Charlie Kirk shot in Utah

[Patooka]

Now there has been a drive-by shooting at Tim Pool's property. Nobody's hurt. Tim Pool isn't even conservative, just a liberal who deviates from the party line and is willing to criticize his own side.

Literally nothing in that statement is even remotely accurate. Well done.

If Tim Pool said it it must be true.

MAGA Star Refuses to Give Cops Footage of Alleged Shooting

Police in West Virginia say they cannot corroborate MAGA podcaster Tim Pool’s claim that he was targeted in a shooting at his home, according to a new report. Pool, a prominent pro-Donald Trump commentator, posted on X on December 6 that a vehicle approached his home and opened fire, though no...

www.yahoo.com

Waiting for Derec to give Tim Pool the Jussie Smollett treatment.

Hey, it could happen.

Well, the beanie is black...

 

[Arctish]

If Tim Pool said it it must be true.

MAGA Star Refuses to Give Cops Footage of Alleged Shooting

Police in West Virginia say they cannot corroborate MAGA podcaster Tim Pool’s claim that he was targeted in a shooting at his home, according to a new report. Pool, a prominent pro-Donald Trump commentator, posted on X on December 6 that a vehicle approached his home and opened fire, though no...

www.yahoo.com

When someone shoots up my place, my first instinct is to not report it and refuse to cooperate with the police.

Why let facts get in the way of a good story?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I forgot, if you don't toe the party line you are absolutely a right-wing extremist Trump supporter. The only way to establish your leftist cred is to never ever criticize anyone else who claims the label.

 

[Patooka]

I forgot, if you don't toe the party line you are absolutely a right-wing extremist Trump supporter. The only way to establish your leftist cred is to never ever criticize anyone else who claims the label.

You're the one who said something so fucking stupid as, "Tim Pool is a liberal". I'm aware that the heat death of the universe will occur before you substantiate such a claim. But don't act so surprised when you assert something so moronic.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I forgot, if you don't toe the party line you are absolutely a right-wing extremist Trump supporter. The only way to establish your leftist cred is to never ever criticize anyone else who claims the label.

Explain what makes Tim Pool anywhere on the left then. It should be simple. And no, it merely just seems like the majority of Pool's views are on the right. Because of stuff he's said. So it gives the impression he's on the right. He may claim he agrees with some leftist views, but that doesn't make him a "leftist" even if he does. This is pretty basic stuff. Just as I wouldn't call a Christian a full blown Christian fundie if they're not a Creationist, and don't believe the government should be based on Christianity. Do I need to even mention this criticism is rich coming from the same people who perceive anything leftist as "wokeness" which must supposedly be weeded out of society?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seeing that this whole Tim Pool "security incident" appears to be made up, it is woefully off-topic for a thread about a commentator that was actually murdered.

 

[Patooka]

Seeing that this whole Tim Pool "security incident" appears to be made up, it is woefully off-topic for a thread about a commentator that was actually murdered.

Considering how much MAGA manufactured and grifted off that white power piece of shit's murder, I'd argue it is entirely appropriate to see and highlight MAGA apologists keeping the grift going.

Totally on topic and especially on brand. To be honest, I'd expect nothing less from a Trump apologist like JH.

 

[Derec]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

I mean in the sense that Joseph Rosenbaum would probably not have attacked him, yes, but the fault still lies with Rosenbaum.

 

[Derec]

Rittenhouse was underage.

Yes. Meaning Ritt was a "child" who was attacked by three adults, one of them a convicted pedophile. And I mean an actual pedophile. Rosenbaum had raped preteen boys.

He could not legally purchase that weapon nor have it in his possession In the state where he lived (Illinois) so he got his friend Dominick Black (recently arrested for armed robbery, btw) who lived in Wisconsin to buy and store it for him.

Yes. He planned to transfer it in his name when he turned 18. What does that have to do with Ritt's self defense against the Antifa assailants?
Btw, how do you know about the robbery?

