I want to walk back some of my comparison from earlier up thread. While tribalism and criminality neatly capture aspects of both street gangs and proud boys alike, after more carefully considering what I've seen from Rittenhouse over the last year and some, on the night of the events, and in the time before, during, and after the trial, I think we're seeing something different here.
I believe there's a good chance he's a psychopath who purposely put himself in a position to increase the likelihood of the outcome of Aug 25, 2020, that he wanted to be there precisely for the possibility of a righteous kill and the celebrity/attention that would come from it, not to protect property, but to benefit from the situation as cover for his own motives. He strikes me, increasingly, as naive in one aspect only: young enough to believe he could get away with it.
Where a simple racist might consider the odds too long, or a more seasoned sociopath might seek more control of the external factors, a neophyte psychopath might just think there's enough ambiguity within the conflict itself to cover his motives and justify actions that he himself set in motion. Get gun, get there, get in the middle, prod a little, get a reason... take it.
He didn't start the conflict, but saw a way to benefit from it. It's not unlike a small percentage of soldiers who enlist for the possibility of a legally sanctioned thrill kill.
.........................................
|