Rittenhouse trial

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Yama said:

What I don't do is to go to another state/city/county with my gun so I can patrol there in a subway and possibly get into fatal altercations.

Right. So there is unrest in your neighboring town. Problems. What ever. You won't go there because if the magical powers of borders. Even though you already work there. 

6 hours ago, Yama said:

Again, your analogy is completely fallacious.

I am trying to illustrate to you that your entire concept is wrong. You have no police training. What are you supposed to do in any situation? Stand there with your dick in your hands is what I guess your view is. 

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Yama said:

No, shooting two people is the same - well, actually, worse.

Again, Rittenhouse was the ONLY one who caused fatal casualties during the unrest. Nobody else killed anyone - not the armed protesters, not the armed civilians protecting property, not the cops, not the National Guard. Not even the guy Rittenhouse was with, who was also armed and witnessed the same events which led to the shooting. Only him, because he was too inexperienced and immature and got into situation where he panicked.

Asserting that he panicked is observably wrong considering he survived his attackers. 
 

What do you think Rosenbaum was going to do? Give him hugs?

 

The 71 year old man beaten to an inch if his life the night before didn't have a gun when he tried to put out the fires at the place he worked. Is that a win for you? 

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Yama said:

And there is it! Thank you.

FWIW, what I have observed, Antifa is about as popular brand name within the left as Neo-Nazi are within the right.

More. We have an multiple political parties across multiple nations  giving them a pass, including people here. With  rioting and political violence condoned for multiple decades across multiple countries. Black Block has been active at WTO conferences for more than 20 years.  

the oast year has seen more than $2 billion in rioting damage. 

But here in the US some parents get mad about a child being raped at school and the FBI has to get involved immediately. 

[DKTanker]

41 minutes ago, rmgill said:

here in the US some parents get mad about a child being raped at school and the FBI has to get involved immediately. 

To silence the outraged parents.

[rmgill]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Hang on, lets get this straight. If you THINK something is legal, than it is? 

No. That is not what I wrote. What I pointed out is that laws in free societies by default restrcit certain behaviors. You don't have laws that grant you specific allowance to do things the state allows and decides is ok for you to do. 

Thus you have laws that specifically enjoin you from certain actins RATHER than having laws that grant you specific permission. 

for example, there's a law that says you are not allowed to go break into your neighbor's kitchen to drink their tea. That'd be breaking and entering and theft. 

There is NOT a law that has to exist to grant you specific permission to drink tea in YOUR kitchen. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think we have already established that isnt exactly true by the fact he is on trial.

He's on trial because of political reasons. Pure and simple. You yourself substantiate this with your citations and bolded bits for the most part. 

 Look at any number of legal blogs, they're all wondering what the hell case the state has. Because when one of the "victims" testified, it became clear there was no case. Video evidence made it clear that there was no case. 

A convicted child molester chased a 17 year old down after making multiple terroristic threats that if he catches any of them alone he will kill them. Multiple times you can see Rosenbaum being quite observably unhinged. Everything else falls from that specific instance. 
 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think the law is pretty clear in your country and mine, that it insists people know whether something is legal or not, and that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.

The law must also be clear, and it's a clear fact of US law that laws that are not clear must be decided for in favor of the defendant. In this case, the law relating to carrying of dangerous weapons is NOT clear. Several Lawyers I know who have tried cases on this sort of stuff say the law is unclear. You've not even read the whole statute through as far as I know, and I doubt you had even glanced at it before I cited it here. Your assertion that it is a clear statute is exactly nothing. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

You cannot use the argument 'oh, I didnt know it was a restricted parking area officer' and get off without a ticket. 'Oh im sorry officer, I didnt know urinating in public was illegal'. 'Oh sorry officer, public fornication in the shopping mall in opening hours isnt permitted? Who would have known?' You know this. You dont need me to point this out to you.

You know what's funny. I have been in TWO cases where the police didn't understand the law. You know what the judge did when that point was reached in the assertions by the police? In the first case he dismissed it without further discussion. The look he gave the officer could curl paint. In the other the county kept pushing, we were going for sanctions. It cost me $5000 plus a very nice rifle given to my attorney as a bonus. But the key facts of the case was that the county was making up law and asserting it as fact. 