Black later took a plea deal to avoid prison on two felony counts of intent to deliver a dangerous weapon to a minor.

And he testified for teh Some friend, eh!

The daily protests and nightly rioting had been going on for two days before the night Rittenhouse went to Kenosha ostensibly to visit Black.

Why "ostensibly"? He and his sister (who was dating Black at the time) went to Kenosha to visit Black.

He, Black, and Black's father decided to arm themselves and head downtown to "protect" businesses.

That was the following night. During the day, Ritt helped clean graffiti left by the Jacob Blake rioters.

That is how a teenager who was too young to legally own or carry the weapon he was bradishing wound up shooting an aggressive man (Rosenbaum) that he knew was unarmed but who scared him very badly, and the bystanders who tried stop him in order to prevent more shooting/killing.

Rosenbaum did more than scare him. He chased him, cornered him, and went for his gun. Had Rosenbaum not done this, none of this would have happened.

Rosenbaum was definitely aggressive and Rittenhouse was definitely afraid of him. Witnesses say Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at a group of people

Which witnesses? How reliable are they?

and that appears to be why Rosenbaum shouted "Fuck you!" at Rittenhouse, threw a plastic bag at him and chased him as Rittenhouse ran.

Which means that you acknowledge that Rosenbaum is first to use physical force against Ritt.
Note that Rosenbaum was already agitated and was pushing a burning container, ostensibly to set a building on fire.

The county medical examiner testified it was unclear if Rosenbaum was trying to take Rittenhouse's gun or trying to shove the barrel away when he closed with Rittenhouse.

A witness says that Rosenbaum lunged for the weapon while cursing at Ritt. Even if Rosenbaum was trying to swat the barrel away, he was still the aggressor. It is not on the victim of an attack to have to decide, in real time, what the crazy assailant's plans are.

What's with the cutesy nickname?

It's far shorter than having to type "Rittenhouse" every time.

Rittenhouse fired 4 shots when he was surrounded by people, fatally wounding one of them, ran a short distance and fell, then fired off 2 more rounds at a man trying to stop him, then fatally shot Huber who was trying to disarm him, then he shot Grosskreutz.

And he was acquitted on grounds of self defense on all those counts.

All three of the men Rittenhouse shot at after he shot Rosenbaum were attempting to stop an active shooter who had just killed someone.

Correction: they were attempting to stop whom they thought was an "active shooter", but who in reality was just a kid who defended himself, albeit with deadly force, from a crazy attacker. That why it's important, to paraphrase Ricky Roma, to not act in a situation like this till you know what the shot is. They did not observe the shooting, nor the proceeding confrontation, and had no way of knowing what had happened or if they guy they were chasing and ultimately attacked was a bad guy or not.

Normally in the Right wing blog-o-sphere that would make them heroes

Heroes would be for example people stopping an armed robbery. But they are witnessing the robbery and know "what the shot is". And I hope more than "right wing blog-o-sphere" would applaud them.

but since this happened at a protest in response to an LEO involved killing,

• It was a riot, not a legitimate protest.
• The shooting was justified as the perp was armed with a knife that he refused to drop. Moreover, there were three little children he had no custody of, in the car that was not his and that he was trying to enter
• He did not even die, so why call it a "killing"?

the title of Hero goes to the scared teenaged lawbreaker who got in way over his head, panicked, and killed three people and attempted to kill at least one more.

In self defense.

Grosskreutz was carrying a firearm in order to protect people. Rittenhouse was carrying a firearm in order to protect property.

Where did you get the idea that Grosskreutz was protecting people? And which people? The rioters who were vandalizing property?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

I mean in the sense that Joseph Rosenbaum would probably not have attacked him, yes, but the fault still lies with Rosenbaum.

indeed, Rittenhouse assisted in creating a bullshit situation by open carrying a rifle. He was playing security guard and failed.

As a reminder lots of armed people were there in order to provide 'security' for the local establishments. None of them shot at anyone. Likely because they had some experience with guns.

