George Floyd Protests

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

I'd argue the nowhere near savvy to navigate a situation like that. He only shot the ones that were attacking him. At any point, he could've opened fire on the whole crowd but knew not to do that. He tried running away from Rosenbaum before having to shoot him. He could've shot as soon as Rosenbaum started running at him but he tried to do the right thing. He also had his chance to fire at Grosskreutz but didn't until he was an immediate danger to him. Rittenhouse has some serious self control. Some cops with full training wouldn't be able to navigate a situation like this.

I was more referring to the general situation.  During cross-examination, he didn't really seem to understand how his mere presence whilst carrying a gun would be perceived as extremely antagonistic, and that it would contradict his claims that he was there to administer first aid etc.  He was visually displaying mixed signals, and that made him very vulnerable.

I agree in terms of the other points you made, I think it's fairly clear that he only used force when he realised he had no other way to protect himself.

He had no right being there. I hope they fry him.

None of those people had a right to be there. Should all of them fry?

Again, I said that already so if you want to keep fucking with me then have the decency to go back and read my posts before something stupid comes out of your mouth again. If they killed someone then fry them….if they damaged property, started fires arrest them.
  I clearly stated that no one who wasn’t there to peacefully protest shouldn’t have been there so untwist your panties or tighty whities and move on. 

Rittenhouse acted in self defense and the only thing you can say is that he shouldn't have been there and he should fry. Then you want me to believe you know what you're talking about, that thing you call "the middle or the truth".

It wasn't illegal for Rittenhouse to be there so just because YOU think he shouldn't have been there means absolutely nothing.

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

lindamarie73 said:

myoung321 said:

Guess I'm just lucky, not once did any my kids ask to be dropped off at a protest...in the next state.. with an AR15... 

But this guys Mom took him?  seriously...wtf?

You do realize his Mom did NOT drop him off in Kenosha?   I know it sounds great for the overall agenda w/ this trail,  but this is a perfect example of Fake news.  Congrats 

Can you please post your source?  I’m trying to find the truth and without sources none of us will know the truth.  Usually when I ask for sources on other forums, far, far right media sources are supplied then removed for containing false information.  How can any of us decide if you can’t supply your source? 

You didn't ask for a source yesterday when there were multiple people stating that his Mom dropped him off in Kenosha but here you go:  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

"Black testified that he, his brother and Rittenhouse had gone to downtown Kenosha on the morning of the shootings to view the aftermath of the previous days’ violence, and that he and Rittenhouse returned to Black’s home before going back downtown about 5 p.m.

Rittenhouse testified that he went to Kenosha with his sister and friends to provide first aid after seeing online pleas for people to come to the city to help protect it.

Rittenhouse testified that after the shootings, Black drove him home in Antioch, where he told his mother and two sisters what happened. He said his mother drove him to the local police station, where he surrendered.

Wendy Rittenhouse told the Chicago Tribune in November that she would have tried to stop her son from going to Kenosha, but she didn’t know where he was or what he was doing."

Here is another article if you want more: https://www.yahoo.com/now/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-183807767.html

Edit: Sorry, it was 2 days ago that it was stated here by multiple people that his Mom drove him....

No I didn’t ask before because Kat just reminded us all to post sources and by the way not everyone on here is a jagoff.  I was being serious, not only because I honestly wanted to know but so that others would see it as well.  

But you know what, fuck it.  Apparently you’ve never read my posts or you’d know I stay in the middle, where the truth exists.  Sorry I tried to further understand your statement.  

AND I don’t monitor the days I post so I’m clueless about 2 days ago.

There are plenty of things stated here with no source. I believe what she was referring to was articles, pictures or memes. I've read plenty of your posts to see where you think you stand. I apologize. I thought you had been monitoring this because you had posted a few days prior to what I was referring to.

