Rittenhouse found not guilty on all charges

[Syne]

I understand there are two 'militia' groups (armed, heavily armed?) in Kenosha - as far as I know they haven't fired a single shot (is this true?) yet one teenager (a hero?) with a semi-automatic rifle kills two people on one night. Are the militia guys a bunch of wimps? I'd kind of expect the 'out-of-control' militia to be gunning down rioters instead of a heroic teenager with a rifle killing people who may well not be connected with any sort of rioting but maybe I've got the wrong impression.

Conservatives generally do not use lethal force except in the legally justifiable defense against a threat of severe bodily harm or death. These pussy rioters wouldn't attack a group of armed people, but they would wait for one to be caught alone...just as one of the attackers (convicted pedophile) had threatened to kill any he found alone, earlier in the evening. And Rittenhouse got hit with pepper spray earlier in the evening, but when asked why they didn't respond, he said they didn't have any non-lethal response. IOW, the threat did not rise to the level of using lethal force in self-defense.

Unlike the rioters, looters, arsonists, and attempted murders (which is what they are, now that Rittenhouse has been found not guilty), none of the "militias" were there to break any laws.

[C C]

One way to deal with protests about people being shot is to (apparently) join the protest but take it to such an extreme that all sympathy for the cause is lost. Besides, rioting and looting is fun so any sort of free pass - let's go create mayhem.

The three shot by Rittenhouse are a somewhat literal snapshot of those on the streets that night. The first two were probably out (after curfew) to watch the rioting - part sightseers and part anything sensible you ask an American to do - they'll do the opposite.

The third was out there to help, claiming the same motivation as Rittenhouse but found out the hard way that a semi-automatic rifle is more helpful than a hand gun - which I'm sure many could have predicted.

---

I understand there are two 'militia' groups (armed, heavily armed?) in Kenosha - as far as I know they haven't fired a single shot (is this true?) yet one teenager (a hero?) with a semi-automatic rifle kills two people on one night. Are the militia guys a bunch of wimps? I'd kind of expect the 'out-of-control' militia to be gunning down rioters instead of a heroic teenager with a rifle killing people who may well not be connected with any sort of rioting but maybe I've got the wrong impression.

The case definitely born from mass confusion all the way around. Just for the thread to have a vague summary...

A car dealership had suffered $1.5 million in arson damage the previous night... Rittenhouse stationed there with a group to guard it... (accounts differing whether their protection was solicited or not).

A 36-year-old with mental problems begins harassing an armed teenager [Rittenhouse] to open the chain of events circus.

The witness in this part of the testimony, in Day 4 of the trial, described Joseph Rosenbaum as a "babbling idiot": https://youtu.be/QCs9ubOAuEU

Rosenbaum suffered from bipolar disorder and depression.

He also had misdemeanor cases revolving around battery, and was a registered sex offender. His Arizona inmate file: https://inmatedatasearch.azcorrections.g...?ID=172556

- - - - - -

A bystander named Joshua Ziminski was a key component in triggering all this by firing a shot into the air when Rosenbaum was chasing after Rittenhouse -- causing Rittenhouse to panic, and stop running. Which led to engagement with Rosenbaum. The latter got shot and killed when he tried to take the rifle from Rittenhouse. The latter did know that Rosenbaum was unarmed, but was heavily rattled by the things transpiring beforehand -- Ziminski's gunshot and Rosenbaum's threats.

Joshua Ziminski got charged with disorderly conduct for using a dangerous weapon, as well as arson.

- - - - - -

The later shooting death and injury occurred in the course of an angry crowd chasing after Rittenhouse, following the initial shooting of Rosenbaum. The crowd was trying to get the rifle from away him, with potential intent to beat him up (that stemming from the various shouts and yells they emitted).

Here's the police record of Gaige Grosskreutz, the survivor with an expired permit who pointed that Glock pistol at Rittenhouse during that stage of events, and received the arm injury: http://www.kenoshacountyeye.com/gaige.pdf

Anthony M. Huber, who hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard and who was killed while attempting to take the rifle, had a record, too (toward the bottom, somewhere): https://www.wisconsinrightnow.com/2021/0...-shooting/

Perhaps irrelevant personal information history, though, unless such could slightly suggest less than purely angelic motives for being part of the unrest.

[Syne]

After shooting the pedophile Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse is on video being asked where he's going. He says "to the police," as he jogs toward the police line. The next two he shot claim to be trying to stop an active shooter, even though he was not continuing to shoot anyone and going to turn himself into the police. Huber and Grosskreutz were trying to assault or execute, respectively, a 17 year old.

[Magical Realist]

To a man carrying a hammer, everything is something to be pounded. To a man carrying a gun, everything is something to be shot.

[confused2]

To a man carrying a hammer, everything is something to be pounded. To a man carrying a gun, everything is something to be shot.

Trying to understand more I found an article in GQ online. It is quite long.

Like everything it has a spin. It picks up on Kyle punching a defenceless female - possibly not something you want from a hero.

https://www.gq.com/story/72-hours-in-kenosha

And (spin?):

..and so eventually the white militiaman and the Black activist shook hands in that what-more-can-be-said way of American males, and then they retreated to their respective fragments of the United States.

