Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[Brisketexan 105,438]

Under this statute, he guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and a Class H Felony as he discharged the firearm and caused death
And I'm pretty sure kyle wasn't under adult supervision and he (allegedly) wasn't out for target practice.

It’s quite shocking that he walked right up to-by cops, with a clearly visible rifle, and not a one of those top-notch investigators even asked him a question or checked his ID, which would have immediately revealed a gun crime in progress. A real mystery as to why they didn’t. Anyone got any ideas?

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

 

Somebody upthread said that pudge boy wasn't threatening anybody. I disagree. Holding a rifle in the ready position is inherently threatening. Just like holding a pistol, or a knife, in your hand is inherently threatening.

 

The "rioters" specifically targeted the building where pudge was for a specific reason- it was surrounded by whitey carrying guns in a threatening manner. Their very presence was an escalation.

 

 

Somebody else mentioned pudge was there to render aid. Bullshit. Even if he was carrying a first aid kit, people who are present to render aid DO NOT carry weapons. In addition, after shooting the first guy, pudge didn't "render aid", he walked away from the guy with a sucking chest wound and called his friend, not 911. Doesn't sound like "rendering aid" to me. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by High Plains Drifter

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

11 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Ok, so since his commission of a crime (illegal possession of the rifle) is what directly led to him feeling the need to defend himself, would that not preclude his claim of self defense?

 

No.  Just like in the old days pre concealed carry in Texas.  If you were illegally carrying, and someone attacks you, you illegally carrying does not remove your right to self defense for a murder charge.

Or today if a felon is illegally carrying and shoots someone in self defense, they can still avail themselves to a self defense claim

Now they can face charges for illegally carrying.

[Captainant 27,826]

7 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

Ok, so since his commission of a crime (illegal possession of the rifle) is what directly led to him feeling the need to defend himself, would that not preclude his claim of self defense?

again, not a lawdog, but from a plain reading of WI's self defense statutes (Wis. Stat. § 939.48(2)(a)) I would think it does undercut his self defense claim

Quote

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Carrying a rifle into a protest is provocative, even moreso when its an unlawfully obtained and possessed rifle. But again, the prosecution was barred from presenting any evidence outside of the extremely narrow "split second" frame of reference that we commonly see in warrior cop "self defense" claims after escalating the situation to violence in the first place.

Rittenhouse is gonna walk because the law enforcement and justice system wants him to walk. Not because it's what their laws say.

[immortal13 4,059]

3 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

I'll say this for Kyle, at least he actually had the balls to go and do what people like johnny sack, immortal13, and chicken sandwich clearly fantzasize about but are too chickenshit to actually do themselves.

Bitch I know you fantasize about me when you're touching yourself at night

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

It’s quite shocking that he walked right up to-by cops, with a clearly visible rifle, and not a one of those top-notch investigators even asked him a question or checked his ID, which would have immediately revealed a gun crime in progress. A real mystery as to why they didn’t. Anyone got any ideas?

Maybe because he was 4 months from 18 and they thought he looked old enough.

Maybe because the cops were not arresting all sorts of people for doing illegal shit that night in Kenosha. I mean you had people lighting fires right out in the open.

There is also some question of whether that statute applies to the rifle he was carrying.  I have read some legal articles on the issue.  Apparently some recent amendment has made whether that AR is even covered by the statute.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

again, not a lawdog, but from a plain reading of WI's self defense statutes (Wis. Stat. § 939.48(2)(a)) I would think it does undercut his self defense claim

Carrying a rifle into a protest is provocative, even moreso when its an unlawfully obtained and possessed rifle. But again, the prosecution was barred from presenting any evidence outside of the extremely narrow "split second" frame of reference that we commonly see in warrior cop "self defense" claims after escalating the situation to violence in the first place.

Rittenhouse is gonna walk because the law enforcement and justice system wants him to walk. Not because it's what their laws say.

The law he broke, if it applies, is underage open carrying of a rifle.  Is there something more provocative to his attackers about a person who is 17 years and 8 months old carrying a rifle than it would have been if he was 4 months older?  It is a regulatory infraction that has zero to do with his claim for self defense.  All sorts of people were carrying that night. 