 

[Arctish]

Rittenhouse was underage.

Yes. Meaning Ritt was a "child" who was attacked by three adults, one of them a convicted pedophile. And I mean an actual pedophile. Rosenbaum had raped preteen boys.

Yes, meaning you agree Rittenhouse did not buy the AR-15 he was carrying that night in Kenosha, he gave his 18 year old friend money to buy it. The weapon was not a gift, but he did get it from Black.

I am aware Rosenbaum was convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor as a result of a plea deal. Rittenhouse could not have known that and Rosenbaum wasn't sexually assaulting him, so it's not all that relevant. What is relevant is that Rosenbaum was being very aggressive that night and Rittenhouse was afraid of him.

He could not legally purchase that weapon nor have it in his possession In the state where he lived (Illinois) so he got his friend Dominick Black (recently arrested for armed robbery, btw) who lived in Wisconsin to buy and store it for him.

Yes. He planned to transfer it in his name when he turned 18. What does that have to do with Ritt's self defense against the Antifa assailants?

You expressed an interest in getting the facts straight. I thought you were being serious.

Btw, how do you know about the robbery?

I looked up the name of Rittenhouse's friend so that I got it right and Google provided links to his recent arrest.

Black later took a plea deal to avoid prison on two felony counts of intent to deliver a dangerous weapon to a minor.

And he testified for teh Some friend, eh!

Yes, some friend. Willing to buy an AR-15 for a teenager and hand it over to him before he's old enough to legally have it in his possession.

Not many people would be willing to break the law just because their 17 year old friend can't wait to get his hands on the weapon most often used in school shootings and other mass killings.

The daily protests and nightly rioting had been going on for two days before the night Rittenhouse went to Kenosha ostensibly to visit Black.

Why "ostensibly"? He and his sister (who was dating Black at the time) went to Kenosha to visit Black.

He, Black, and Black's father decided to arm themselves and head downtown to "protect" businesses.

That was the following night. During the day, Ritt helped clean graffiti left by the Jacob Blake rioters.

That is how a teenager who was too young to legally own or carry the weapon he was bradishing wound up shooting an aggressive man (Rosenbaum) that he knew was unarmed but who scared him very badly, and the bystanders who tried stop him in order to prevent more shooting/killing.

Rosenbaum did more than scare him. He chased him, cornered him, and went for his gun.

That is an assertion, not a known fact. I linked to the testimony of the medical examiner who investigated the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huber. It cannot be determined if Rosenbaum was trying to take the AR-15 or shove the barrel aside when Rittenhouse aimed it at him. Rosenbaum is dead so he's can't say what he was doing and the video evidence is inconclusive.

Had Rosenbaum not done this, none of this would have happened.

Had Rittenhouse not gone to where the protests were taking place, it wouldn't have happened.

Had Black not bought the AR-15 and let Rittenhouse take it, it wouldn't have happened.

Had Rosenbaum smoked pot (Indica, not Sativa) and binge-watched Spongebob Squarepants instead of going out that night, it wouldn't have happened.

Had Joshua Ziminski not fired a shot into the air as Rittenhouse ran from Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse might not have been so convinced he had to shoot Rosenbaum.

But Rittenhouse did get an AR-15 from Black, he did go to where protests had turned into riots on previous nights, he did piss off Rosenbaum and get chased, Rosenbaum did badly frighten a teenager with a military grade rifle, Rittenhouse did open fire, bystanders did try to disarm Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse did fire at them, he did fatally wound Huber and non-fatally wound Grosskreutz, and fortunately missed the unidentified man in light colored jeans who also tried to stop him because he was a danger to the people around him.

Rosenbaum was definitely aggressive and Rittenhouse was definitely afraid of him. Witnesses say Rittenhouse had pointed his gun at a group of people

Which witnesses?

The ones whose testimony was used to support the Prosecution's case.

How reliable are they?

I don't know.

