Current Events > So the 3 people Rittenhouse shot attacked him first?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Was googling this to see what the facepalming pics are about

---

unless Im wrong the EMT said he pointed his gun at Kyle thinking he was an active shooter.

I wouldnt call that attacking him but I could be wrong if someone has more information on it.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

unless Im wrong the EMT said he pointed his gun at Kyle thinking he was an active shooter.

I wouldnt call that attacking him but I could be wrong if someone has more information on it.

Does this guy have selective vision or something?

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

unless Im wrong the EMT said he pointed his gun at Kyle thinking he was an active shooter.

I wouldnt call that attacking him but I could be wrong if someone has more information on it.

We have footage of Rittenhouse telling Grosskreutz that he shot Rosenbaum and was going to the police to turn himself in.

Not much of an active shooter.

---

Flauros posted...

Does this guy have selective vision or something?

who, the EMT? No clue, Im guessing he came in the middle of it though.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

unless Im wrong the EMT said he pointed his gun at Kyle thinking he was an active shooter.

I wouldnt call that attacking him but I could be wrong if someone has more information on it.

..As I understand it..
Effectively there were two events.
The one with the plastic bag, and then the events that occurred following, further down the street.
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

We have footage of Rittenhouse telling Grosskreutz that he shot Rosenbaum and was going to the police to turn himself in.

Not much of an active shooter.

but did the EMT attack him? I havent really found much on that yet but I havent had a ton of time to go through it all.

---

SiO4 posted...

..As I understand it..
Effectively there were two events.
The one with the plastic bag, and then the events that occurred following, further down the street.

ya thats my understanding as well so far.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

but did the EMT attack him? I havent really found much on that yet but I havent had a ton of time to go through it all.

He chased him with the rest of the mob and drew his pistol on him. After Rittenhouse shot Huber, Grosskreutz approached him with the pistol in his hand. Rittenhouse points the rifle at the ground. Grosskreutz then points his pistol at Rittenhouse and Rittenhouse raises his rifle and blows off Grosskreutz's bicep.

You may have seen an amusing image of the prosecution facepalming. It was taken when the defense asked Grosskreutz if it was correct that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he pointed his pistol at him. Grosskreutz said yes.

---

Zeeak4444 posted...

but did the EMT attack him? I havent really found much on that yet but I havent had a ton of time to go through it all.

It sounds like he was raising his hands to the "don't shoot" gesture and one of them had a gun in it that, to Kyle, looked like it was being aimed at him, so he shot the guy

---

This testimony is going on right now...maybe set it back a few minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndoFLbOgs4Y
---

ThePrinceFish posted...

He chased him with the rest of the mob and drew his pistol on him.

No, he approached him with his hands up like he wasn't a threat, then when rittenhouse put down his rifle, he drew his gun.



Also in another video he was running with his hand in his waistband


EDIT: He is a fucking idiot for going to the protests and carrying a gun given to him by his sister's boyfriend (a resident of Wisconsin) and he should definitely face penalties for breaking the law in that instance. In my opinion, he should not have been there. Legally, there is nothing that states he wasn't allowed to be there. All things aside, if he were one year older, this entire situation would not be up for debate in the manner it is today. There was no law preventing people from open carrying at the protests at the age of 18. There is no law that an 18 year-old non-resident cannot open carry a rifle in Wisconsin. He is guilty of carrying a rifle under the age legally allowed by the State of Wisconsin. And being a fucking idiot. The trial will determine everything else.

---

The kicker is all three of the so called "victims" were criminals. Grosskreutz is a convicted of felony burglary, which means he was illegally possessing a firearm. Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile and Huber was a wife beater with a history of stalking.

Not exactly people that were just innocently setting dumpsters on fire in protest of police violence halfway across the country.

---

Tropicalwood posted...

The kicker is all three of the so called "victims" were criminals. Grosskreutz is a convicted of felony burglary, which means he was illegally possessing a firearm. Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile and Huber was a wife beater with a history of stalking.

Not exactly people that were just innocently setting dumpsters on fire in protest of police violence halfway across the country.

But that doesnt fit with the narrative that was immediately put out there by so many people. How so?

---

Tropicalwood posted...

The kicker is all three of the so called "victims" were criminals. Grosskreutz is a convicted of felony burglary, which means he was illegally possessing a firearm. Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile and Huber was a wife beater with a history of stalking.

Not exactly people that were just innocently setting dumpsters on fire in protest of police violence halfway across the country.

Yeah, they were bad people, but that has zero relevance to the case unless Rittenhouse knew they were bad people in which case he'd be a vigilante.

Rittenhouse also physically assaulted a young girl like a month earlier, which also has zero relevance to the events of that night (unless in some big plot twist reveal we find out Rosenbaum was the distant cousin of the girl and he recognized Kyle and was trying to avenge her)

---

This is why I disagree with letting people open carry en masse... Not that Kyle was legally permitted to open carry any way since he was 17. The guy essentially thought there was an active shooter, so he approached Kyle with that in his mind.

In a situation where there IS an active shooter, the last thing I want to be is a black man holding a gun in the area.

---

Holy shit the Judge was just browsing a Christmas Cookies Catalog.

For real.
---

SiO4 posted...

Holy shit the Judge was just browsing a Christmas Cookies Catalog.

For real.

...during the break,

---

So how much does the time and distance he drove with a loaded gun play into this? Because from my point of view, I don't see how anything else matters. I just don't see how you can grab your gun, load it, drive for 30 minutes to go stand in front of people that you clearly want to shoot, and not have it be premeditated murder. That's the part I just can't get over. If it happened on his front lawn and he was just reacting organically to a shitty situation, I could understand all this bullshit about who shot first or whatever. This just seems like someone who wanted to murder people though idk, not someone in self-defense mode.

---

nexigrams posted...

So how much does the time and distance he drove with a loaded gun play into this? Because from my point of view, I don't see how anything else matters. I just don't see how you can grab your gun, load it, drive for 30 minutes to go stand in front of people that you clearly want to shoot, and not have it be premeditated murder. That's the part I just can't get over. If it happened on his front lawn and he was just reacting organically to a shitty situation, I could understand all this bullshit about who shot first or whatever. This just seems like someone who wanted to murder people though idk, not someone in self-defense mode.

I know what you mean. In a similar vein you cant protect property over life.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/939/iii/49

(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.

As is the case most places. So crossing state lines with an illegally possessed weapon, to protect property, should in itself be the root factor here.

but from my understanding, the act of self defense is isolated from anything prior, which doesnt make sense to me but thats why I dont practice law. In that context, I was clearly wrong in my initial posts, @ThePrinceFish was right.

But Im with you Nexi, it seems like him being in that position is wonton endangerment but clearly that isnt the case I guess.

---

BeyondWalls posted...

...during the break,

Not exactly fitting for someone who is supposed to preside over such a trial, and that everyone has to treat like a Priest when they are in the courtroom.
---

Tropicalwood posted...

The kicker is all three of the so called "victims" were criminals. Grosskreutz is a convicted of felony burglary, which means he was illegally possessing a firearm. Rosenbaum was a convicted pedophile and Huber was a wife beater with a history of stalking.

Not exactly people that were just innocently setting dumpsters on fire in protest of police violence halfway across the country.

Actually the kicker is that 0% of this is relevant to what happened on the night in question.

---

Hexenherz posted...

Actually the kicker is that 0% of this is relevant to what happened on the night in question.

Well its not relevant in the way that they deserved it but there wasnt a better suited group of people for trying to kill someone for putting out fires.