Let's say you're at a protest advocating for some issue in which you feel so strongly that you go protest. You hear shots fired. You see a group of people chasing a man with a gun. You hear those people saying "stop him, he killed someone" If you tell me you wouldn't attempt to stop him, I will call you a liar - here and to your face.
No, the last thing you want to do is take strangers at their word. And in this case, his real offense is showing up uninvited to someone else's riot. Some people think that's reason enough to assume guilt.
Wrong video. There's one that shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse before the first shot is every fired. And raised his hands as police approached. Victim 2 that hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard? Victim 3 who approached Rittenhouse with a handgun (and whom Rittenhouse did NOT shoot until he attempted to re-engage)?
Bullshit. Provide a link. It doesn't exist. I know it doesn't exist. Victims 2 and 3 were citizens who attempted to impede an escaping murderer. They were not the agressors.
Yes it does. 46 seconds in Rosenbaum threw what looked like a plastic bag at Rittenhouse (who was already running away) and chased after him. If the first shooting was a valid act of self defense, then the 2nd and 3rd victims may have thought they were trying to impede an escaping murderer, but they weren't.
Rosenbaum was the short, belligerent guy who got angry at Rittenhouse for putting out a dumpster fire, and who chased after Rittenhouse and tried to grab his rifle. It's on video and backed by witnesses: Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse and tried to grab his gun. Again, it's on video. Rittenhouse is leaving, and not threatening anyone. They assault him.
It sounds like you have the facts askew. Can you link to something backing that up? https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/kyle-rittenhouse-shooting-victims-trial/index.html From the CNN link, it appears Rosenbaum was the first person shot, and all he did was throw a bag at Rittenhouse that missed. Unless there's facts that are missing from that, I don't see how one can argue justifiable self-defense from that. It was Huber who advanced and tried to grab the gun, apparently after Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. I don't know the intricacies of how self-defense law works in Wisconsin (or really anywhere) in a scenario like this, but it seems like having shot Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse may have an uphill battle to claim self-defense as to either of the other two.
This video makes it clear Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse. No. Rosenbaum did throw the bag, but he subsequently chased Rittenhouse. He also made a grab for Rittenhouse's gun. See McGinnis' account in the video at the link: NY Post Link. You're missing key facts. Watch the video. Rittenhouse is attempting to leave, and is not threatening anyone. He is surrounded by a mob that chases him. The guys who attack Rittenhouse are not witnesses to the original shooting. There is nothing that indicates that force is necessary by any of the people who assault or approach Rittenhouse.
thank you. I hadn't seen that video before. At 46 seconds in, you still can't tell anything. But ... I think it was about 18 minutes in, it starts talking about Rosenbaum. and dude was clearly being belligerent against Rittenhouse. The bag he threw at Rittenhouse contained nothing more than supplies he'd been sent home with from a recent hospital stay (for mental issues). There isn't clear video footage of Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbaum or the events specific to the shooting. But, it appears Rosenbaum was antagonizing Rittenhouse. This is where Rittenhouse's age is important. and mob mentality comes into play. Rosenbaum is clearly feeling empowered to "bully" Rittenhouse. If Rittenhouse was older, would Rosenbaum been as empowered to bully him? Two things here - Rosenbaum was in the wrong to bully Rittenhouse, but would he have if Rittenhouse hadn't been openly carrying an assault weapon? Mob mentality also plays into this as Rosenbaum feels he is in the right to bully someone from the "right" who continually, assholishly beat the damn drum that it's ok to own and openly carry their big fucking dicks and bully everyone else. So, victim 1 could be called as self-defense - at best. It certainly isn't justifiable. At this point, Rittenhouse should have called the police, not his good buddy. he should have put down his weapon, knelt on the ground, and put his hands behind his head and waited for police. Victims 2 and 3 were clearly not self defense as he was running away from a crime scene and citizens were trying to stop him.
Watch this video, particularly from 4:07 on, and pay attention to what McGinnis witnessed. Can you say that bullying a person with a rifle is a rational choice? But Rittenhouse isn't bullying anyone. Facts: 1. Rosenbaum was being belligerent. 2. Rosenbaum threw his bag (which wasn't just a bag, it had the stuff he'd brought from a recent stay at a mental hospital) at Rittenhouse. 3. Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse. 4. Someone on the scene fired a gun at that moment. 5. Rosenbaum "lunged" (McGinnis' description) for Rittenhouse's gun. Except there was an angry mob forming. You can't dismiss that part. Huber hit Rittenhouse with a skateboard and tried to take his gun. Grosskreutz approached with a gun and was warned off by Rittenhouse, only to suddenly re-engage before getting shot.
I'm not saying the first shooting was justified/self defense, because I don't know. I'm just saying it very well could have been. And if I were in a similar situation where I had to use force in self defense against who I assumed was one of the protestors (turns out he wasn't) who had attacked me, and I was surrounded by a large mob of said protestors, I'd have probably ran away too.
A lot of your fellow "thinkers" seem to feel that flaunting their right to bear arms at a government that has the largest military budget in the world is a good idea.
Justify it in your mind all you want. But, Rittenhouse killed two people and maimed another. If you want to remove Rittenhouse's age and inexperience, then you also have to remove ALL other mitigating circumstances. including Rosenbaum's mental issues, the mob, and why all of the people were there in the first place. All you're left with is Rittnhouse killed two people and maimed another. Those are the facts of the case and they are not in dispute.