You can do your own research, you know. I have not heard of any witnesses being challenged on the truthfulness of their testimony but if you think any of them aren't credible you can let us know which ones you think we should ignore.

and that appears to be why Rosenbaum shouted "Fuck you!" at Rittenhouse, threw a plastic bag at him and chased him as Rittenhouse ran.

Which means that you acknowledge that Rosenbaum is first to use physical force against Ritt.

I acknowledge that Rosenbaum was being very aggressive that night, that he yelled "Fuck you!" and threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, and that he chased Rittenhouse.

I also acknowledge that Rittenhouse was a scared teenager who was afraid of the aggressive man running after him.

I have reported the allegation that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by pointed his AR-15 in Rosenbaum's direction, and I have been careful to label it an allegation so you don't mischaracterize my post.

Note that Rosenbaum was already agitated and was pushing a burning container, ostensibly to set a building on fire.

I already did note he was being very aggressive that night, which IMO is more pertinent to his running after Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse being afraid of him than his pushing a dumpster with a trash fire inside it earlier.

The county medical examiner testified it was unclear if Rosenbaum was trying to take Rittenhouse's gun or trying to shove the barrel away when he closed with Rittenhouse.

A witness says that Rosenbaum lunged for the weapon while cursing at Ritt. Even if Rosenbaum was trying to swat the barrel away, he was still the aggressor. It is not on the victim of an attack to have to decide, in real time, what the crazy assailant's plans are.

What's with the cutesy nickname?

It's far shorter than having to type "Rittenhouse" every time.

Rittenhouse fired 4 shots when he was surrounded by people, fatally wounding one of them, ran a short distance and fell, then fired off 2 more rounds at a man trying to stop him, then fatally shot Huber who was trying to disarm him, then he shot Grosskreutz.

And he was acquitted on grounds of self defense on all those counts.

All three of the men Rittenhouse shot at after he shot Rosenbaum were attempting to stop an active shooter who had just killed someone.

Correction: they were attempting to stop whom they thought was an "active shooter"

And they were right.

Like it or not, Rittenhouse was the guy with an AR-15 running away from the scene of a fatal shooting who then shot 2 rounds at a man trying to stop him before Huber intervened, and then fatally shot Huber before Grosskreutz tried to stop him as well.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement.

I think you want Rittenhouse to be seen as some kind of hero. You're spinning everything to make him look noble and justified, but he made some very bad choices no doubt due to him thinking and acting like the clueless teenager he was. He brought a weapon he could not legally own or carry, one he had no practice or training to safely handle, into a dangerous situation he was unprepared to face, so he could hang out with a militia that was described by the county sheriff as acting "like a group of vigilantes". Even if he hadn't crossed paths with Rosenbaum he was still breaking the law by carrying that weapon and violating the curfew.

Huber and Grosskreutz were the heroes. They heard the gunshots and people saying someone had just been shot, and saw Rittenhouse use his AR-15 to fire off 2 rounds at the guy in light colored jeans. From their perspective, Rittenhouse was an active shooter. They very bravely tried to stop him before he killed anyone else. Rittenhouse then shot Huber, proving beyond doubt that he was a threat to others, but Grosskreutz still tried to stop him before being shot himself.

, but who in reality was just a kid who defended himself, albeit with deadly force, from a crazy attacker. That why it's important, to paraphrase Ricky Roma, to not act in a situation like this till you know what the shot is. They did not observe the shooting, nor the proceeding confrontation, and had no way of knowing what had happened or if they guy they were chasing and ultimately attacked was a bad guy or not.

There is no time in an active shooter situation to investigate like you suggest. You choices are to either run for cover or try to stop the person(s) doing the shooting.

Normally in the Right wing blog-o-sphere that would make them heroes

Heroes would be for example people stopping an armed robbery. But they are witnessing the robbery and know "what the shot is". And I hope more than "right wing blog-o-sphere" would applaud them.

but since this happened at a protest in response to an LEO involved killing,

• It was a riot, not a legitimate protest.
• The shooting was justified as the perp was armed with a knife that he refused to drop. Moreover, there were three little children he had no custody of, in the car that was not his and that he was trying to enter
• He did not even die, so why call it a "killing"?