The judge is making the proper rulings so far.

 

[Captainant 27,826]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Maybe because he was 4 months from 18 and they thought he looked old enough.

Maybe because the cops were not arresting all sorts of people for doing illegal shit that night in Kenosha. I mean you had people lighting fires right out in the open.

There is also some question of whether that statute applies to the rifle he was carrying.  I have read some legal articles on the issue.  Apparently some recent amendment has made whether that AR is even covered by the statute.

I pasted the entire statute and linked the state's own current public record of its criminal codes. It's pretty unequivocal on what constitutes a dangerous weapon, they even specify nunchucks lmao. 

But it's notable that you think the law doesn't apply to the kid just because he was "close enough". And to the contrary on cops, they encouraged his behavior and gave him water mere minutes before the shootings. I don't know about you, but I don't know of any cops who like vigilantes. Unless those cops are out looking to go hunting for protesters as we've seen more and more bodycam footage of.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

And again, he is going to walk because the videos show he only shot people who first attacked him.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I pasted the entire statute and linked the state's own current public record of its criminal codes. It's pretty unequivocal on what constitutes a dangerous weapon, they even specify nunchucks lmao. 

But it's notable that you think the law doesn't apply to the kid just because he was "close enough". And to the contrary on cops, they encouraged his behavior and gave him water mere minutes before the shootings. I don't know about you, but I don't know of any cops who like vigilantes. Unless those cops are out looking to go hunting for protesters as we've seen more and more bodycam footage of.

He was not a vigilante.  He only shot in response to being attacked. A vigilante would be shooting the rioters and arsonists.  He did not do that.  If he did, he would be going to prison.  Because he shot people who first attacked him, him being 4 months to young to open carry a rifle does not at all impact his right to self defense.  It is a red herring.  It does not matter.  Just like the hE cRoSsEd sTaTe LiNeS crap.

And I did not say the law does not apply to him because he was close enough.  But he was almost 18.  Perhaps the cops that saw him thought he was 18 so did not investigate or ask him for his papers.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Johnny Sack

[Captainant 27,826]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

And again, he is going to walk because the videos show he only shot people who first attacked him.

because he provoked them through engaging in illegal conduct by approaching them as a wannabe militiaman protecting businesses that he also does not have a statutory right or privilege to act in """self defense""" of. Wis. Stat. § 939.49(2)

Quote

939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.

(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.

(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.

(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

I have not heard or seen any evidence that rittenhouse was protecting a family or household member's property, and he was not an employee or agent of the merchant. So he did not have a right to go out and protect businesses he has no interest in.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Captainant

[immortal13 4,059]

37 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Another person being a dick to people, according to video

Just a sweetheart.  Never used a racial slur in his life.  Well, atleast now he can molest children in heaven.

He's an angry little pedophile manlet

[immortal13 4,059]

15 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Somebody upthread said that pudge boy wasn't threatening anybody. I disagree. Holding a rifle in the ready position is inherently threatening. Just like holding a pistol, or a knife, in your hand is inherently threatening.

 

The "rioters" specifically targeted the building where pudge was for a specific reason- it was surrounded by whitey carrying guns in a threatening manner. Their very presence was an escalation.

 

 

Somebody else mentioned pudge was there to render aid. Bullshit. Even if he was carrying a first aid kit, people who are present to render aid DO NOT carry weapons. In addition, after shooting the first guy, pudge didn't "render aid", he walked away from the guy with a sucking chest wound and called his friend, not 911. Doesn't sound like "rendering aid" to me. 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you a whitey? 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

because he provoked them through engaging in illegal conduct by approaching them as a wannabe militiaman protecting businesses that he also does not have a statutory right or privilege to act in """self defense""" of. Wis. Stat. § 939.49(2)

I have not heard or seen any evidence that rittenhouse was protecting a family or household member's property, and he was not an employee or agent of the merchant. So he did not have a right to go out and protect businesses he has no interest in.