In a free society, Laws must be clearly articulated. They cannot be secret. They cannot be arbitrary. Where they ARE confusing and the courts find them so, the state must find in favor of defendants. This is a basic set of constitutional principles. 

 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This felony charge is connected to the death of Joseph Rosenbaum, the first man Rittenhouse shot. Bystander video shows Rosenbaum chasing Rittenhouse through a parking lot and throwing a plastic bag at him. Rittenhouse flees behind a car and Rosenbaum follows. No video of the moment Rittenhouse pulled the trigger has surfaced yet, if any exists. Richard McGinnis, a reporter who was trailing Rittenhouse, told investigators that Rosenbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse’s gun, according to the criminal complaint.

Reckless homicide differs from intentional homicide in that prosecutors aren’t alleging Rittenhouse intended to murder Rosenbaum. Instead, they’re alleging Rittenhouse caused Rosenbaum’s death by showing an utter disregard for human life.

Which is bull crap. Rittenhouse was FLEEING from Rosenbaum. How is that reckless? Is it because he's armed? Anytime any defendant shoots a person and they're armed, even if being attacked makes it reckless? That's a clown shoes argument. 

The key facts based on testimony are:

Rosenbaum - "If I catch you alone, I will kill you." The State's witness made this assertion. This is Jeopardy.
Rosenbaum was a larger man by size, angry and was attempting to take Rittenhouse's firearm. This is ability. 
Rosenbaum has cornered Rittenhouse and was in the act of taking Rittenhouse's firearm. This is opportunity. 

These are standard elements of self defense. Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. 

The reckless homicide assertion is bullcrap again. Here's why:
940.02  First-degree reckless homicide.
(1)  Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class B felony.

Scroll down to the little bit of fine print and history. 
Note this bit:
 

Utter disregard for human life is an objective standard of what a reasonable person in the defendant's position is presumed to have known and is proved through an examination of the acts that caused death and the totality of the circumstances surrounding the conduct. State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2171.

The cited case of State v Edmunds was a case of shaken baby syndrome. The baby had " example, she had extensive retinal hemorrhaging of both eyes; retinal 73*73 folds, due to the retinas being torn from the backs of her eyes; bruising on her scalp from an impact injury; and extensive subdural and subaracnoid hemorrhages." The mother wasn't trying to kill the baby, but committed acts that were very likely to result in injury. 

That's an example of reckless homicide so clear that it's in the fine print for the law in question. 

Rittenhouse shooting Rosenbuam wasn't reckless Homcide. It was a deliberate defensive act. If he had Chased Rosenbaum down, that would have been some degree of murder. It wasn't. Rosenbaum was the aggressor. 
 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Former Waukesha County District Attorney Paul Bucher said prosecutors’ decision to charge reckless instead of intentional homicide shows they don’t know what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum and what might have been going through Rittenhouse’s mind when he pulled the trigger.

THEIR OWN WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT ROSENBUAM HAD MADE TERRORISTIC THREATS! There was video of the guy being unhinged? 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESSLY ENDANGERING SAFETY, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This felony charge is also connected to the Rosenbaum shooting. McGinnis told investigators he was in the line of fire when Rittenhouse shot Rosenbaum. The charge is punishable by 12 1/2 years in prison. The weapons modifier carries another five years.

Given the circumstances, I don't think this carries water. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

FIRST-DEGREE INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE, USE OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON

This charge is connected to Anthony Huber’s death. Video shows Rittenhouse running down the street after shooting Rosenbaum when he falls to the street. Huber leaps at him and swings a skateboard at his head and neck and tries to grab Rittenhouse’s gun before Rittenhouse fires. The criminal complaint alleges Rittenhouse aimed the weapon at Huber.

Yes. Rightly so. The Skateboard attack is a deliberate and clear attempt to severely harm Rittenhouse. Again, Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. 

 

 

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.

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 his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

Rittenhouse was running TOWARDS the cops and away from Huber when he was attacked by Huber and others. Huber had no cause to attempt to brain Rittenhouse with a skate board. 
 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Intentional homicide means just that — a person killed someone and meant to do it. Bucher said that if Rittenhouse pointed the gun at Rosenbaum and pulled the trigger that would amount to intentional homicide. However, self-defense would trump the charge.

I am pretty sure that Rittenhouse and his attorney asserted self defense. 