For reference, I simply googled, "did Rittenhouse Mom drive him to Kenosha" and these 2 articles popped up. I don't come to this forum to get solid information though because it is clearly full of biasses and it not a reliable source for information. I understand why Kat is asking for sources but there is plenty of BS spouted here that will never get asked for sources or even argued against because it goes "against the narrative".

facepollution said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

I'd argue the nowhere near savvy to navigate a situation like that. He only shot the ones that were attacking him. At any point, he could've opened fire on the whole crowd but knew not to do that. He tried running away from Rosenbaum before having to shoot him. He could've shot as soon as Rosenbaum started running at him but he tried to do the right thing. He also had his chance to fire at Grosskreutz but didn't until he was an immediate danger to him. Rittenhouse has some serious self control. Some cops with full training wouldn't be able to navigate a situation like this.

I was more referring to the general situation.  During cross-examination, he didn't really seem to understand how his mere presence whilst carrying a gun would be perceived as extremely antagonistic, and that it would contradict his claims that he was there to administer first aid etc.  He was visually displaying mixed signals, and that made him very vulnerable.

I agree in terms of the other points you made, I think it's fairly clear that he only used force when he realised he had no other way to protect himself.

He had no right being there. I hope they fry him.

Objectively, he had the same right as anyone else that night.  However, he was essentially a child trying to act as a police officer/fireman/medic using a gun to assert himself in a very volatile situation.  Like I said earlier, I think he thought the fact he was carrying the gun would be enough to stop anyone from messing with him, and hadn't thought what he would do if someone challenged that notion.  This was pretty much evident when he ran from an unarmed guy who showed aggression towards him.  A more powerfully built, confident or world wary individual may have engaged in a fistfight, but this was a baby faced, home-schooled cause he was bullied, kid. 

Yes I was previously objective but you members who only show up once in a while don’t bother to get to know who you’re responding to. 

Oh and this “child” is a coward POS. 

What do you feel I need to know about you in order for you to remain objective?

He was a child at 17, I don't know what to say, kids make horrible decisions all the time, that's why there are laws restricting certain things like voting, drinking, owning weapons etc.

The case really isn't about whether he should have been there or not though, these are all just opinions.  The case in the eyes of the law is strictly regarding his perceived danger in those moments and the subsequent force he used.
  

facepollution said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

I'd argue the nowhere near savvy to navigate a situation like that. He only shot the ones that were attacking him. At any point, he could've opened fire on the whole crowd but knew not to do that. He tried running away from Rosenbaum before having to shoot him. He could've shot as soon as Rosenbaum started running at him but he tried to do the right thing. He also had his chance to fire at Grosskreutz but didn't until he was an immediate danger to him. Rittenhouse has some serious self control. Some cops with full training wouldn't be able to navigate a situation like this.

I was more referring to the general situation.  During cross-examination, he didn't really seem to understand how his mere presence whilst carrying a gun would be perceived as extremely antagonistic, and that it would contradict his claims that he was there to administer first aid etc.  He was visually displaying mixed signals, and that made him very vulnerable.

I agree in terms of the other points you made, I think it's fairly clear that he only used force when he realised he had no other way to protect himself.

He had no right being there. I hope they fry him.

Objectively, he had the same right as anyone else that night.  However, he was essentially a child trying to act as a police officer/fireman/medic using a gun to assert himself in a very volatile situation.  Like I said earlier, I think he thought the fact he was carrying the gun would be enough to stop anyone from messing with him, and hadn't thought what he would do if someone challenged that notion.  This was pretty much evident when he ran from an unarmed guy who showed aggression towards him.  A more powerfully built, confident or world wary individual may have engaged in a fistfight, but this was a baby faced, home-schooled cause he was bullied, kid. 

Yes I was previously objective but you members who only show up once in a while don’t bother to get to know who you’re responding to. 

Oh and this “child” is a coward POS. 

What do you feel I need to know about you in order for you to remain objective?

He was a child at 17, I don't know what to say, kids make horrible decisions all the time, that's why there are laws restricting certain things like voting, drinking, owning weapons etc.