He wasn't protecting businesses when he shot his attackers.  He was protecting himself.

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

 

pretty fucking white.

 

 

[Captainant 27,826]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He wasn't protecting businesses when he shot his attackers.  He was protecting himself.

Again, you're relying on the zoom-in on just this moment and none of the factors leading up to it.

Q: Why was rittenhouse there with a rifle?

A: To "defend" businesses he had no statutory right or privilege to defend

Q: Why was rittenhouse attacked initially?

A: Because gunshots were going off, and people targetted the wannabe militiaman who was carrying a gun at a low ready towards them.

Q: Were rittenhouse's actions in that moment legal?

A: No, he was committing a class A misdemeanor, and then a class F felony after the initial shooting.

Q: Can you claim self defense if you are committing unlawful acts that are provocative?

A: No.

 

If I recall from the protester ramming case in Austin last summer, you were of the opinion that carrying a rifle at a low ready is provocative and constitutes a deadly threat. Has your opinion changed on that? Or is that only when the carrier is protesting policies you like?

Edited November 3, 2021 by Captainant

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Again, you're relying on the zoom-in on just this moment and none of the factors leading up to it.

Q: Why was rittenhouse there with a rifle?

A: To "defend" businesses he had no statutory right or privilege to defend

Q: Why was rittenhouse attacked initially?

A: Because gunshots were going off, and people targetted the wannabe militiaman who was carrying a gun at a low ready towards them.

Q: Were rittenhouse's actions in that moment legal?

A: No, he was committing a class A misdemeanor, and then a class F felony after the initial shooting.

Q: Can you claim self defense if you are committing unlawful acts that are provocative?

A: No.

 

If I recall from the protester ramming case in Austin last summer, you were of the opinion that carrying a rifle at a low ready constitutes a deadly threat. Has your opinion changed on that? Or is that only when the carrier is protesting policies you like?

He was carrying a gun at low ready towards Rosenbaum, his initial attacker?  You should screenshot that and send it to the prosecution.  Because they are not claiming that at all.  You may have just cracked the case.

He was not committing any unlawful act that provoked his attack.  He was being chased by Rosenbaum, who tried to take his gun away, and got shot.  Then he shot two other attackers.

It's a stunningly easy case of self defense.  Just watch the videos and read the testimony/reports from the news reporter who witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting.

[Captainant 27,826]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He was not committing any unlawful act that provoked his attack.

You're right, bringing an unlawfully obtained and possessed rifle into a protest is in no way unlawful or provocative.

Keep on repeating that lie lol.

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

23 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

pretty fucking white.

 

I agree. 

[Cheeseweasel 26,438]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're right, bringing an unlawfully obtained and possessed rifle into a protest is in no way unlawful or provocative.

Keep on repeating that lie lol.

Why do you hate that people have rights?

[immortal13 4,059]

17 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

He was carrying a gun at low ready towards Rosenbaum, his initial attacker?  You should screenshot that and send it to the prosecution.  Because they are not claiming that at all.  You may have just cracked the case.

He was not committing any unlawful act that provoked his attack.  He was being chased by Rosenbaum, who tried to take his gun away, and got shot.  Then he shot two other attackers.

It's a stunningly easy case of self defense.  Just watch the videos and read the testimony/reports from the news reporter who witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting.

Hey Captaintifa is no lawyer, but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Show some respect

[Pam Cummings 9,684]

53 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

Bitch I know you fantasize about me when you're touching yourself at night

I'm absolutely stunned that a dude who posts pictures of his "wife"* for people to jerk off to on the internet is clueless about women.

 

*probable hooker

 

 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Pam Cummings

[Captainant 27,826]

14 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Why do you hate that people have rights?

Being a gun owner and CHL holder and having done competitive shooting previously (I ranked marksman in IDPA, hooray!), I've got no problems with gun rights. 

I do have a problem with a child who is statutorily too young and specifically prohibited from purchasing or possessioning a rifle (outside of supervised use) going on a patrol and then claiming self defense after putting himself in harm's way and looking for trouble. 

