My post was concerned whether he would be convicted or not, not the issues you’ve raised. So your response isn’t really appropriately directed at me.
I’m not arguing with you on that. He will undoubtedly get off (maybe they’ll slap him with one of the lesser charges). But a legal system where two people can try their best to kill each other and both be legally justified is a crappy legal system.
Yes, I agree, you gave a good analysis of why he will walk.
@octopus, if you dislike rioters so much, why are you defending one?
And if the right to self defense is so important, why do you wish to deny it to Rosenbaum?
At the time Rittenhouse initiated the confrontation, he was under no threat whatsoever, and had no rational reason to believe he was under threat. He was miles away at that time. He chose to enter the situation specifically for purposes of initiating a confrontation, and then he got what he wanted.
What is genuinely fucked up is I think Huber and Grosskreutz, and possibly Rosenblaum but I’m less certain on him, if they had gotten the upper hand on Rittenhouse and killed him, they likely would not even have been charged, or if they were charged, they’d likely be acquitted on self-defense grounds. It does mean that yes, this is a situation where both sides could probably successfully argue self-defense.
Especially the guy who got out of bed in Illinois that day, am I right? Ha ha! I’m sure when he woke up he was thinking: “Fuck me, I REALLY don’t want to kill someone today!”
C’mon man. The rioters and those not rioting or acting to deter a riot are not analogous.
I’m curious what you think you’re adding to the discussion by repeating basically the same post over and over. Like I think even the few people that would defend Rittenhouse from “looters” probably would agree he, as a minor, had no business being involved in this. The rest of the thread clearly thinks he’s an idiot.
It’s for the historical record, OK? It’s important even if you don’t get it. Do your own thing.
It’s like Rittenhouse saying to himself that day: “Golly, if I kill another human being today, that would be a total surprise ha ha!”
Well, there’s one guy in the thread who certainly disagrees with that.
C’mon man, you keep calling those murdered by Rittenhaus rioters. Show that they were in fact rioters.
What we do know is that a minor traveled across State lines, had a long gun that he was not legally able to have, and the result was 2 dead and 1 wounded.
Which Rittenhouse wasn’t doing – a minor carrying a weapon he couldn’t legally own. And had he not been breaking the law, the entire incident wouldn’t have happened.
What evidence is there that the people Rittenhouse shot were actually “rioting” or “looting”, as opposed to trying to take down Rittenhouse because they thought he was a “bad guy with a gun”?
AFAICT, the feedback from the police leadership who were actually tasked with handling the Kenosha protests and riots is consistently to the effect that the presence of the armed vigilantes was not sought and not helpful.
Just because somebody was participating in the protests doesn’t mean that they were actually “rioting”. And just because somebody was carrying a gun with the stated intent to “protect” against rioters doesn’t mean that they were actually “acting to deter a riot”.
I think one thing this situation illustrates is that in the heat of the moment, it can be really difficult to tell the difference between a “bad guy with a gun” and a “good guy with a gun”. This is why conservative media are straining their sphincters so hard to ensure that the people Rittenhouse shot are constantly and preemptively referred to as “rioters” and “looters”, “violent”, etc. Because they need to make sure that those people are perceived from the get-go as being in the “bad guy” category, irrespective of the facts.
I’m not sure I follow: you say he was carrying a weapon he couldn’t legally own.
Was he carrying a weapon he couldn’t legally carry? That’d be interesting. Was he owning a weapon he couldn’t legally own? Also interesting. But carrying a weapon he can’t legally own, or owning a weapon he can’t legally carry?
Rittenhouse was well aware of the legalities about this weapon. That’s why he travelled to Wisconsin without a weapon. That’s why he accepted a weapon once in Wisconsin. So he could kill people.
The kid was an idiot. Not an uncommon condition among kids, or among grown people either apparently.
If whether or not he “had business” there relates to his age I’d wonder how if his presence were legal and so was his firearm and the way he carried it. Deciding that any particular person acting legally doesn’t have business in a public place 15 miles from where they live, might be the same as deciding whether a person who lived 30 or 45 miles away had business on the same place.
Antioch is closer to Kenosha than either West Allis or Silver Lake so there were at least a couple other guys there that made a longer trip and did some violence once the got there. One of whom also came with a firearm. Were they also carrying first aid kits?
Showing up at a town a few minutes away to “patrol the streets” with a gun and a med kit is dumb. Bravely attacking with a skateboard someone who you know to be armed with a firearm is dumb, heroically dumb. Firing a warning shot at someone that you believe just murdered someone with their own firearm is equally dumb.
I’d bet everyone involved was there looking for trouble, and that they all found what they were looking for.
There is a claim out there that Rosenbaum and the people with him had set fire to a dumpster, and that a security guard who was dressed similarly to Rittenhouse doused the flames, and that Rosenbaum tried to pursue that guard in anger. Later when Rosenbaum encountered Rittenhouse, it’s suggested he confused Rittenhouse for the security guard, and that’s what started the encounter. If that sequence of events is truthful it would suggest Rosenbaum was not there to peacefully protest.
But at the moment the sourcing on that isn’t solid–and obviously Rittenhouse’s legal team has hyper-accentuated it and promoted that theory on Tucker Carlson etc, so it’s not gotten a good factual treatment.
This is what puzzles me. Why would anybody leave their nice, safe home to “patrol the streets” and claim to be there to “protect businesses” in which they have no personal investment.? Especially in another city in another state? That’s local law enforcement’s problem, not Rittenhouse’s.
I’m reminded of the “when do we get to use the guns” guy:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/10/27/charlie-kirk-denounces-violence-mh-orig.cnn
As you said, people went looking for trouble, and they found it. Rittenhouse’s motive may have no bearing on the trial, because only the facts of the incident matter, but between Rittenhouse and the “when do we get to use the guns” guy, it seems that there are a number of people who are itching to use their guns against those who disagree with them.
I’m reminded of a humorous story I recently heard. Some unrest breaks out in an American city, and police respond–but so do the local so-called civilian “militia.” The militia leader, in camo and armed with an AR-15, says to the cop in charge, “Okay, we’re here. Where do you want us?”
The cop simply responds, “Back home.”
Right, they’re not. Rioters do things like shooting people. People acting to deter a riot do things like disarming the people who are shooting people.
What’s important here is that one repeats the words “rioters and looters” enough to justify murder.