- Why was someone who blatantly is affiliated with white supremacists (ones whom paid instantly to get him bail and have been socialising with him frequently before and after he was inititally arrested) at a BLM protest? If he was there to 'defend' then who was it who requested a 17-year-old to carry an AR-15 across state lines in order to 'defend' something? Isn't requesting that illegal?
- Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
- Do you agree that if (and it is the case that) the 'mob' only set on Rittenhouse after the Rosenbaum murder on an unarmed man, then it suddenly becomes much clearer who was the fundamental attacker vs defender in the aggression that ensued. Huber was proactively trying to get Rittenhouse to disarm and not escape so thata) he can't go on to murder any othersb) cops could arrive before he's gotten away, to arrest him for the Rosenbaum murder
- After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
Specific things I would like Rittenhouse-defenders to justify.
Posts
Total:
14
-->
@thett3
@Vader
@ILikePie5
@Bones
Please see above
-->
@RationalMadman
Q1
Why was someone who blatantly is affiliated with white supremacists (ones whom paid instantly to get him bail and have been socialising with him frequently before and after he was initially arrested) at a BLM protest?
Why he was there is in no way relevant to why he shot the men that he did. We ought judge Rittenhouse's actions on the available footage. For all I care, that could have been Alex Jones who was at the protest - the point of the case is to show that whoever the defendant was, his actions were a result of self-defence.
Q2
Why did he murder Rosenbaum? I am aware of the things Rosenbaum has been found guilty of and that he was very high asking to be shot but nobody in their right mind would presume that the right action would be to literally kill him just because he's asking to be shot.
As the court ruled that Rittenhouse acted in self defence, he did not murder anyone. Also, I think you are considering Rosenbaum as a little too much of a saint. The following is a minute to minute recount of Rosenbaum's death, extracted from the available footage.
(1) Kyle H. Rittenhouse (hereinafter “the defendant”), is running southwest across the eastern portion of the Car Source parking lot
(2) Following the defendant is Rosenbaum and trailing behind the defendant and Rosenbaum is a male who was later identified as Richard McGinnis, a reporter.
(3) Rosenbaum appears to throw an object at the defendant. The object does not hit the defendant.
(4) Defendant and Rosenbaum continue to move across the parking lot and approach the front of a black car parked in the lot.
(5) Rosenbaum appears to continue to approach the defendant and gets in near proximity to the defendant when 4 more loud bangs are heard.
(6) Rosenbaum then falls to the ground.
(7) The defendant then circles behind the black car and approaches Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum remains on the ground. McGinnis also approaches, removes his shirt, and attempts to render aid to Rosenbaum.
In addition to these facts, which are what the prosecutor is able to determine from the numerous cell-phone videos of the incident, an eye witness, Richard McGinnis, provides his testimony in the criminal complaint, which strongly points towards an affirmative defense of perfect self-defense. Here is McGinnis' testimony broken down:
- Rosenbaum, the first shooting victim, initiates the confrontation
(1) McGinnis stated that before the defendant reached the parking lot and ran across it, the defendant had moved from the middle of Sheridan Road to the sidewalk and that is when McGinnis saw a male (Rosenbaum) initially try to engage the defendant.
- the defendant tried to retreat and disengage
(1) McGinnis stated that as the defendant was walking Rosenbaum was trying to get closer to the defendant.
(2) When Rosenbaum advanced, the defendant did a “juke” move and started running.
(3) McGinnis stated that there were other people that were moving very quickly. McGinnis stated that they were moving towards the defendant. McGinnis said that according to what he saw the defendant was trying to evade these individuals.
- the defendant was not brandishing and used his gun in self-defense after attempting to retreat and Rosenbaum catching him
(1) McGinnis described the point where the defendant had reached the car. McGinnis described that the defendant had the gun in a low ready position. Meaning that he had the gun raised but pointed downward. The butt of the gun would have been at an angle downwards from the shoulder.
(2) McGinnis stated that the defendant brought the gun up. McGinnis stated that he stepped back and he thinks the defendant fired 3 rounds in rapid succession.
(3) McGinnis stated that the first round went into the ground and when the second shot went off, the defendant actually had the gun aimed at Rosenbaum.
(4) McGinnis stated he did not hear the two exchange any words.
- Rosenbaum physically engaged with the defendant and tried to take the defendant's gun
(1) McGinnis said that the unarmed guy (Rosenbaum) was trying to get the defendant’s gun. McGinnis demonstrated by extending both of his hands in a quick grabbing motion and did that as a visual on how Rosenbaum tried to reach for the defendant’s gun. Detective Cepress indicates that he asked McGinnis if Rosenbaum had his hands on the gun when the defendant shot. McGinnis said that he definitely made a motion that he was trying to grab the barrel of the gun. McGinnis stated that the defendant pulled it away and then raised it.