The case really isn't about whether he should have been there or not though, these are all just opinions.  The case in the eyes of the law is strictly regarding his perceived danger in those moments and the subsequent force he used.
  

Come on….this whole case and pretty much everything that happens in this country is politicized now. I’m sure many people on here know where I stand and how I feel about the left and right.  If you knew that/me from years of posting you would have known I was being objective.  But in all fairness you didn’t jump all over me, and neither did Lindamarie, it was the BJ or JB guy or girl who got BW t out of shape 

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

JB16057 said:

cblock4life said:

lindamarie73 said:

myoung321 said:

Guess I'm just lucky, not once did any my kids ask to be dropped off at a protest...in the next state.. with an AR15... 

But this guys Mom took him?  seriously...wtf?

You do realize his Mom did NOT drop him off in Kenosha?   I know it sounds great for the overall agenda w/ this trail,  but this is a perfect example of Fake news.  Congrats 

Can you please post your source?  I’m trying to find the truth and without sources none of us will know the truth.  Usually when I ask for sources on other forums, far, far right media sources are supplied then removed for containing false information.  How can any of us decide if you can’t supply your source? 

You didn't ask for a source yesterday when there were multiple people stating that his Mom dropped him off in Kenosha but here you go:  https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/

"Black testified that he, his brother and Rittenhouse had gone to downtown Kenosha on the morning of the shootings to view the aftermath of the previous days’ violence, and that he and Rittenhouse returned to Black’s home before going back downtown about 5 p.m.

Rittenhouse testified that he went to Kenosha with his sister and friends to provide first aid after seeing online pleas for people to come to the city to help protect it.

Rittenhouse testified that after the shootings, Black drove him home in Antioch, where he told his mother and two sisters what happened. He said his mother drove him to the local police station, where he surrendered.

Wendy Rittenhouse told the Chicago Tribune in November that she would have tried to stop her son from going to Kenosha, but she didn’t know where he was or what he was doing."

Here is another article if you want more: https://www.yahoo.com/now/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-183807767.html

Edit: Sorry, it was 2 days ago that it was stated here by multiple people that his Mom drove him....

No I didn’t ask before because Kat just reminded us all to post sources and by the way not everyone on here is a jagoff.  I was being serious, not only because I honestly wanted to know but so that others would see it as well.  

But you know what, fuck it.  Apparently you’ve never read my posts or you’d know I stay in the middle, where the truth exists.  Sorry I tried to further understand your statement.  

AND I don’t monitor the days I post so I’m clueless about 2 days ago.

There are plenty of things stated here with no source. I believe what she was referring to was articles, pictures or memes. I've read plenty of your posts to see where you think you stand. I apologize. I thought you had been monitoring this because you had posted a few days prior to what I was referring to.

For reference, I simply googled, "did Rittenhouse Mom drive him to Kenosha" and these 2 articles popped up. I don't come to this forum to get solid information though because it is clearly full of biasses and it not a reliable source for information. I understand why Kat is asking for sources but there is plenty of BS spouted here that will never get asked for sources or even argued against because it goes "against the narrative".

Where I think I stand or where you think I stand?  See I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt wondering if you just typed it wrong.  I’m not being irrational nor was I when I asked for a source.  And, I’m old enough to recognize BS otherwise I wouldn’t have asked lm for a source. I always doubted the mother drove him there…what kind of mother would do that?  And after hearing her speak I doubt she knows anything that kid is up to.  She seems very sheltered and confused. 