It would be up to the state to show that Rosenbaum was NOT intent on causing harm to Rittenhouse. Their own witness again, put that argument to rest. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This is the charge for Rittenhouse shooting Gaige Grosskreutz in the arm seconds after he shot Huber, and as Grosskreutz came toward him holding a pistol. Grosskreutz survived. Video shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at Grosskreutz and firing a single round.

Yes. Again. State's own witness Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until he pointed his own gun at Rittenhouse. 

AGAIN. Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Video shows an unknown man leaping at Rittenhouse and trying to kick him seconds before Huber moves his skateboard toward him. Rittenhouse appears to fire two rounds at the man but apparently misses as the man runs away.

Standard fact of US law. Someine kicking you in the head or TRYING to kick you in the head is trying to do great bodily injury or death to you. That's a deadly force situation. PERIOD.

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. 

 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS WEAPON BY A PERSON UNDER 18

Rittenhouse was armed with an AR-style semiautomatic rifle. He was 17 years old on the night of the shootings. Wisconsin law prohibits minors from possessing firearms except for hunting.
 

The underlined bit is wrong. 

I'd really like you to post the text of the statute and explain it though. 

 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The charge is a misdemeanor punishable by up to nine months behind bars.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN EMERGENCY ORDER FROM STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Ok. So he pays the fine and goes home. Never mind that there's video from the night showing the Police THANKING them for being there. 

How many OTHER folks were cited under this including ALL of the state's witnesses who were there and the state called to testify? Were they charged? 

What does arbitrary and capricious mean to you? 

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

I think he will almost certainly walk. I even think he should walk. He will probably get community service for the ownership of the rifle, and he will get a fine.

What isnt directly punishible is stupidity. If Stupidity was a crime, he would be facing the chair. Darwinism should have consequences.

 

Yes. And Rosenbaum won't have the ability to have kids and molest them. Huber won't have a chance to abuse a spouse again. That's your Darwinism right there. 

[DKTanker]

46 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Asserting that he panicked is observably wrong considering he survived his attackers. 

More than that.  If one is being objective, he not only survived his attackers but he was very discriminate with his shots.  He had a 30 round magazine, eight casings were found, and 22 rounds remained in the magazine.  Four shots for Rosenbaum, two misses and one through the heart of Skater Boi Huber, and one shot for Grosskreutz.  For somebody that was panicking, that's some pretty restrained shooting. 

Compare and contrast to many LEO incidents when multiples of 10 shots are fired to bring down one perp.

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Other people have been shot dead in the course of the BLM protests.

 

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Some in more (the guy who was killed by a driver straying towards a march for pointing an AK at him)

Let's test something. If myself and 5 other people arm ourselves and we stand across a roadway are we protesting when we point weapons at drivers? 

No. That's not protesting.

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

or less (the TV security type who shot a pro-Trump protester for pointing a mace can at him) justifyable self-defense,

Was it? Has that been established? 

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

 It probably all goes to show that you shouldn't bring guns to a protest; but again, once a self-defense situation occurs, the legitimacy of use is divorced from whether you should have done, or even been there.

Funny. A lot of cops bring firearms to protests, riots, etc. 

These weren't protests. They were riots. You SHOULD bring guns to riots if you're trying to protect property and life. PERIOD. The best bet is to not be there. But there's little long term reward for society by just asserting that the victims of the rioters should just lie down and take it. 

 

4 hours ago, BansheeOne said:

Yeah, it's likely nobody would have gotten killed that night if Rittenhouse hadn't brought a rifle,

Again, Considering the Robert Cobb was beaten to an inch of his life the night before. This is a foolish assertion. 

It would be fair to say that if the police had not responded and the residents and owners had cleared out of the area of the rioting, then noone would have gotten killed or harmed. BUT that's ceding ground to the rioters. 
 

[rmgill]

13 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

More than that.  If one is being objective, he not only survived his attackers but he was very discriminate with his shots.  He had a 30 round magazine, eight casings were found, and 22 rounds remained in the magazine.  Four shots for Rosenbaum, two misses and one through the heart of Skater Boi Huber, and one shot for Grosskreutz.  For somebody that was panicking, that's some pretty restrained shooting. 