(2) McGinnis stated that right as they came together, the defendant fired. McGinnis said that when Rosenbaum was shot, he had leaned in (towards the defendant).
Additional Facts
In addition to the facts presented in the criminal complaint, the defendant will seek to introduce:
- the evidence of Rosenbaum's extremely agitated state of mind, where he appears on video to be hot tempered, circling around, and yells, "shoot me, ni--a" twice.
- the evidence that while the defendant was being pursued, an unknown third party fires into the air, with the muzzle flash appearing in footage filmed at the scene. At the same time the third party's gun goes off, the defendant turn towards the sound of the gunfire as Rosenbaum lunges towards him.
Q3
Do you agree that if (and it is the case that) the 'mob' only set on Rittenhouse after the Rosenbaum murder on an unarmed man,
No the mob did not set on Rittenhouse after he murdered an unarmed man that is visually, logically, reasonably and legally incorrect.
Q4
After he'd also murdered Huber instead of surrendering, what exactly is he using as his moral high ground?
Here are some facts leading up to Huber's death. These are some relevant facts I have excerpted from the criminal complaint in regard to the his shooting. I added the numbering as the criminal complaint presents the facts in paragraph format.
The facts leading up to Anthony Huber being shot:
- The defendant tried to disengage and retreat from the situation and was being followed.
(1) The third video that your complainant reviewed shows the defendant running northbound on Sheridan Road after he had shot Rosenbaum. The street and the sidewalk are full of people. A group of several people begin running northbound on Sheridan Road behind the defendant.
- Multiple people called for immediate violence against the defendant and acted on it.
(2) A person can be heard yelling what sounds like, “Beat him up!”
(3) Your complainant reviewed a fourth video that showed a different angle of the defendant running northbound. In this video a person can be heard yelling, “Get him! Get that dude!”
(4) Then a male in a light-colored top runs towards the defendant and appears to swing at the defendant with his right arm. This swing makes contact with the defendant, knocking his hat off. The defendant continues to run northbound.
- The defendant could not retreat further as he tripped and the crowd caught up with him.
(5) A male can be heard yelling, “Get his ass!” The defendant then trips and falls to the ground.
- A person did a fly kick at the defendant, which made contact with him.
(6) As the defendant is on the ground, an unidentified male wearing a dark-colored top and light- colored pants jumps at and over the defendant.
- Huber physically engaged with the defendant with his skateboard and hands and tried to grab the defendant's weapon. The defendant used minimal force to terminate the interference with his person.
(7) A second person who was later identified as Anthony Huber approaches the defendant.
(8) When Huber reaches the defendant it appears that he is reaching for the defendant’s gun with his left hand as the skateboard makes contact with the defendant’s left shoulder. Huber appears to be trying to pull the gun away from the defendant. The defendant rolls towards his left side and as Huber appears to be trying to grab the gun the gun is pointed at Huber’s body. The defendant then fires one round which can be heard on the video.
-->
@Bones
What part is incorrect about the timeline?
Also, I want to ask another question that I forgot to specify, why did he fire three further bullets into Rosenbaum after the initial one, the fourth specifically aimed at his skull?
-->
@Bones
You are directly lying about the order of events, by the way, despite correctly admitting that Huber and the 'mob' only properly engaged Rittenhouse after he'd killed Rosenbaum.
They wanted to disarm him from that terrifying gun before he did that, it's true, however what led Huber and 'the mob' to really chase Rittenhouse down was the Rosenbaum killing.
-->
@Bones
I can even understand the one where Huber died, I will admit this is much more justifiable given that Rittenhouse didn't truly know whether or not he'd be beaten up or just restrained if he'd let his gun go.
The part I don't comprehend is why he shot Rosenbaum four times to 'confirm a kill' instead of once, focusing back on the guy who fired the shot that distracted him. That already seems odd to me.
I also am extremely confused what he was there for, which is something you avoided answering. He is not in the protest or riots and isn't in any shape or form a qualified and trained combat expert to handle such a situation professionally. Why was he there at his age and at that time?
-->
@RationalMadman
Also, I want to ask another question that I forgot to specify, why did he fire three further bullets into Rosenbaum after the initial one, the fourth specifically aimed at his skull?
When you are in a life or death situations, you do not have time to use utilitarianism to calculate the loss and benefit of each action. If I were in a situation where a man who literally threatened to kill me twice is standing on top of me rendering me essentially in his grasp, I would close my eyes and unload every bullet I have and hope that one hits him.
You are directly lying about the order of events, by the way, despite correctly admitting that Huber and the 'mob' only properly engaged Rittenhouse after he'd killed Rosenbaum.