That is a valid criticism. I got the shootings and killings mixed up towards the end of that post.

To clarify: the protests and riots were over a LEO involved shooting, Rittenhouse shot at 4 different people, killed two of them, wounded one, and missed the guy wearing light colored jeans.

the title of Hero goes to the scared teenaged lawbreaker who got in way over his head, panicked, and killed three people and attempted to kill at least one more.

In self defense.

Grosskreutz was carrying a firearm in order to protect people. Rittenhouse was carrying a firearm in order to protect property.

Where did you get the idea that Grosskreutz was protecting people? And which people? The rioters who were vandalizing property?

Are you claiming to not know anything about Grosskreutz, or are you trying to construct some kind of warped, fun-house mirror argument where the teenager illegally carrying an AR-15 is a fine upstanding citizen while the paramedic carrying medical supplies and a Glock is hella sus?

I mean, I do see the Ad Hominem by Proxy you put in there but is there another reason you're asking?

 

[Elixir]

I mean, I do see the Ad Hominem by Proxy you put in there but is there another reason you're asking?

Leopards can’t change their spots.
This shit is 100% consistent with all the other apologetics offered by “I’m not a Trumpsucker”s. It’s foolish to expect anything other than this mealy mouthed insinuation-sans-facts.

 

[Derec]

Leopards can’t change their spots.
This shit is 100% consistent with all the other apologetics offered by “I’m not a Trumpsucker”s. It’s foolish to expect anything other than this mealy mouthed insinuation-sans-facts.

Other than cheap insults, you have nothing.

 

[Derec]

indeed, Rittenhouse assisted in creating a bullshit situation by open carrying a rifle. He was playing security guard and failed.

Actually, it is the rioters who created the "bullshit situation". No Kenosha riots, and none of this would have happened.
It's fine to protest, even if your cause is stupid (and Jacob Blake was and remains an idiotic cause). But it is not fine to riot, loot, assault random people, set things on fire, which is what #BLM/Antifa did in Kenosha.
For example: 'Broke his jaw:' Man in his 70s attacked while trying to protect burning Kenosha mattress store

As a reminder lots of armed people were there in order to provide 'security' for the local establishments. None of them shot at anyone. Likely because they had some experience with guns.

They were also not attacked by an unhinged pedo. That's what "self defense" means - you don't respond unless attacked.

 

[Derec]

Yes, meaning you agree Rittenhouse did not buy the AR-15 he was carrying that night in Kenosha, he gave his 18 year old friend money to buy it. The weapon was not a gift, but he did get it from Black.

Of course he bought it. He paid money for a good. But yes, Black was an intermediary.

I am aware Rosenbaum was convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor as a result of a plea deal.

Not just "a minor", but actual children.

9-11 year-olds, dude!

Rittenhouse could not have known that and Rosenbaum wasn't sexually assaulting him, so it's not all that relevant.

Goes to character of the perpetrator. And it's quite rich that the same Ilk that is obsessing over fake "pedophilia" is very dismissive over actual pedophilia when it's an ally who is diddling children.

What is relevant is that Rosenbaum was being very aggressive that night and Rittenhouse was afraid of him.

He was very aggressive that night in general, but he further escalated when he threw a bag at Ritt, chased him between cars and cornered him.

You expressed an interest in getting the facts straight. I thought you were being serious.

I did. Buying is the correct verb here. As in "obtain in exchange for payment".

Yes, some friend. Willing to buy an AR-15 for a teenager and hand it over to him before he's old enough to legally have it in his possession.

I meant him selling his friend down the river. I guess karma caught up with him.

Note also that it is not illegal for a minor teenager to have a gun in his possession, as long as he uses it under supervision. And if #BLM/Antifa had not rioted, that's all Ritt would have done - some supervised target practice. And even carrying it turned out to be legal due to a loophole in Wisconsin law.