It doesn't matter where I think you stand because it's not about you and it's not about me. This is about the facts. You and I both agree that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there. The difference is that you think he should fry because of your opinion. I think he should be free because of the facts. I'll even admit that facts are objective to a point. Had Rittenhouse shot and killed any of these guys without being provoked or attacked, I would agree he should fry. Rittenhouse wasn't the only person there open carrying a gun. It is legal to open carry. Rittenhouse was not threatening anyone with his open carry gun. You can argue that just having the open carry gun is a threat but that doesn't change the fact that it is legal to do so. I don't feel comfortable when I see people open carrying. I'll admit I do feel a little threatened because guns are scary but I'm not going to threaten to kill someone who is carrying a gun like Rosenbaum did. I most definitely would not chase after them and I wouldn't lunge for their gun. Rittenhouse had to make a decision. It was either to stop and let Rosenbaum do what he was going to do to him(Rosenbaum told Rittenhouse that he was going to kill him) or to defend himself by shooting Rosenbaum. I know what I would've done.

As for the other 2 that were shot, like I said, I do feel bad for them if their true intention was to stop what they thought was an active shooter. They also had to make split decisions on the facts they had in front of them but that isn't Rittenhouse's fault and he shouldn't fry because of it. I see plenty of anti-gun advocates crying about how Rittenhouse had a gun. Grosskreutz was carrying a gun illegally and hasn't been charged with any crimes. That is not fair either.

facepollution said:

Acblock4life said:

facepollution said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

cblock4life said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

JB16057 said:

facepollution said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

JB16057 said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

maybe a mistrial and retrial in front of a less prejudiced judge would be better for everyone.

Self defense is still self defense no matter which judge is presiding.

the key is going to be the first victim. the 2nd hit him with the skateboard. the first did not and he was unarmed. kyle knows he was unarmed and he shot him 4 times. if you have an ar-15 and someone is unarmed, how is your life in danger? the crowd came after him after the first victim because he was an active shooter that just shot and killed someone.

you cannot claim self defense if your actions put you in the position to need to use deadly force. the prosecutor argued that beautifully.

Hmm, he was actively running away from him though, and only really fired when he realised the guy had gained too much pace on him and he wasn't going to get away, so he either faced a beating or having his gun taken from him and potentially used against himself.  If the argument is that he should have in the split moment accepted a beating, which reasonably still could have ended in his death (plenty of people are killed in fistfights, after all) I don't think many people if they had a gun in their hand would choose a beating.

To make it clear, I don't think Rittenhouse had any business being there that night, regardless of how noble his declared intentions may have been in terms of administering first aid, putting out fires etc.  I think it's pretty clear he had a very naive, childlike attitude towards the situation, and he very quickly found himself in a situation he clearly wasn't prepared for.  I think he thought the fact that he had a gun meant nobody would fuck with him, so when a crazy dude started chasing him completely unphased, even when Rittenhouse turned and pointed the gun at him, panic well and truly set in and he did what he had to do to defend himself in the moment.  

You also used the term active shooter, which I think is a bit of a stretch, at that point he had shot one person, in what was arguably a self-defence situation, then got chased by a hostile crowd.  He wasn't arbitrarily shooting people, in each incidence these individuals engaged with him in acts of aggression.

It's a difficult case, and I can certainly understand why people have no sympathy for him.  There's a huge politically charged narrative to the riots, and definitely a perceived right-wing element to anyone who tried to stand up against those protesting/rioting.  But if you take all that narrative away, what transpired, demonstrably fulfils the definition of self-defence, as I understand it.  The prosecution's point is absolutely null and void, the defence only have to prove that Rittenhouse feared the aggressor was about to commit an unlawful interference with his person.

There were plenty of armed citizens during all of these 2020 riots but this situation didn't happen anywhere else. I think Rosenbaum saw how young and innocent Rittenhouse looked and chose to go after him because of that. Specifically in Kenosha, there were plenty of much bigger guys with guns that didn't get attacked. That is what bullies do. They go after the weakest of the bunch.

In regards to your first point, the prosecutor said that Rittenhouse should've allowed Rosenbaum to beat him up instead of shooting him. If Rosenbaum had gotten his hands on Rittenhouse and disarmed him, we will never know what would've happened. What we do know is that Rosenbaum was one sick f*ck and had a violent past.