He illegally obtained the rifle through a strawman purchase. He illegally carried it. He did not have a right, privilege, or obligation to defend property he has no interest in. 

Why else would someone bring a rifle into a known area of unrest that they don't have a good reason to be in in the first place?

What rights are you citing here as me "hating"? Please be specific. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Captainant

[Pam Cummings 9,684]

Protestors: *expressing rights*

 

Rittenhouse: *shoots them*

 

WhY dO yOu GuYs HaTe RiGhTs?

[Hate 20,146]

Protestors: *expressing rights*
 
Rittenhouse: *shoots them*
 
WhY dO yOu GuYs HaTe RiGhTs?

Expressing the long held right to loot and burn buildings down?

[immortal13 4,059]

21 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

I'm absolutely stunned that a dude who posts pictures of his "wife"* for people to jerk off to on the internet is clueless about women.

 

*probable hooker

 

 

I knew it

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

36 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You're right, bringing an unlawfully obtained and possessed rifle into a protest is in no way unlawful or provocative.

Keep on repeating that lie lol.

How would his attackers be provoked?  Did they know how he obtained his rifle or card him to know he wasn't 18?

[Captainant 27,826]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How would his attackers be provoked?  Did they know how he obtained his rifle or card him to know he wasn't 18?

Age doesn't have anything to do with the threatening nature of bringing a rifle to a protest. But his age is a factor in his self defense claim, since his carrying of a weapon was unlawful by black letter law. Unlawful action plus provocative behavior equals no self defense claim. 

But honestly idk why I'm even engaging with you. He's an icon of the proud boys and militia movement and is a fundraising macguffin for the "election was stolen" contingency of the public. You've got his back because he's your boy. 

[Pam Cummings 9,684]

9 minutes ago, immortal13 said:

I knew it

If your name is Jeff Banks, the answer is yes. Otherwise, no.

[Pam Cummings 9,684]

11 minutes ago, Hate said:

Expressing the long held right to loot and burn buildings down?

That's not for a 17 year old kid to decide.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

10 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Age doesn't have anything to do with the threatening nature of bringing a rifle to a protest. But his age is a factor in his self defense claim, since his carrying of a weapon was unlawful by black letter law. Unlawful action plus provocative behavior equals no self defense claim. 

But honestly idk why I'm even engaging with you. He's an icon of the proud boys and militia movement and is a fundraising macguffin for the "election was stolen" contingency of the public. You've got his back because he's your boy. 

The judge disagrees with you.  And so do I.  And so will the Wisconsin appellate courts.

[Hate 20,146]

That's not for a 17 year old kid to decide.

Who said it was. You intimated that the “protesters” have a right to loot and burn down buildings. That’s ridiculous no matter what “side” you are on.

[Captainant 27,826]

Again from the tick-tock of the event here's the first shooting:

Quote

 

About 15 minutes before the first shooting, police officers drive past Mr. Rittenhouse, and the other armed civilians who claim to be protecting the dealership, and offer water out of appreciation.

Mr. Rittenhouse walks up to a police vehicle carrying his rifle and talks with the officers.

He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning. Six minutes later footage shows Mr. Rittenhouse being chased by an unknown group of people into the parking lot of another dealership several blocks away.

First shooting

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

Mr. Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction. Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.

 

So there was a gunshot behind the crowd and they saw rittenhouse with a gun and pursued him, thinking he was the perp and was holding his rifle in his hands (as we can see in the video). He was in the wrong place at the wrong time holding the wrong thing.

No one but rittenhouse put rittenhouse in that situation. He even put himself on video wishing he could just shoot anyone he thought was shoplifting. But he should get a get out of jail free card because he had an illegally obtained gun and his victims aren't here to tell their side of the story? 

Seems like y'all just like street justice and want it to continue. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

He was carrying a gun at low ready towards Rosenbaum, his initial attacker?  You should screenshot that and send it to the prosecution.  Because they are not claiming that at all.  You may have just cracked the case.

He was not committing any unlawful act that provoked his attack.  He was being chased by Rosenbaum, who tried to take his gun away, and got shot.  Then he shot two other attackers.

