if their presence has a chilling effect on demonstrations. In fact, I'm sure this verdict will embolden gun-wielding counterprotesters, who will feel more compelled to use them.
Worse yet, I hate that Rittenhouse has become some sort of folk hero -- what he did was objectively awful, regardless of whether his actions could be legally justified or not. Frankly his presence was never requested, and even if we grant him his Constitutional right to protest, there was absolutely no reason for him to bring a weapon. And yet the response from conservative leaders isn't to admonish him for his poor judgement but to invite him into their echelons.
Based on trial coverage, has anyone really been expecting a different outcome?
What the trial has shown is how extremely broken many "self-defense" and "stand-your-ground"-style laws are.
The concepts behind these laws can sound moral, workable and reasonable. The actual wordings of the actual laws that have been put on the books many places certainly are nowhere near that.
Irrespective of this case, many of these laws desperately need changing.
It doesn't help when the judge is in their corner, either.
Also the legality of a 17 year old openly carrying an assault style rifle in the middle of a protest without parental consent?
(I really didn't follow anything about the trial other than headlines, so excuse me if I am factually off base here.)
There aren't any federal laws defining a minimum age for gun ownership (except handguns, iirc), and open carry is generally less restricted than concealed carry. Legality concerns would be mostly centered around how he obtained the gun (I haven't been following this too closely).
Yes, I mean while it is apparently legal, should it be?
I don’t think the Wisconsin legislature intended for it to be legal for minors to carry rifles outside of hunting, but the text of law ended up loopholing it into legality.
More broadly, as a gun guy, I think it should be legal for pistols, up to localities for long guns (outside of hunting, which should be legal barring obvious exemptions like NYC, DC, or Chicago). Ideally there would be a uniform law, but the differing structures of municipalities by state makes this complicated.
(oh, i see)
I'd personally like to see brandishing laws extended to disallow open carry in public / densely populated areas. But I also don't know enough about gun laws to even qualify as an armchair lawyer, and don't know how that would affect other areas of law.
The thing that bothers me most about this whole situation is how it was the result of the right-wing media that sought to delegitimize any form of protest that took place last summer. Literally millions of people around the world took to the streets and social media to denounce the social and legal conditions that Black Americans are subjected to, but instead of looking at the conditions that led to those protests, right-wing media outlets like Fox News, OANN, The Daily Wire, etc., hyper focused on the relatively small amount of violence that took place. By the end of June, you have the McCloskeys waving guns at peaceful protesters like a couple of psychos. Instead of recognizing the mistake after their arrest, right-wing media doubled down and made them martyrs. Then they get the support from the president and the GOP. Then they get pardoned on August 3rd. On August 23rd, Jacob Blake is shot. August 24th, the McCloskey's speak at the fucking Republican National Convention. During their four minute speech, they talk about how the government and Democrats are more content with protecting rioters and looters than good old white American people and their property. The very next day, Kyle Rittenhouse travels to Kenosha and kills two people. Crazy, right?
I think it's extremely dangerous to have this attitude. I can't find a single person in this thread who's condoning the killer's abhorrent behavior. But his behavior was pretty obviously legal.
If the laws aren't changed, more people will die. The chilling effect on demonstrations, and the way in which thugs with guns get to behave is left unchecked.
@psi put it well right here in this thread:
People need this wake-up call for how crazy current gun laws are a number of places in the US. Declining to have this conversation on a large scale will cost lives.
Who'll get legally (but obviously morally indefensibly) be killed by a thug with a gun while actively participating in democracy next?
To prevent that, this conversation and wake-up must be had. The laws must be changed.
I agree. The comment "rationalizing" the verdict is entirely arguing from a perspective of "given the laws we have, this is what we could expect all along". That is not at all defending KR, condoning his behavior or even accepting of the legal status quo.
I could accept closing this thread because of what has not yet been said, but what was said here so far is fair imo. I mean, realistically, a topic like this one has the potential to end up in a shouting match, but we're no bit closer to that than when the thread was started, quite the contrary.
I don’t think what the defendant did qualifies as domestic terrorism. Tagging this as such seems dubious.
Granted showing up to defend someone else’s property with a means to kill is a kind of vigilante justice we don’t need in this country. The kid and the person that gave him a gun should be in prison.