I saw a comment on a youtube video about the case referring to Rittenhouse as being like Forrest Gump's kid, and I couldn't help but laugh at how accurate the description was.  Very childlike, nowhere near savvy enough to navigate a situation like that, and absolutely a sitting target.

In terms of Rosenbaum, it takes a special type of crazy to run after an armed individual, regardless of how young and ineffective they look - not even a gun aimed at him was going to stop him from trying to attack Rittenhouse.  

I'd argue the nowhere near savvy to navigate a situation like that. He only shot the ones that were attacking him. At any point, he could've opened fire on the whole crowd but knew not to do that. He tried running away from Rosenbaum before having to shoot him. He could've shot as soon as Rosenbaum started running at him but he tried to do the right thing. He also had his chance to fire at Grosskreutz but didn't until he was an immediate danger to him. Rittenhouse has some serious self control. Some cops with full training wouldn't be able to navigate a situation like this.

I was more referring to the general situation.  During cross-examination, he didn't really seem to understand how his mere presence whilst carrying a gun would be perceived as extremely antagonistic, and that it would contradict his claims that he was there to administer first aid etc.  He was visually displaying mixed signals, and that made him very vulnerable.

I agree in terms of the other points you made, I think it's fairly clear that he only used force when he realised he had no other way to protect himself.

He had no right being there. I hope they fry him.

Objectively, he had the same right as anyone else that night.  However, he was essentially a child trying to act as a police officer/fireman/medic using a gun to assert himself in a very volatile situation.  Like I said earlier, I think he thought the fact he was carrying the gun would be enough to stop anyone from messing with him, and hadn't thought what he would do if someone challenged that notion.  This was pretty much evident when he ran from an unarmed guy who showed aggression towards him.  A more powerfully built, confident or world wary individual may have engaged in a fistfight, but this was a baby faced, home-schooled cause he was bullied, kid. 

Yes I was previously objective but you members who only show up once in a while don’t bother to get to know who you’re responding to. 

Oh and this “child” is a coward POS. 

What do you feel I need to know about you in order for you to remain objective?

He was a child at 17, I don't know what to say, kids make horrible decisions all the time, that's why there are laws restricting certain things like voting, drinking, owning weapons etc.

The case really isn't about whether he should have been there or not though, these are all just opinions.  The case in the eyes of the law is strictly regarding his perceived danger in those moments and the subsequent force he used.
  

Come on….this whole case and pretty much everything that happens in this country is politicized now. I’m sure many people on here know where I stand and how I feel about the left and right.  If you knew that/me from years of posting you would have known I was being objective.  But in all fairness you didn’t jump all over me, and neither did Lindamarie, it was the BJ or JB guy or girl who got BW t out of shape 

I think you're right about the politicization of everything, and this one is interesting because the riots/protests were a reaction to a black man being shot, and yet all the individuals, in this case, were white, yet it seems it's still perceived through that particular lens.  My take is that ultimately the law is meant to be an objective standard, which protects everyone, and therefore I think that should be the guide.  With that in mind, given the clear evidence, I can reconcile my beliefs that Rittenhouse is both morally wrong for being there, but was within his rights to defend himself.

I genuinely don't understand your point about you thinking you were/are being objective.  Tell me what your political leaning is if you think that would help my understanding of your view, or, you know, don't, whatever.....  As I've gotten older I've mostly stepped away from getting into heated exchanges with strangers online, but this case piqued my interest because I felt conflicted about what the hell this kid was doing there in the first place and his right to defend himself.  So far I've not really encountered anything to challenge my feelings, but I'm totally open to enlightenment    

  

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Rittenhouse (autocorrect corrects it to Rotten House, makes me chuckle) raised his gun and pointed it at protesters, prior to Rosenbaum charging at him. That's a threat with a deadly weapon. What was Rosenbaum's threat? Being verbally abusive. Same-same? No, not even close. What have we all been told to do in an active, or potential active, shooter situation? Flee, hide or fight. What did Rosenbaum do? He chose to fight (try outrunning an AR15). Rittenhouse was an imminent threat. Rosenbaum decided to defend himself.

