No they were not.
This all happened outside of the area controlled by the police or at the periphery. Rosenbaum was irrational and was acting irrationally. It’s considered bad form for civilians to off nut cases. Once he killed Rosenbaum those around him were trying to stop the shooting by taking his gun.
If the guys with guns had then shot and killed Rittenhouse there would be no trial.
He looked dangerous to me in the photos I saw where he was strutting around looking for someone to shoot. Maybe he didn’t “need confronting” as that’s not usually a good idea when someone is of that mindset.
What, going to a protest and threatening demonstrators with your gun?
That’s the way to the RNC stage.
That he got to shoot and kill some people was just a bonus.
Maybe there will be a movie. Begin the thawing of Sal Mineo!
There is no evidence he threatened protesters with his gun or acted aggressively prior to the shootings, which were in self-defense. I think on a couple of the reckless endangerment counts you can say he was acting recklessly while acting in self-defense, in a way that endangered others (it would not have shocked me to have seen convictions on those charges.) But there is not any well substantiated evidence that came out in the trial or etc that is suggestive KR was going around threatening people with his gun prior to the Rosenbaum shooting.
At the very least Wisconsinites who are unhappy with the verdict should push their representatives to close the loophole that allowed KR to get away with carrying his rifle around under the age of 18. The exception in the law is clearly meant for kids hunting with older friends/family members.
Changes to the law would be wise indeed, and a valid thing to advocate for absolutely.
The realm of natural rights is a made up construct by man, as there are no natural rights, only the rights that one person or peoples extends to another.
I mean that’s a valid viewpoint, but also a debatable one. I was specifically replying to someone who had made an argument that self-defense is not a natural right, so that individual (@Crane ) clearly adheres to the view that there are natural rights, so in the context of his comment the response is pertinent. A discussion about whether there “really are” natural rights or not, while interesting, seems a big segue.
But somehow the criminal records of the victims, at least in the court of public opinion, are?
What isn’t allowed in the court of public opinion? The court of public opinion is fairly unregulated.
Please don’t go back to saying there’s no evidence of that. One interpretation of the drone video is that he was running away from Rosenbaum, then turned and pointed his rifle at Rosenbaum. Then Rosenbaum may or may not have reached toward the rifle, at which point Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum.
There also was, I believe, either testimony or video that Rittenhouse pointed the rifle at one or more protesters earlier.
Why yes, and I certainly can see that that well poisoning leads folks to thinking, and saying, that Rittenhouse’s victims got what they deserved . . . not for the incident that night of course.
I’m confused what you’re arguing here, but yes, KR made a bunch of decisions including open carrying an AR at a protest he expected to escalate into a riot where many other people were armed that any normal human would have realized could easily get you killed.
No one like him will be deterred by a guilty verdict - they’re already risking getting shot.
The drone evidence is not conclusive at all, and I never saw anything that came out in court that made it any more conclusive, the drone video I saw Rittenhouse is pointing when he’s being attacked.
Save people like Rittenhouse the trouble of coming out and shooting them, just have the police mow them down themselves.
Sounds like a plan.
Will we see KR be greeted as a celebrity at the next riot? Will he get appearance fees? An expense account for costs?
How about a book deal and a movie? This guy isn’t Zimmerman, he’s a hero!
That people are justified putting themselves into a situation where they can then claim that they are scared for their life as justification for killing other people?
I’m sure that people have used that pathetic excuse for hundreds of years, doesn’t mean that we should condone it.
The whole premise that you shouldn’t be allowed to use the public streets, because “it puts you into a dangerous situation”, is absurd. We should instead find issue with the idea there are public streets where walking down them is considered likely to put you in a self-defense situation. The bad behavior there is on the people starting the bad behavior, not those responding to it.
Now all that being said, I don’t think you should show up to a riot armed and looking for trouble, but I’m not going to shift the blame onto the people who are responding to violence versus those who initiate it.
No, it undermines the claims that he was confronted solely because he was armed, which is the suggestion that has been made in this thread many times.