If you can't make your argument without resorting to silly hyperbole like this consider that your argument isn't a good one. Were the New Black Panthers "waving weapons about" when they attended the Arbery trial with semi-automatic rifles strapped to their chests? If so, your issue is with open-carry laws (which we'd probably agree about), not with Rittenhouse.

Had Rosenbaum (aka, the first man) not chased after Rittenhouse and tackled him to the ground, he wouldn't have been shot. And yes, if that hadn't happened, it's very unlikely Huber (aka, the second man) would have tried to disarm him. I say this in the article. I'm not sure why you're repeating it.

It's become hilarious to me how people who want to be mad about this case but don't know enough about it, keep pointing out that Rittenhouse crossed state lines. The number of times people have mentioned this, you'd think it was a felony. It is not. It is completely irrelevant. I think the origin of this is a false claim that he carried his weapon across state lines. Which he didn't.

But Rittenhouse, for all his faults and stupid decisions, actually wasn't aggressive at all. And no, he didn't provoke the attack. This is a claim you simply can't make if you know what the heck you're talking about.

Why do you feel invested enough about a case you clearly know next to nothing about, to argue about it?