Kyle Rittenhouse question

Yes to your point. There are too many unanswered questions for me.

I started reading about this case yesterday and have so many questions. Who invited him to help guard? Why him? Apparently he didn't even live there. And why did he go? Why was Rosenbaum rushing him? Was KR standing alone at the time? Why did he run away, shouting "Friendly" then turn and shoot? Why shoot 4 times? The police were derelict, too... telling him to go away and then pepper spraying him. No questions about the gun that was slung over his body.

I don't want to read pages of transcripts or watch hours of video - it's not up to me, anyway, but there are many unanswered questions out there. If anyone has any answers to these questions, I'd appreciate it.

Did the prosecution specify an armed bank robber or did you add that detail yourself? Maybe their point was that citizens can legally stop a perpetrator from fleeing a crime. I'm not sure what your point is. And again, where did engineer suggest that anyone "rush" an armed individual?

Engineer never used the word "rushed", or "armed bank robber". I concede the point (although I think you are being silly).

The point is that moving aggressively toward a person with an assault rifle while he is running away is an idiotic thing to do. It may be legal to do so... but it is still an idiotic thing to do.

Everyone involved in this incident were acting irrationally. That is the point.

Here is a recent story that came across my feed a couple of weeks ago. A marine in a convenience store stops an armed robbery. While there is no sound on this video so you can't tell if the man had stated his intent to rob the store, you can clearly see that he is brandishing a weapon when he is attacked by the marine. If the marine had been shot in this situation, no one would have accepted a self defense claim from the guy with the gun. He is brandishing a weapon, the marine is a hero (better yet, a living hero). If Rosenblum (who was not part of the protests) had disarmed Rittenhouse, would he be hailed as a hero who prevented a potential mass shooting by stopping a gunman walking aggressively towards a crowd?

That's very satisfying.

The racial politics get a little silly.

Black Lives matter protests happened when a girl was shot while she was in the process of stabbing another girl. There was criticism of shooting an armed man because he was retreating (even though he didn't drop his weapon).

This is a political game, rather than a rational process.

PolitiFact just keeps on lying. They are now forever known as disinformation peddlers.

PolitiFact doubles down on widely mocked 'fact-check' claiming Rittenhouse's possession of weapon wasn't legal

https://www.foxnews.com/media/politifact-doubles-down-rittenhouse

PolitiFact slammed for ‘fact-check’ on Rittenhouse legally owning gun

https://nypost.com/2021/11/16/politifact-slammed-for-fact-check-on-rittenhouse-legally-owning-gun/

I think that marine guy was an idiot too. If the gun had gone off and killed someone, he would have been responsible for the death. He was a hero because he was lucky. It was still a stupid thing to do.

And if the marine dude had killed the dude with the gun, he wouldn't have been able to claim self-defense either.

Maybe he knew what he was doing. Some marines are like that. And I bet he could have gotten off on a self defense plea.

Really? If that White marine had grabbed that gun and shot a Black robber, you don't think the political left would call for him to be brought to justice?

The political left is making an odd argument here; that you have the right to kill anyone involved in a violent crime. It is a politically expedient argument, the political doesn't really believe it as shown by protests for armed people who have been killed.

lol

You're assuming that Rittenhouse planned to shoot someone and that Rosenblum planned only to disarm him, both facts not in evidence.

Violent leftists scream in the face of a woman to intimidate her for supporting Kyle. They carry signs celebrating pedophile Rosenbaum

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1460736011349082115

George Floyd's nephew on video confirms that jurors have been threatened to convict Kyle

https://twitter.com/jonesdaeshon/status/1460744824932417539

I don't think it matters if he was brandishing (which I don't know). If he was, the crowd would be justified in assuming he was a threat and in using force to defend themselves.

The idea that a "crowd" has the right to attack someone simply because he is "brandishing" a gun is not only legally incorrect (whatever you think of the law, people do have the right to have gun)... It is also categorically stupid.

If the crowd did not attack, no one would have died. The moral of the story is if you see someone walking with a gun, don't attack them.

It is not complicated.

Interesting interviews with people at a gun range.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-black-rifle-coffee-gun-range.html

Media and Biden admin are making fair trials much harder in this country.

Derek Chauvin Legal Defense Fund

[link deleted; Rule 4]

Because I like heroes.

No he doesn't.



Progressive witch-hunting never fails to appall.