The order of events I proposed was the one documented and recited at court, appears in FBI documentation and can be confirmed by video footage from both bystanders and by FBI infrared footage. [1][2]
The confrontation between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum was witnessed by McGinniss to whom it seemed that Rosenbaum and other protesters were moving toward Rittenhouse, who was trying to evade them; Rosenbaum tried to engage Rittenhouse who avoided this by sidestepping and running away.[22][60] Rittenhouse testified at trial that Rosenbaum had threatened to kill him.[61]
The part I don't comprehend is why he shot Rosenbaum four times to 'confirm a kill' instead of once, focusing back on the guy who fired the shot that distracted him. That already seems odd to me.
You have to remember that we are siting here in our living-rooms calmly contemplating what Rittenhouse could or couldn't have done. We can both agree in hindsight that Rittenhouse could have physically evaded Rosenbaum whilst causing less damage, but that is not the point. A rape victim which could possibly evade a rapist by stabbing them 2 times in stead of 3 yet no one would argue that the victim was in the wrong - in the moment no one knows what is sufficient to alleviate the danger.
-->
@Bones
Okay, let's say all that's forgivable and legal, the real question is this:
Why was he at the event? He was neither a qualified security guard, police officer or officially requested assister of any kind. He took it upon himself to approach people he knew were aggressive and probably armed, while blatantly being aligned against their cause.Why was he doing that and would he have been stupid enough to do so had he not had a massive gun to inspire the idea?That's the blunt, harsh aspect that the anti-Rittenhouse crowd are fundamentally basing their attitude on.He went there bloodthirsty and looking for trouble. He then found it and as soon as he could justify it, killed. If he had truly not been looking for trouble, why would he have gone out of his way as a 17-year-old to obtain a firearm that's very legally questionable for a guy of his age to be carrying and gone to an event with people he clearly detests for ruining property?
-->
@RationalMadman
Okay, let's say all that's forgivable and legal, the real question is this:Why was he at the event? He was neither a qualified security guard, police officer or officially requested assister of any kind. He took it upon himself to approach people he knew were aggressive and probably armed, while blatantly being aligned against their cause.Why was he doing that and would he have been stupid enough to do so had he not had a massive gun to inspire the idea?That's the blunt, harsh aspect that the anti-Rittenhouse crowd are fundamentally basing their attitude on.He went there bloodthirsty and looking for trouble. He then found it and as soon as he could justify it, killed. If he had truly not been looking for trouble, why would he have gone out of his way as a 17-year-old to obtain a firearm that's very legally questionable for a guy of his age to be carrying and gone to an event with people he clearly detests for ruining property?
Like I said, why he was there is not an issue in this case. For all I care, that could have been Alex Jones or Joe Biden under the grasp of Rosenbaum, whoever it may have been they would have been in their right to defend themselves.
Let's assume that you are right and Rittenhouse is a right wing Nazi white supremacists. Does that mean he would forfeit his right to self defence if he were attending a rally which supported opposing views? Does someone lose their right to defend their life simply because of their political beliefs? Regardless of Rittenhouse's political stance, the fact of the matter is that he was placed in a situation where he was within his legal rights to defend himself.
-->
@Bones
Well said!
-->
@Bones
You're right, they don't lose any rights for being somewhere they know violence and aggression will come their way.
So, I guess I would find him legally innocent but he definitely was there seeking out a fight. That much I am certain of. I wonder if something like this will happen later in his life given his tendency to go directly where he is sure people will get annoyed with him, flaunting a massive gun intentionally.
I think it's fine to be that way (aggressive and passionate, unafraid of the conflict that will ensue), just not if it is at a lethal level with guns involved.
A Zedku for Kenosha.
Everything about the whole sorry situation
Is based upon
Human stupidity.
As ever.
A lot of BLM martyrs attack people who have guns. That's why they are martyrs.
I see a lot of talk about "he didn't do anything illegal, but he shouldn't have been there". I have to disagree. The police and fire department were nowhere to be found- they were stretched thin by the widespread insanity occurring at the time. The governor didn't bring the national guard in to defend the town.
It put regular citizens in the terrible and unfortunate position of having to defend the town themselves. I don't think even for a second that Kyle wanted a fight. His clear trauma on the stand shows he isn't some malicious figure that relished in killing people.
He was a kid that wanted to help out a local community and felt cool LARPing as some modern-day "rooftop Korean", and being a 17-year-old, he was in way over his head. He wasn't expecting to get attacked for putting out a fire. He ran away before he shot anybody.
I also think that he was under no obligation to surrender to the mob in the hopes that they wouldn't beat and/or kill him. He turned himself in after I believe an hour, which shows that he feared the people chasing him, not the idea of going to jail. Now do I think that the mob could reasonably believe that he might be an active shooter if they hadn't seen how the altercation began? Yes, and that is why I don't think that everyone chasing him should be convicted of attempting to falsely imprison or kidnap him.