I don't want to be a pedant here, but the definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." That's exactly what Rittenhouse did, so I think the tag here is appropriate. Although the word "unlawful" apparently no longer applies.
Honest question, do you consider the Proud Boys terrorists? Their modus operandi is to travel around to left-wing protests, march around them fully armed in order to intimidate said protestors, and occasionally pick fights in the hopes they can kill anyone who fights back using the "self-defense" excuse. And that's not much different than what Rittenhouse did in Kenosha, IMO.
p.s. For the record, Proud Boys were classified as a Terrorist Entity here in Canada earlier this year:
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/ntnl-scrt/cntr-trrrsm/lstd-ntts/crrnt-lstd-ntts-en.aspx#510
Kyle hung out with high-ranking members of the Proud Boys while on bail.
That tells me all I need to know.
You didn't really respond to my point. Rittenhouse checks every one of the boxes of a domestic terrorist according to the definition. You can't just repeat your point that "he's not a terrorist" without providing any evidence why that is the case. "He's not a terrorist because he's not a terrorist" is not much of an argument.
He is a terrorist for the exact reason that he's not a murderer: because we've collectively decided that words have meanings.
He specifically went to Kenosha in response to a Black Lives Matter protest after the Kenosha Guard alt-right militia group made a Facebook post asking for "patriots willing to take up arms and defend" the city. On the night of the shooting, he went to a private car dealership with the intent of "defending" the business. In an interview with The Daily Caller, Rittenhouse said "people are getting injured, and our job is to protect this business." Before he went to Kenosha, he expressed support on social media for the Blue Lives Matter movement.
Going to a BLM protest with the stated aim of "defending" private businesses with a gun is a massively political statement. I don't see how anyone in attendance on either side could be nonpolitical in such a situation.
Just wanted to say that this sort of phrasing feels very "no politics in video games." I don't understand how anyone could construe people participating in a protest to be nonpolitical.
But aside from that, the distinction between Grosskreutz and Rittenhouse for me is intent. Grosskreutz went there to protest, not to shoot people and intimidate them with guns. His actions were defensive in that way.
However, I do understand the point you are getting at, and I'm sure my definition of terrorism is way more lax than yours.
I am someone who advocates for punching Nazis. I think resisting fascism with violence is often necessary and a moral good when it is necessary. However, if there was a person who went to an alt-right protest specifically to punch Nazis, I would classify that as terrorism, despite agreeing with it.
I wouldn't classify terrorism as exclusively happening on the side of the right (although the vast majority of instances of domestic terrorism are done by the alt-right), and as such, I don't think it's bad all the time. The Boston Tea Party was an act of terrorism. The allied resistance movements of civilians in WW2 were terrorists, but I think that we all agree that they were morally good.
We should also be aware that there are more types of political violence than just terrorism, namely, the violence enacted by the state. Police officers shooting tear gas canisters at BLM protestors is an act of political violence, but we don't classify it as terrorism because it's done by the state. Terrorism has a particularly bad reputation as inherently immoral, but I contend that it, like all political violence, is morally neutral. Of course, most political violence is morally bad, but when we classify it as "terrorism," we make it seem more wrong than state violence, when in reality, both can be either good or bad.
Of course, if you're a pacifist, you can take the position that all violence is bad, and that's okay as long as you equally condemn the violence of all parties (including the state).
Sadly, for the same reason he's not a murderer. (Murder is defined as the unlawful taking of human life.)
Was it political?
Kyle Rittenhouse went to a charged, political demonstration. He claims he was there to protect property, yet nobody asked him to. As someone who had their life threatened by rifle wielding domestic terrorists while protesting last summer, I can say I'm pretty certain his intention was to intimidate people of other political leanings. Those people I encountered were there to protect property too, but it didn't stop them from sending us death threats, pointing their weapons at us and trying to start fights. All the while, we were entirely peaceful, actively deescalated any confrontation, and followed all the rules. It has been the modus operandi of right wing "activists" (read: terrorists) for years: instigate, harm, blame, discredit.
He travelled across state lines to shoot people at a political protest. It would be quite a stretch to say it wasn't political.