Compare and contrast to many LEO incidents when multiples of 10 shots are fired to bring down one perp.

This. 

How many trained and vetted individuals have the trigger discipline of a Wheelchair bound Don Hector Salamanca?

This itself seems to fly in the face of the "reckless" argument. He showed restraint. He didn't verbally spar with the protestors/rioters. He didn't shoot anyone with a weapon. He attacked folks who were directly attacking him only. 




Meanwhile, I fear that Antifa is going to be pulling out the stops to threaten the jury. 

Tim Pool and others have already pointed out that the Jury is being photographed. 

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmgill

[DKTanker]

2 minutes ago, rmgill said:

at Antifa is going to be pulling out the stops to threaten the jury. 

Tim Pool and others have already pointed out that the Jury is being photographed. 

The most obvious reason why there should be a directed verdict.

[MiloMorai]

9 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Meanwhile, I fear that Antifa is going to be pulling out the stops to threaten the jury. 

Tim Pool and others have already pointed out that the Jury is being photographed. 

Why can't it be those of the Right? It is the Right that are harassing and threatening election officials because they didn't go along with Trump's Big Lie.

[DKTanker]

Rittenhouse defense team trying to sabotage their obvious winning hand?  Rittenhouse is currently on the stand.

 

[glenn239]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 Cant see endangerment, he only seems to have shot the people he intended to. Cant see Reckless homicide, evidence has been given he was acting in self defence, and no evidence of the act anyway. Second Homicide, again, self defence. He was clearly being attacked, even with a half assed weapon. Attempted homicide, he only shot once and the guy lived. He could have given a double tap (heck any 17 year old playing Rainbow 6 knows that one). He showed restraint, not   shooting everyone around him which he clearly could have done. Endangering safety of a guy trying to kick him? Yeah right. All those I cant see him going to jail for. The last two, I dont see he has a leg to stand on.

I think he will almost certainly walk. I even think he should walk. He will probably get community service for the ownership of the rifle, and he will get a fine.

What isnt directly punishible is stupidity. If Stupidity was a crime, he would be facing the chair. Darwinism should have consequences.

 

I agree with everything you've said here.  

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, rmgill said:

Asserting that he panicked is observably wrong considering he survived his attackers. 

Have they identified who was yelling to "cranium that boy" yet?   That one might have contributed to the demise of Darwin Award winner no.2 (Skeeter boi) and the wounding of Darwin Honourable Mention no. 1.   He should be facing charges, should he not, or is instructing a mob to murder a boy legal in the US these days?

Edited November 10, 2021 by glenn239

[DKTanker]

Didn't realize that skater boi had struck him with the skate board, dropped it, picked it back up, and continued chasing Rittenhouse until Rittenhouse tripped, whereupon skater boi hit him over the head with the skateboard and paid for it with a heart shot.  Also during that run we now learn Rittenhouse was also struck in the back of the head by a thrown object.

[rmgill]

Weak sauce if two homicides and an agg assault case turn into a simple possession charge. 
 

But why put him on the stand.  

[DKTanker]

30 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Weak sauce if two homicides and an agg assault case turn into a simple possession charge. 
 

But why put him on the stand.  

Reckless endangerment by the defense team.  

If you aren't watching the trial, the judge admonished the prosecution for an unconstitutional line of questioning about Rittenhouse remaining silent.  And just a few minutes ago, different line of questioning, the defense team suggested they would be considering a request for a mistrial with prejudice whereupon the judge tore the prosecution a new ass.  Though he didn't grant the mistrial

[R011]

10 hours ago, Yama said:

No, shooting two people is the same - well, actually, worse.

Again, Rittenhouse was the ONLY one who caused fatal casualties during the unrest. Nobody else killed anyone - not the armed protesters, not the armed civilians protecting property, not the cops, not the National Guard. Not even the guy Rittenhouse was with, who was also armed and witnessed the same events which led to the shooting. Only him, because he was too inexperienced and immature and got into situation where he panicked.

Worse than being beaten to death or shot by criminals?  Exactly what was irresponsible or immature about being chased by an individual obviously meaning to do him serious harm?  What experience would have allowed him to do something different?

As for the police not shooting anyone, they weren't doing anything at all to stop the rioting or protect people being assaulted.