There were many guns present but Rittenhouse seems to be the only one that actually shot anyone. Maybe training and common sense does work - Rittenhouse certainly gave a fair demonstration of gun ownership without training or common sense.

Spot the  kid with a gun..

[Image: kenosha-kyle-rittenhouse-gq-april-2021-03.jpg]

[C C]

To a man carrying a hammer, everything is something to be pounded. To a man carrying a gun, everything is something to be shot.

Trying to understand more I found an article in GQ online. It is quite long.

Like everything it has a spin. It picks up on Kyle punching a defenceless female - possibly not something you want from a hero.

https://www.gq.com/story/72-hours-in-kenosha

Here's the videos (age restrictions unless one signs in, which I'm not going to do):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lVmMNE3oXw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOO2x9xJoI4

From the comments, he may have jumped in to support his sister, but no excuse for hitting the other girl/woman.

Here's another video of him supposedly flashing signs, elsewhere:

https://youtu.be/axdIo1HZjgM

There were many guns present but Rittenhouse seems to be the only one that actually shot anyone. Maybe training and common sense does work - Rittenhouse certainly gave a fair demonstration of gun ownership without training or common sense.

Whether due to his age or insufficient experience, it was irresponsible to include Rittenhouse as part of the "property protectors".

Whereas one of the witnesses who encountered Rosenbaum taunting him in similar fashion dismissed him as a "harmless" nut-case, Rittenhouse apparently took Rosenbaum to be a real threat and didn't know how to deal with (or ignore) him. Other than running away and eventually setting-up fatal, reactionary circumstances.

Given that there was a mild possibility of Rittenhouse interacting with the arsonists of the night before, as well as cliques of communists, anarchists, etc (antifa), somebody as green as him brushing up against such characters... Just not good.

While several of those type individuals might have arrest and incarceration backgrounds like those Rittenhouse killed and injured -- and even the ones who don't can put on a good show of wanting to severely beat up their counterparts -- they're usually unlikely to do so. As the more veteran "protectors" probably grasped.

Youthful or inexperienced Rittenhouse, however, if more prone to excitability and underwear incidents, maybe couldn't distinguish between faux "dangerous sphincter displays" and "real dangerous sphincter" intent.

Rittenhouse has civil lawsuits being filed against him, and he'll probably be hounded in various ways for the next ten to fifteen years of his life. Kind of like surviving a gruesome traffic accident, but then receiving humongous medical bills and outpatient facility bills afterwards, minus any insurance coverage.

[Leigha]

If not for all of the protests last year and public scrutiny especially following the George Floyd trial, it probably wouldn't have been such a highly publicized case. There simply wasn't enough evidence as the prosecution showed during the Rittenhouse trial. I think the verdict was the right one, in terms of the charges.

Not sure why BLM is protesting, I've read that many on the left feel that if Rittenhouse were a black man, he would have gone to jail. So, if racism isn't a factor, BLM inserts it as factor? Sigh.

---

To a man carrying a hammer, everything is something to be pounded. To a man carrying a gun, everything is something to be shot.

In context of this case, what do you mean?

[Syne]

To a man carrying a hammer, everything is something to be pounded. To a man carrying a gun, everything is something to be shot.

Maybe for you, but Rittenhouse said earlier that evening that he couldn't respond to being pepper sprayed, as he didn't have any non-lethal means of response. IOW, he knew that wasn't an appropriate use of his "tool." Maybe you should understand the etymology of a saying before ignorantly parroting it.

Trying to understand more I found an article in GQ online. It is quite long.

GQ is leftist trash. It doesn't even try to pretend it's actual journalism.

Like everything it has a spin. It picks up on Kyle punching a defenceless female - possibly not something you want from a hero.

A seventeen year old trying to protect his sister. "Defenseless" presumes she wasn't in the process of attacking someone else. Many leftists have claimed, correctly, that you lose your right to self-defense when you initiate the aggression. That's what this female did by attacking his sister.

There were many guns present but Rittenhouse seems to be the only one that actually shot anyone. Maybe training and common sense does work - Rittenhouse certainly gave a fair demonstration of gun ownership without training or common sense.

If you knew anything about firearms, you'd know that Kyle handled himself and his gun very responsibly, with every indication of very well-practiced firearms training. Rittenhouse was the only armed person the mob caught alone, and being the bullies that leftist mobs are, they didn't have the balls to do anything but try to ambush an alone seventeen year old.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lVmMNE3oXw
...
From the comments, he may have jumped in to support his sister, but no excuse for hitting the other girl/woman.

Not just in the comments...literally said in that news coverage. Maybe avoid the ignorant bloggers.

Here's another video of him supposedly flashing signs, elsewhere:

https://youtu.be/axdIo1HZjgM

Yeah, if you're gullible enough to believe 4chan trolls that the OK sign is suddenly a white power sign.

Whether due to his age or insufficient experience, it was irresponsible to include Rittenhouse as part of the "property protectors".

