The judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial is a hero

And on the fucking videos.

It seems unlikely to me that a crowd would begin to harass a guy carrying an AR-15 in that situation for no reason other than they considered him an extreme threat.

Considering all the violence white supremacists brought to protests all summer prior to this night, I imagine they did perceive him as a threat.

They were angry with him for putting out their fire, singling him out as someone who was not of the body and must be purged. Rioters often like to pretend they get to decide who shows up to the riot.

This is all your feelings. What you feel happened. You bitch about other people doing so. Either quit bitching when others do so or don't do it your self.

Didn't say it was his backyard. I said Kenosha is close to where he lived, so his being there (even though going "across state lines") is not unusual

You're actually using the "she shouldn't have worn such a short skirt" argument? You're arguing Rittenhouse wouldn't have been threatened if he wasn't there, therefore his fault.

What responsibility does Rosenbaum--the aggressor!--have in your world? Apparently not much.

Much is made about Rittenhouse's age and supposed lack of responsibility. What about Rosenbaum? Why does his behavior get a pass from you?

Harrassing me? Or threatening and chasing me? Because those are two completely different scenarios.

But there isn't a crime associated with him crossing a state line, so why is it significant?

And if you live in a small town, a bigger town 8, 10, 15 miles away is likely to be a regular destination for you.

But even if you disagree, "because I wanted to be" is sufficient reason for anyone to go anywhere in public.

Rosenbaum was there to start fires and be aggressive. Was that reason good enough for you?

To be clear: KR could've lived in Hawaii and still had every right to be there. I'm not arguing his close proximity to Kenosha gave him that right.

I'm pointing out that those who add "accross state lines" (as if that entails some special restriction on the travel rights of Americans) seem to be unaware that Kenosha is close to where KR lived.

You're attempting to paint this as "so close to home, he had no choice but to act". He did have a choice and he chose poorly. Kids crossing the state line for hanging out with friends is not unusual. Crossing state lines to engage in a protest in a community that is under curfew absolutely is unusual and, in this case, deadly.

No. and your attempt to compare the two is intellectually dishonest. Continuing down this line of thought will result in ceasing any meaningful discussion.

Had he lived, he would definitely could have and should have been charged with harassment and assault.

I think you're confusing my posts with someone elses.

Don't be stupid and take the Dayton/FF way out. You know what the question is asking. If you don't answer, fine. But, then, .. that will speak volumes of why you are suggesting Rittenhouse should not be charged with murder.

You're acting as if he's just hanging out with friends and then BAM suddenly there's an assault weapon in his hands and someone else is dead.

The entire thing about him crossing state lines has to do with why he was there and what his intentions were.

Oh, please.

"We harrassed the heavily armed guy because we were threatened" is just laughable.

But it's irrelevant anyway. Because the only people KR shot were assaulting him, not harrassing him.

The last guy, did not assault him in any way. He held a gun. He was the good guy with a gun. and now you're turning on him. You have no moral compass. You just want Rittenhouse to be found innocent because fuck those BLM protester any god damn way, right?

Just the opposite. I'm saying it's irrelevant how far away he lived. I'm pointing out that he lived nearby merely to counter the "he crossed state lines" talking point.

But not illegally.

Even if he broke curfew, he didn't forfeit his rights.

And were it obviously so deadly, the authorities would have dispersed everyone. There was no violence until Rosenbaum initiated it.

You can take your ball and go home if you want, but it's true: Rosenbaum initiated violence and yet you only hold KR--who tried to escape--accountable for it.

Thank you for justifying self-defense.

No, hecause even though you acknowledge Rosenbaum committed assault, you still lay the blame on KR.

How can you possibly square these two contradictory viewpoints?

If someone was merely harrassing me, i'd ignore them or leave. If someone assaulted me--like you admit Rosenbaum did with KR--I would've shot them.

Grosskreutz approached KR with a gun while KR was being assaulted by a mob. KR could've shot him, but GC made a surrender gesture and backed away. GC didn't get shot until he attempted to re-engage. He admitted in court that he was not shot until he had his gun pointed at KR's head.

Then you are being intentionally obtuse. It is a valid point as he crossed the state line to commit a crime. Even if the only crime was break curfew.

Breaking curfew is an illegal action.

The word you're looking for is "protestors" and yes, the police were absolutely making an effort to disperse everyone.

liar. it's not a valid argument and you know it.

Had Rosenbaum been Rittenhouse's only victim, you might have a point. But, you don't and you know it.

Because Rosenbaum wasn't Rittenhouse's only victim

There's no evidence Rosenbaum actually touched Rittenhouse. The legal definition of assault is "interfering with a person's right to not be afraid".

So, you're saying "if you were carrying an assault weapon and someone else confronts you to the point that you fear that other person, you would shoot that person. That is a valid argument to not allow the general population access to assault weapons.

Rittenhouse knew he had already killed one person. He knew he was being chased to prevent him from fleeing the scene of the crime. If he truly was shooting in "self defense" he should have put his gun down and hands up and let Grosskreutz safely take him away from the mob.

He knew that's the only reason they were chasing him? Did he also know they were no threat and that he could have safely put down the gun and surrendered to them?

If he felt unsafe, then he already knows he was wrong to take the gun there in the first place.

I'd be shocked as shit if he wasn't wishing he'd never come at all by that point.

And you can call the police if you think it's a concern.

You don't lose your rights because you may be in violation of some law.

Rioters, sez I. Buildings had burned down during those "protests."

What am I lying about?

I can show you video of Rosenbaum chasing KR. You've admitted Rosenbaum is likely guilty of assault.

Once you admit Rosenbaum had engaged in assault, KR is engaging in self-defense. Subsequent actions--whether justified or not--don't change that.

But you've admitted Rosenbaum committed assault. And since he did it against KR, you've (whether you want to admit it or not) acknowledged that KR was acting in self-defense.

No, it isn't.

Rosenbaum had verbally threatened harm. He threw an object at KR. He pursued KR. And he made an attempt to grab KR's weapon.

If angry Rosenbaum were chasing you, shouting "F**k you," and throwing stuff at you--after earlier threatening to kill you--are you telling me you wouldn't be afraid of imminent harm?

If my fear of that other person was reasonable--and I'd say it would be if they'd verbally threatened me, chased me, shouted obscenities at me, threw things at me, and attempted to grab my weapon--then of course I'd shoot them. How would you make the standard for self-defense higher? Would I actually have to be beaten for my right to protect myself to kick in?

Which I m sure makes Paladin go

Unfortunately for three people and their families, he realized that just a little too late.

At this point, you’re grasping at straws. Your arguments all but show Rittenhouse was entirely out of his element and should never have been there in the first place. His mother should also be on trial.

Just about everyone who engages in lethal self-defense would wish it never happened.

That doesn't make them wrong for defending themselves.

How do my arguments show that?

He had as much right to be there as anyone.

I won't argue with that. He had no business being there carrying an AR.

That doesn't make it murder. I think he'll probably be convicted of lesser charges, but I don't see 12 jurors all voting for a murder conviction at this point.

But not open carrying, unless I'm misunderstanding Wisconsin state law on minors being in possession of firearms.

Rosenbaum was a mental patient who’d been released earlier that day and had been harassing and intimidating people at the scene.

And I'm not clear on whether he had anything to do one way or the other with the protest.

Possibly (still a matter of dispute whether there's an exemption that covers him)...but even if so, just because a person shouldn't be open carrying a firearm doesn't mean they lose their right to defend themselves with it.