It's a stunningly easy case of self defense.  Just watch the videos and read the testimony/reports from the news reporter who witnessed the Rosenbaum shooting.

Didn’t he shoot the first guy in the back after he supposedly attacked him with a paper bag?

Isn’t that correct or is your only answer gonna be he was a pedo? 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

The people who attacked Rittenhouse were looking for street justice.

The psycho unhinged pedo got mad Rittenhouse put out a fire.  So he chased him and tried to take his gun.  

The other two then attacked Rittenhouse for defending himself.

Case closed.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Again from the tick-tock of the event here's the first shooting:

So there was a gunshot behind the crowd and they saw rittenhouse with a gun and pursued him, thinking he was the perp and was holding his rifle in his hands (as we can see in the video). He was in the wrong place at the wrong time holding the wrong thing.

No one but rittenhouse put rittenhouse in that situation. He even put himself on video wishing he could just shoot anyone he thought was shoplifting. But he should get a get out of jail free card because he had an illegally obtained gun and his victims aren't here to tell their side of the story? 

Seems like y'all just like street justice and want it to continue. 

Sack and crew just want the right to be able to walk around with AR guns, talk to cops while holding them, and shoot whoever they damn well please.

It’s called little dick syndrome and incel Kyle is now their ultimate hero since he actually did what they fantasize about doing. 
 

So of course they’re going to defend him to the death. 

[Guest Lobo]

Wait, separate from this young man’s right to defend himself from imminent harm.  Which I agree with.  Are we also stating that defending an important government building from looting and/or structural damage is grounds for opening fire?   

[JimmyJames 12,271]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The people who attacked Rittenhouse were looking for street justice.

The psycho unhinged pedo got mad Rittenhouse put out a fire.  So he chased him and tried to take his gun.  

The other two then attacked Rittenhouse for defending himself.

Case closed.

Actually what happened was a limp dicked incel went out looking to kill people, succeeded in doing so, and wanna be limp dicked incel killers are applauding him for it.

Case closed. 

[MissingInAction 25,204]

Would the law apply the same way if a person living in a bad neighborhood carried a weapon on his evening walks and eventually shoots a crack head attacking him?

Asking for a friend.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Didn’t he shoot the first guy in the back after he supposedly attacked him with a paper bag?

Isn’t that correct or is your only answer gonna be he was a pedo? 

No.  Rittenhouse fired and hit the pedo with 4 rounds after Rosenbaum chased him and went to disarm him.  The first three were in the front - groin, grazing forehead, and leg.  As he fell and contorted his body, the last round struck him in the back.  He fired all four rounds in less than one second.  That the last shot hit the guy in the back as he was falling is irrelevant.  People are going to contort their bodies when shot.  And all shots were fired in less than a second.  Even the prosecutor said the final shot was the one in the back.  It's not like he shot him three times in the front then stood over and put one in his back.  It was four shots in .76 seconds.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Would the law apply the same way if a person living in a bad neighborhood carried a weapon on his evening walks and eventually shoots a crack head attacking him?

Asking for a friend.

Yes.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

8 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Wait, separate from this young man’s right to defend himself from imminent harm.  Which I agree with.  Are we also stating that defending an important government building from looting and/or structural damage is grounds for opening fire?   

If there was a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily harm, absolutely.

The cop who shot Babbit certainly had such a reasonable belief.

As to defense of property when there is no such reasonable belief of death/bodily harm, I am not as well versed on that law and I suspect it is more specific to a jurisdiction.  

[Captainant 27,826]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

No.  Rittenhouse fired and hit the pedo with 4 rounds after Rosenbaum chased him and went to disarm him.  The first three were in the front - groin, grazing forehead, and leg.  As he fell and contorted his body, the last round struck him in the back.  He fired all four rounds in less than one second.  That the last shot hit the guy in the back as he was falling is irrelevant.  People are going to contort their bodies when shot.  And all shots were fired in less than a second.  Even the prosecutor said the final shot was the one in the back.  It's not like he shot him three times in the front then stood over and put one in his back.  It was four shots in .76 seconds.