Not many people would be willing to break the law just because their 17 year old friend can't wait to get his hands on the weapon most often used in school shootings and other mass killings.

Millions of people use AR15s and similar rifles lawfully. And even among mass shootings, more people use handguns.

If we don't single out mass shootings, and consider all firearm crimes, rifles are used very rarely.
AR15s are demonized without justification.

That is an assertion, not a known fact. I linked to the testimony of the medical examiner who investigated the deaths of Rosenbaum and Huber. It cannot be determined if Rosenbaum was trying to take the AR-15 or shove the barrel aside when Rittenhouse aimed it at him. Rosenbaum is dead so he's can't say what he was doing and the video evidence is inconclusive.

There is drone footage of Rosenbaum chasing Ritt and cornering him between parked cars. There is eyewitness testimony that Rosenbaum then lunged at Ritt. The only thing you are hanging your hat on is whether Rosenbaum intended to grab the barrel or swat it away. But does it even matter? Self-defense is not about hindsight, or mind-reading, but about how a reasonable person would perceive a situation. Most people, not just scared teenagers, would perceive a maniac who throws something at them, chases them, corners them, and lunges at them as a clear and present danger. Rosenbaum also threatened to kill Rittenhouse earlier. That's why Ritt was rightly acquitted.
Witness says the man Kyle Rittenhouse shot had said he would 'fucking kill' them earlier that night

Had Rittenhouse not gone to where the protests were taking place, it wouldn't have happened.
Had Black not bought the AR-15 and let Rittenhouse take it, it wouldn't have happened.
Had Rosenbaum smoked pot (Indica, not Sativa) and binge-watched Spongebob Squarepants instead of going out that night, it wouldn't have happened.

Is there really a difference between Indica and Sativa? The active ingredient is THC is either case, right?
Can I contribute?
Had #BLM/Antifa not rioted, it wouldn't have happened.
Had Jacob Blake dropped the knife as ordered, it wouldn't have happened.
Had Jacob Blake not tried to steal his ex's SUV and kidnap their children, it wouldn't have happened.

Had Joshua Ziminski not fired a shot into the air as Rittenhouse ran from Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse might not have been so convinced he had to shoot Rosenbaum.

That's an interesting counterfactual. I don't think so though, unless that shot triggered Rosenbaum to attack Rittenhouse. But the shot itself does not change the sequence of what Rosenbaum did to effect his own demise, starting with threatening to kill Ritt if he ever got him alone.

But Rittenhouse did get an AR-15 from Black, he did go to where protests had turned into riots on previous nights, he did piss off Rosenbaum and get chased, Rosenbaum did badly frighten a teenager with a military grade rifle,

Pretty much everybody pissed off Rosenbaum that night. And the AR15 is not a "military grade rifle". If you want to claim that it is because it's based on a firearm originally designed for the military, sure, but so are many firearms, including hunting rifles and even handguns.

Rittenhouse did open fire, bystanders did try to disarm Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse did fire at them, he did fatally wound Huber and non-fatally wound Grosskreutz, and fortunately missed the unidentified man in light colored jeans who also tried to stop him because he was a danger to the people around him.

The mob may have perceived him as a danger, but he only shot at people who attacked him. Huber for example hit him with a skateboard.

The ones whose testimony was used to support the Prosecution's case.

This article is about ADA's closing statements, not about any witness testimony. Swing and a miss.

You can do your own research, you know.

You are the one claiming this witness testimony, but you only provided ADA's closing statements.

I have not heard of any witnesses being challenged on the truthfulness of their testimony but if you think any of them aren't credible you can let us know which ones you think we should ignore.

First you'd have to show me some of those alleged witnesses. I know the hipster doofus ADA tried to use a very low res video still to show this, but I do not think the still showed what he claimed it did. We discussed that at length during the original thread as the trial was unfolding.