Rittenhouse wasn't old enough to possess the AR15. Its been argued ad-nauseam on these boards that illegal immigrants break the law the moment they cross the border illegally and as such are criminals and should be deported. Rittenhouse broke the law by being in possession of a firearm while underage. What right did he have to be present in illegal possession of a firearm? As opposed to Rosenbaum (regardless of his criminal history)? And, at the time he was threatened with imminent death, wasn't breaking the law, just exercising his freedom of speech? Particularly, in light of:

According to the criminal complaint, Black enlisted the help of Rittenhouse in guarding the Kenosha car dealership Car Source from property damage and looting. The complaint stated Black “volunteered to go out after curfew” and “asked Mr. Rittenhouse to join him.”

In interviews, the owner of Car Source has denied requesting help from either Black or Rittenhouse in protecting his dealership during the protests.

19-year-old charged with illegally supplying gun to Kyle Rittenhouse (nbcnews.com)

Wonder how all the repub constitutionalists on here feel about "interpretation" of the law by the judge and going against what the legislature intended?

Judge dismisses gun charge against Kyle Rittenhouse - Chicago Tribune

Lots of confusion and potential for different interpretation when you take into account that Wisconsin law allows for more stringent federal regulation to govern. But that seemingly went "poof" with the judge's dropping of the charge. I don't know if Rittenhouse can face federal civil rights or criminal charges.

WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

But for a judge's ruling on a loophole and not allowing the charge to be considered by the jury and Rittenhouse to appeal, he won the White Privilege Lottery. Rittenhouse knew he wasn't old enough to possess the AR15 as evidenced by his friend's, who bought it for him, testimony. The judge could have very easily allowed the charge to be considered. And you can't tell me that Rittenhouse found the loophole in the law and knew he could get away with being in illegal possession of a firearm if he were caught.

Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Kyle Rittenhouse trial: Dominick Black, teen's friend, takes the stand (usatoday.com)

You don't have the right to instigate a confrontation that can potentially put your life or safety at risk, pointing a firearm, Rittenhouse, at someone who is not a current threat, protesters/Rosenbaum, and then claim self-defense when you indeed become threatened by the victim(s) of your instigation.

Agreed he couldn’t own the ar-15. But possession and ownership are different things. The statute says as long as the barrel was 12” or longer he could possess it. How is that a loophole? Clearly states this section does not apply to rifles with a barrel over 12”.  (The said 16” in the trial but when I looked it up it says 12”). I don’t know Wisconsin, but it’s not hard to believe those familiar with guns would know about the law. Sounds like that law would make it legal for a 17 year old to borrow his dad’s gun and go to the shooting range aIone. So it’s not like a scenario that would never happen before Kenosha.

I think it’s a dumb law, a 17 year old shouldn’t be allowed to open carry a rifle or go to a range by themselves. It should be illegal. But it’s not there and I don’t see how it’s a loophole.

Did Kyle insulate the confrontation withRosenbaum? Every video I’ve seen shows Rosenbaum chasing Kyle and Kyle running away until he got cornered by some cars and Rosenbaum was just a couple feet away. Why was he chasing Kyle to begin with, I don’t think I ever saw what started the chase?

Halifax2TheMax said:

Transcript of prosecution’s closing argument. If you’re open minded, it’s pretty damning.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-prosecution-closing-statement-transcript

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Transcript of prosecution’s closing argument. If you’re open minded, it’s pretty damning.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-prosecution-closing-statement-transcript

The prosecutor slows down the video and explains it step by step like it happened for 3 minutes when in reality it took less than one. That is good prosecuting.

If they can actually prove that he pointed the gun at people then he goes to jail.  It doesn't seem like that was established though.