I linked to the CNN article that reported the video of a man saying Rittenhouse pointed the AR-15 at him and Rittenhouse saying "Yes, I did" was shown at the trial as part of the Prosecution's case, and that Rittenhouse testified about it on the stand.
Can you repost it?
In any case, if what you say was so convincing, the prosecutor would not have felt the need to try to conjure up corroboration from a pixelated video still. I maintain that the "brandishing" was not demonstrated and should not be stated as fact.
If you feel you must quibble you could at least follow the links and have some idea what you're quibbling about.
It's a long derail of a long thread. Can't have all the links at the ready.
Link to the evidence the car lot owner invited a 17 year old from Illinois to his car lot that night. I suspect you're posting bullshit but I am more than happy to learn more about all the different people who showed extremely poor judgement that night.
Again, why is him living in Illinois seen as such a clincher by the Ilk?
Anyway, see here:
Business Insider said:
Rittenhouse testified that he and Black went downtown because they were invited to guard the Car Source, a Kenosha car dealership, during the unrest and were under the impression they were going to be paid.
The Khindri brothers who own the dealership denied this under oath, but multiple other witnesses testified against them, backing Rittenhouse's version.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn't illegally bring a gun across state lines and 5 other myths surrounding the trial debunked
Is that because unlike Rittenhouse, Martin was unarmed, not inserting himself into a volatile situation or going to a place where rioting was likely to occur, and not doing anything provocative when he was chased down by a man with a documented history of violence? Or is it because Martin was black and therefore cannot get anything close to the same consideration you give to a white teenager?
Yes, one big part of the reason why the two cases are very different is that one of them occurred during a riot. And no, my analysis, unlike yours, has nothing to do with race. Also, I would say opening a can of "whoop ass" on the man he described as a "creepy ass cracker" is definitely provocative, to say the least.
Shall we compare Rittenhouse to Tamir Rice, then?
Why?
Rice had a pellet gun in a park and reportedly he pointed it at someone. You were adamant in your claim that 12 year old Rice should have known how intimidating he looked and was entirely responsible for the cops killing him within 2.5 seconds of arriving on scene. Was 17 year old Rittenhouse responsible for his actions, too, and for the response he got from Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz? If not, why not?
Again, it has not been established that Ritt pointed his gun at anybody. It has been established that Rosenbaum has been belligerent the whole night and certainly did not require such provocation to attack Ritt. Huber smashed his skateboard over Ritt's head and Grosskreutz admitted that he pointed his gun at Ritt first
Somehow me not supporting a complete ban on firearms and the overturning of a fundamental constitutional right fits your description? Please explain.