I acknowledge that Rosenbaum was being very aggressive that night, that he yelled "Fuck you!" and threw a plastic bag at Rittenhouse, and that he chased Rittenhouse.

He also cornered him and lunged at him. Oh, and he also threatened to kill him.

I also acknowledge that Rittenhouse was a scared teenager who was afraid of the aggressive man running after him.

Being a teenager does not mean one does not have the right to self defense. We have a grown-ass man threatening a teenager, and then attacking him. You are saying he should not have defended himself?

I have reported the allegation that Rittenhouse provoked Rosenbaum by pointed his AR-15 in Rosenbaum's direction, and I have been careful to label it an allegation so you don't mischaracterize my post.

Yes, the claim was made by the ADA. I am not aware of any witness testimony to that effect, and you have not provided any.

I think this is the crux of our disagreement.
I think you want Rittenhouse to be seen as some kind of hero.

Not a hero, but not a villain either. He acted foolishly for going to the riot. I think his heart was in the right place, thinking he could help, just like he helped clean up graffiti left by #BLM/Antifa. He should not have gone there, but that does not mean he did not have the right to defend himself when attacked.

You're spinning everything to make him look noble and justified, but he made some very bad choices no doubt due to him thinking and acting like the clueless teenager he was.

Justified, yes. Noble, no. And yes, of course he made some bad choices. That does not mean he forfeits his right to self-defense.

He brought a weapon he could not legally own or carry,

It turns out that there was a loophole.

one he had no practice or training to safely handle,

We do not know how much practice or training he had with this and similar weapons.
We know that he only fired at those attacking him, and did not do something clearly reckless like shooting into the air (what goes up must come down, unless it has escape velocity) or having finger on the trigger while pointing a rifle at the jury.

into a dangerous situation he was unprepared to face, so he could hang out with a militia that was described by the county sheriff as acting "like a group of vigilantes". Even if he hadn't crossed paths with Rosenbaum he was still breaking the law by carrying that weapon and violating the curfew.

Everybody there was violating curfew. More than a few were carrying weapons.

Huber and Grosskreutz were the heroes.

Not even remotely!

They heard the gunshots and people saying someone had just been shot, and saw Rittenhouse use his AR-15 to fire off 2 rounds at the guy in light colored jeans. From their perspective, Rittenhouse was an active shooter. They very bravely tried to stop him before he killed anyone else. Rittenhouse then shot Huber, proving beyond doubt that he was a threat to others, but Grosskreutz still tried to stop him before being shot himself.

As you admit, they did not see the Rosenbaum shooting. They just attacked Ritt because the mob was following him. That's not heroism, that's reckless stupidity.

There is no time in an active shooter situation to investigate like you suggest. You choices are to either run for cover or try to stop the person(s) doing the shooting.

I agree that there is no time. So unless you are sure what's happening, don't intervene. Get behind some cover, get out of the danger zone, but don't assume what you don't know.

That is a valid criticism. I got the shootings and killings mixed up towards the end of that post.

Fair enough.

To clarify: the protests and riots were over a LEO involved shooting, Rittenhouse shot at 4 different people, killed two of them, wounded one, and missed the guy wearing light colored jeans.

All in self-defense. The skateboard attack for example could have left him with a subdural hemorrhage or some other cranial injury.

Are you claiming to not know anything about Grosskreutz,

I know he had a lengthy rap sheet, including for violent crime, and that he was part of a far-left group "People's Revolution". He also hails from Milwaukee, some 50 miles away, and has afaik no links to Kenosha, which means that he presumably went to Kenosha just to participate in the riots.

or are you trying to construct some kind of warped, fun-house mirror argument where the teenager illegally carrying an AR-15 is a fine upstanding citizen while the paramedic carrying medical supplies and a Glock is hella sus?