Whereas one of the witnesses who encountered Rosenbaum taunting him in similar fashion dismissed him as a "harmless" nut-case, Rittenhouse apparently took Rosenbaum to be a real threat and didn't know how to deal with (or ignore) him.  Other than running away and eventually setting-up fatal, reactionary circumstances.   

Given that there was a mild possibility of Rittenhouse interacting with the arsonists of the night before, as well as cliques of communists, anarchists, etc (antifa), somebody as green as him brushing up against such characters... Just not good.

While several of those type individuals might have arrest and incarceration backgrounds like those Rittenhouse killed and injured -- and even the ones who don't can put on a good show of wanting to severely beat up their counterparts -- they're usually unlikely to do so. As the more veteran "protectors" probably grasped.

Youthful or inexperienced Rittenhouse, however, if more prone to excitability and underwear incidents, maybe couldn't distinguish between faux "dangerous sphincter displays" and "real dangerous sphincter" intent.

Rittenhouse has civil lawsuits being filed against him, and he'll probably be hounded in various ways for the next ten to fifteen years of his life. Kind of like surviving a gruesome traffic accident, but then receiving humongous medical bills and outpatient facility bills afterwards, minus any insurance coverage.

Rittenhouse had the same right to be there as anyone else, and the judge ruled that Wisconsin open carry laws even covered his right to carry a gun. By his actions in the videos, he handled himself and his gun very responsibly. Carrying a gun for self-defense is for these exact situations, especially when ganged up on by multiple criminals.

Rittenhouse didn't "[set-up] fatal, reactionary circumstances," his attackers did. Most people, of any age or experience, are hopefully "green" when dealing with criminals. The only ones who aren't are the police and other criminals. The "more veteran" were never isolated and attacked, so pretending you know how they'd react is ignorant hubris. Alone, surrounded by a mob, anyone who fears for severe bodily injury or death has the right to defend themselves with lethal force. It's actually the criminal attackers who were "green" on the law and legal rights. No amount of youthful inexperience excuses the criminals attacking him nor void his rights under the law.

Rittenhouse should have many defamation lawsuit settlements, on par or better than the Coventry Catholic student against CNN, only against many other media outlets that defamed him. With a good lawyer, he'll be set for life.

[confused2]

If not for all of the protests last year and public scrutiny especially following the George Floyd trial, it probably wouldn't have been such a highly publicized case. There simply wasn't enough evidence as the prosecution showed during the Rittenhouse trial. I think the verdict was the right one, in terms of the charges.

Not sure why BLM is protesting, I've read that many on the left feel that if Rittenhouse were a black man, he would have gone to jail. So, if racism isn't a factor, BLM inserts it as factor? Sigh.

---

To a man carrying a hammer, everything is something to be pounded. To a man carrying a gun, everything is something to be shot.

In context of this case, what do you mean?

Belief is absolutely central to the case. Rittenhouse was known to have killed one person and two people tried to disarm him believing their selfless action would stop him from killing again - he shot both of them believing they were a threat to his safety. After the second and third shooting it seems everyone ran away (not surprisingly) believing this was the best way to stop someone armed with an assault rifle from killing again.
In the context of a black man being shot in the back for trying to get into his car is it (sigh) so unbelievable a black man after killing two people and injuring a third might go to prison - if not simply shot in the street for being black and having a gun? If your point is that nobody cares what black people believe - that's kind of it - Rittenhouse walked free because of what he 'might reasonably' have believed at the time. The GQ spin finished with the militia guy and the black activist seeing the pain and shaking hands - you guys are all American - you can fix this.

[Leigha]

If not for all of the protests last year and public scrutiny especially following the George Floyd trial, it probably wouldn't have been such a highly publicized case. There simply wasn't enough evidence as the prosecution showed during the Rittenhouse trial. I think the verdict was the right one, in terms of the charges.

Not sure why BLM is protesting, I've read that many on the left feel that if Rittenhouse were a black man, he would have gone to jail. So, if racism isn't a factor, BLM inserts it as factor? Sigh.

---

To a man carrying a hammer, everything is something to be pounded. To a man carrying a gun, everything is something to be shot.

In context of this case, what do you mean?

Belief is absolutely central to the case. Rittenhouse was known to have killed one person and two people tried to disarm him believing their selfless action would stop him from killing again - he shot both of them believing they were a threat to his safety. After the second and third shooting it seems everyone ran away (not surprisingly) believing this was the best way to stop someone armed with an assault rifle from killing again.
In the context of a black man being shot in the back for trying to get into his car is it (sigh) so unbelievable a black man after killing two people and injuring a third might go to prison - if not simply shot in the street for being black and having a gun? If your point is that nobody cares what black people believe - that's kind of it - Rittenhouse walked free because of what he 'might reasonably' have believed at the time. The GQ spin finished with the militia guy and the black activist seeing the pain and shaking hands - you guys are all American - you can fix this.

No, my point is that Rittenhouse was labeled a white supremacist by Biden (and others) and the case evolved into one about race. Rittenhouse’s intentions (why he was at the protest) didn’t seem to be motivated by racism so why are BLM activists pushing that narrative?