Indeed, his first impulse was to flee when threatened, even though he had firepower available. He tried to flee Rosenbaum and was pursued (and assaulted) by same, he tried to flee the scene and was pursued (and assaulted) by a mob. If you angrily chase someone or hit someone over the head with a skateboard or try to take someone's weapon, you can't really complain that the person took you seriously.
I find it fascinating that when there are videos of police shootings or brutaility, there's always an outcry that we don't know what happened before the tape started rolling. In the Rittenhouse case, the tape seems to be taken at face value as telling the entire story.
Somebody tag me when the Rittenhouse nonsense is over. I have no stomach for internet detectives poring over videos of people getting shot.
How many people have been decapitated by someone wielding a skateboard, though? Beaten to death? Yeah, I'm sure there's probably been a few.
One could as easily say that where there's suspected police brutality or excessive force, the tape is always taken at face value, but not one it's a citizen defending himself. Tapes show what tapes show. They may tell the whole story, they may not show important aspects of it. In the case of the Kenosha events, the tape supports the claim of self-defense. Rosenbaum is belligerent and is chasing Rittenhouse (there's also the matter of the other person who fires a pistol during that chase, but I'm saving that for later). Rittenhouse is running away. Rosenbaum does make an apparent lunge for the weapon. There could be more to the story that would justify Rosenbaum's actions, but it would have to be pretty incredible. As a legal matter, even if you're not sure Rittenhouse is acting in self-defense there, it's plausible and consistent with the facts that he is, and that's all that's required for reasonable doubt. As to the subsequent shootings, it's clear that the people pursuing Rittenhouse were, at best, a vigilante mob. EVEN IF you believe that they believed Rittenhouse had done something highly illegal, they were not justified in initiating force against him as there were other avenues open to them and Rittenhouse was not threatening anyone. The tape shows that people assault Rittenhouse and that the one who is fatally shot (Huber) not only struck him with a skateboard, but attempted to take his gun. The only way you could possibly say that is not legitimate self-defense is if Rittenhouse is in the process of committing a crime, and he is not. The tape shows that Rittenhouse, showing remarkable restraint under the circumstances, warns the handgun-wielding Grosskreutz off and that Grosskreutz is shot only when he makes a sudden aggressive move toward Rittenhouse.
Are you willing to let someone swing one at your head to see how much damage it can do? Also, what seals Huber's fate--though, honestly, striking at the head with a skateboard was sufficient--is that he attempts to grab Rittenhouse's weapon.
I don't think that either component of this is true. Pretty much no one (possibly even including his attorneys) claimed that there was something that happened before the Derek Chauvin recording that we needed to see to understand what REALLY happened. Sometimes a video pretty much has all the context needed to conclude whether something is clearly justified, clearly unjustified or somewhere in the middle. IMO, this Rittenhouse tape is somewhere in the middle. There impression I get is that Rittenhouse hears a shot, thinks it might be directed at him, turns and points his pursuer with the rifle. That in turn has Rosenbaum lunge to get the gun according to the witness. (At least as far as I can see from my quick look at the links provided, there isn't indisputable video evidence that Rosenbaum lunged or the order in which things happened). I think it will be really a hard decision how to weigh Rittenhouse stopping and pointing the gun versus Rosenbaum allegedly trying to grab it.
If you don't want someone swinging a skateboard at your head, maybe you shouldn't travel to another state and openly carry a gun. Just sayin'. Well, maybe Rittenhouse shouldn't have been wearing it openly like that. You go around flaunting the goods like that and some might argue that you're just asking for trouble. I mean, if you had a bunch of 100 bills taped to your body as you walked in a crowded area, would you be at all surprised if people didn't just start trying to grab them?
There are a lot of facts and law that make a question of possible self-defense less open and shut that you seem to think it is. Why was Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse? It's a different analysis if it was clearly to threaten him with serious physical harm versus to just trash-talk Rittenhouse or any number of things. Why did Rittenhouse think Rosenbaum was chasing him, and were his beliefs reasonable. How did the other shot play into how Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum reacted? Rosenbaum could have suspected that Rittenhouse, or one of his co-militia members, fired the shot and thought that his life was at risk. If he lunged for Rittenhouse's gun thinking that Rittenhouse had escalated things to actual violence and had no choice but to try to take the gun to defend himself against Rittenhouse, that is probably a different story than lunging because he wanted to take Rittenhouse's gun and shoot him with it. I assume you don't know what the law in Wisconsin as to how much force is permissible as part of a citizen's arrest in a situation like this.
Tuckerfan was saying that it's rare that someone was literally decapitated by someone wielding a skateboard (or for that matter, any other blunt object). Yes, obviously it would hurt like hell, and possibly kill. But kill<>decapitate.
P.S. Mods, maybe it makes more sense to ship all this Rittenhouse stuff to its own thread like "The Kyle Rittenhouse trial" or to some old thread specifically about it.
Many legitimate news outlets have reported that Rosenbaum was harassing and acting threatening towards numerous people that night. Apparently he'd been released earlier that day from a mental facility or something.
Let me guess, you're the same guy who thinks that women are "asking for it" when they get sexually harassed while wearing revealing clothing in a hook-up bar?