Ritt was also carrying medical supplies. But yes, there is a fun-house mirror aspect of this, in that a lot of attacks leveled at Ritt apply far more to Grosskreutz. For example, Ritt is accused of being from out of area, but while he had links to Kenosha, and was visiting a friend when the rioting broke out. Grosskreutz is from Milwaukee, more than twice as far away, and he presumably came to Kenosha with the express purpose of participating in the riots. Both were armed, of course, but only Grosskreutz has had a criminal record as of the events of August 2020.

I mean, I do see the Ad Hominem by Proxy you put in there but is there another reason you're asking?

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[Emily Lake]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

If she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have gotten herself raped?

 

[Arctish]

Yes, meaning you agree Rittenhouse did not buy the AR-15 he was carrying that night in Kenosha, he gave his 18 year old friend money to buy it. The weapon was not a gift, but he did get it from Black.

Of course he bought it. He paid money for a good. But yes, Black was an intermediary.

I don't know why you are doubling down on Rittenhouse's criminal activities but fine, we'll go with that.

Kyle Rittenhouse conspired with Dominick Black to illegally purchased an AR-15 which he then illegally carried after curfew on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin during a multi-day protest that became rioting at night in an apparent attempt to bolster a militia that was trying to exert an authority they did not lawfully possess.

If he was a black male teenager you'd call that proof he was a thug, that he knowingly and deliberately provoked the white guy who bravely chased after him and unjustifiably shot the white guys who tried to disarm him. I'm not certain you'd be calling for the death penalty but I wouldn't be surprised if you did.

I am aware Rosenbaum was convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor as a result of a plea deal.

Not just "a minor", but actual children.

9-11 year-olds, dude!

Rosenbaum pled guilty to two counts of sexual conduct with a minor.

Are you interested in getting the facts straight or do you just want to stand on your soapbox and rant?

Rittenhouse could not have known that and Rosenbaum wasn't sexually assaulting him, so it's not all that relevant.

Goes to character of the perpetrator. And it's quite rich that the same Ilk that is obsessing over fake "pedophilia" is very dismissive over actual pedophilia when it's an ally who is diddling children.

Okay, soapbox it is.

Have fun with your strawmen spouting Ad Hominems.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

If she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have gotten herself raped?

That is pathetic! Are you for real? The parallel fails on several fronts. Most importantly, the issue of the third party HARMING the first party. Your ridiculous rape comment would be the exact opposite of that. A woman third party that is standing somewhere is generally not going to be considered a threat to someone's life. Where as a person who fits the profile of many many mass shooters open carrying a rifle can reasonably be considered threatening.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

indeed, Rittenhouse assisted in creating a bullshit situation by open carrying a rifle. He was playing security guard and failed.

Actually, it is the rioters who created the "bullshit situation". No Kenosha riots, and none of this would have happened.
It's fine to protest, even if your cause is stupid (and Jacob Blake was and remains an idiotic cause). But it is not fine to riot, loot, assault random people, set things on fire, which is what #BLM/Antifa did in Kenosha.

I doubt very much had Rittenhouse done what he did, but in a hospital as a medical provider, you be making the same defenses? Well yes, he wasn't technically trained to perform surgery, but the victim... So why are you cloaking his utterly unqualified position as a peacekeeper?

I haven't provided much defense for the armed people. A lot of people made some really bad decisions that night. But for some reason, you feel the need to defend Rittenhouse, who has shown no remorse for his reckless actions. To me, his actions after the killings speaks extremely poor of himself.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

If Rittenhouse was just walking through the crowd unarmed, his life likely would never have been in danger.

If she hadn't been wearing such a short skirt she wouldn't have gotten herself raped?

That is pathetic! Are you for real? The parallel fails on several fronts. Most importantly, the issue of the third party HARMING the first party. Your ridiculous rape comment would be the exact opposite of that. A woman third party that is standing somewhere is generally not going to be considered a threat to someone's life. Where as a person who fits the profile of many many mass shooters open carrying a rifle can reasonably be considered threatening.

What has the world come to when people feel threatened by a strange person walking around with an assailt rifle?! It's unfathomable!