Worth noting: this is when the defenses timeline starts as well. Much like cases involving police, sack et al. would like nothing more than to ignore the totality of decisions made by rittenhouse to put himself into jeopardy and into harm's way. 

He chose to be there. He chose to carry an illegal firearm with him. He was attacked because of his decision to engage in unlawful behavior that threatened other people.

Shit, if you hear gunshots and turn around to see a twerp with a rifle, would you not be threatened by that angry young man holding a locked and loaded AR, miles from home, during civil unrest? Rittenhouse was out playing vigilante cop. (In a sane world where facts matter) He doesn't get to claim self defense just because he was doing a thing you dream of doing. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Captainant

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Worth noting: this is when the defenses timeline starts as well. Much like cases involving police, sack et al. would like nothing more than to ignore the totality of decisions made by rittenhouse to put himself into jeopardy and into harm's way. 

He chose to be there. He chose to carry an illegal firearm with him. He was attacked because of his decision to engage in unlawful behavior that threatened other people.

Shit, if you hear gunshots and turn around to see a twerp with a rifle, would you not be threatened by that angry young man holding a locked and loaded AR, miles from home, during civil unrest? Rittenhouse was out playing vigilante cop. (In a sane world where facts matter) He doesn't get to claim self defense just because he was doing a thing you dream of doing. 

Yes he does.  He is.  And he is going to win.

He was attacked four putting out a fire by a mentally ill man who was acting crazy on video moments before the shooting.  Not because he was doing anything illegal.  No one who attacked him knew he was too young to open carry.  No one who attacked him knew he acquired the rifle in a straw purchase.  So no, he was not attacked because of his unlawful behavior because not a damn person there knew he wasn't in compliance with some technical firearm laws.  They weren't trying to make a citizens arrest to enforce misdemeanor firearm laws on open carry.  Rosenbaum attacked him because he was really angry Rittenhouse was putting out fires.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11,052]

59 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How would his attackers be provoked?  Did they know how he obtained his rifle or card him to know he wasn't 18?

 

Holding a rifle in the ready position is inherently provocative.

Even if he wasn't actually holding it that way (maybe it was slung over his shoulder with the barrel pointing straight up- lol yeah right), he was standing with others who were. They were deliberately being provocative and threatening.

I'm not saying they (pudge and his buddies) started the fight. I'm saying the fight started in part because of their armed presence.

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Holding a rifle in the ready position is inherently provocative.

Even if he wasn't actually holding it that way (maybe it was slung over his shoulder with the barrel pointing straight up- lol yeah right), he was standing with others who were. They were deliberately being provocative and threatening.

I'm not saying they (pudge and his buddies) started the fight. I'm saying the fight started in part because of their armed presence.

 

Provocative to me is chasing down someone who was not pointing a weapon at me because they put out a fire and then trying to take their weapon away.

[Captainant 27,826]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Rosenbaum attacked him because he was really angry Rittenhouse was putting out fires.

Thats not supported by the video I've seen. Care to share the Facebook or 4chan post you're sourcing this narrative from?

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Thats not supported by the video I've seen. Care to share the Facebook or 4chan post you're sourcing this narrative from?

See that thing in his left hand?

[52-80 19,263]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

See that thing in his left hand?

i dont know the picture is kinda blurry but it looks like a Proud Boy flag emblazoned with a nazi swastika to me.  and even if it was a fire extinguisher, maybe he planned to bash someone on the head with it.  how old do you need to be operate a fire extinguisher?  its possible he was breaking the law by trying to use it at all

[wildcat09 29,420]

I love the bullshit that he was just there to help people with medical care, etc.

There were a ton of leftist street medics at just about every BLM rally and every other type of lefty protest last year. None of them ever shot anyone. You know why? Because they didn't bring guns, they brought fucking medical supplies. And they often ended up treating neo-nazis who wanted them dead, because they were actually at those events for the purpose of providing medical care to people, not to find an excuse to shoot someone.

Edited November 3, 2021 by wildcat09