[R011]

2 hours ago, MiloMorai said:

Why can't it be those of the Right? It is the Right that are harassing and threatening election officials because they didn't go along with Trump's Big Lie.

Given the left have already threatened to dox the jurors if they don't find Rittenhouse guilty it's not jumping to conclusions to suspect that's why the jurors were being videoed.

[Yama]

4 hours ago, DKTanker said:

Give us one example, just one, of a US politician of the left condemning ANTIFA.  What's fascinating about the ANTIFA paradigm is the amount of fascism being perpetrated by the so called anti-fascists.

Obviously haven't been following about Antifa activities across the pond, but it took me 2 seconds to find an example:

"August 29, 2017

Press Release

San Francisco -- Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:

"Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts.  The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted."

It is blatantly obvious that lot of the 'Antifa activists' are just Black Bloc people wearing a new hat, and most politicians steer clear from that sort of thing.

[DKTanker]

7 minutes ago, Yama said:

Obviously haven't been following about Antifa activities across the pond, but it took me 2 seconds to find an example:

"August 29, 2017

Press Release

San Francisco -- Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement denouncing the violent protests carried out this weekend in Berkeley, California:

"Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts.  The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted."

It is blatantly obvious that lot of the 'Antifa activists' are just Black Bloc people wearing a new hat, and most politicians steer clear from that sort of thing.

This after 4 months of violence and mayhem and mounting political pressure to do so.  Did she see fit to do so when her colleagues were bailing those same people out of jail?  Her speech was no different than Sinn Fein admonishing the IRA after a bombing.  Both parties know it is only lip service being offered as a political expediency.  But yeah, you got me, Queen Nancy made a political statement of admonishment long after cities had been burned and people killed.

[Yama]

10 hours ago, Ssnake said:

You're getting worked up about others mind-reading you when you were the one to start the mind-reading - specifically, divining Rittenhouse's intentions. Your indignancy appears to me as an attempt to deflect from the fact that you haven't yet provided even a single indication in support of your rather severe assertion that Rittenhouse fully intended to get himself attacked in pursuit of his ultimate goal, to shoot people.

His intentions are not actually terribly relevant. I don't think he went in expecting to gun down people. But by bringing in a lethal firearm without maturity, training or experience to handle situations by other means than shooting people dead, his actions directly led to deaths which were otherwise completely avoidable and unnecessary, and which all the other armed people in the city managed to avoid.

See the recent accidental death in the Baldwin movie - nobody intended for a person to get shot for real, a series of reckless and dumb decisions just led to it.

The rifle apparently wasn't his, it was handed to him by some other equally reckless dumbass. What he should have done was to say "No thanks, I'm just 17, this time I'll stick with the pepper spray and keep close to you guys". There is a reason why most places have legislation preventing underaged people wandering around with deadly firearms, and Rittenhouse showed why such laws exist.

 

[BansheeOne]

3 hours ago, rmgill said:

Let's test something etc. etc. etc. 

You remember what I said about the annoying tendency in contemporary American political debate to piss off people who agree 95 percent with you by attacking them over the last five percent, then complain that the world is against you? You even cut off half of my sentence in your last quote, then used the qualification I made in the second part as a counter-argument to the first. 

[seahawk]

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

But here in the US some parents get mad about a child being raped at school and the FBI has to get involved immediately. 

The correct wording is: The person currently identifying as a narrow minded cis female had a slightly negative social experience with a trans-person exploring exploring zir sexuality.

Edited November 10, 2021 by seahawk

[rmgill]

19 minutes ago, Yama said:

His intentions are not actually terribly relevant.

Then why do you seem to be making such a big deal about knowing those intentions without knowledge? 

19 minutes ago, Yama said:

I don't think he went in expecting to gun down people. But by bringing in a lethal firearm without maturity, training or experience to handle situations by other means than shooting people dead, his actions directly led to deaths which were otherwise completely avoidable and unnecessary, and which all the other armed people in the city managed to avoid.

So anytime anyone brings a firearm to defend themselves and others, they're contributing to actions that result in death and harm? Do women who go to muslim areas contribute to possible rapes and worse? 

You're doing a lot of victim blaming here and not enough excoriation of the rioters. 

19 minutes ago, Yama said:

See the recent accidental death in the Baldwin movie - nobody intended for a person to get shot for real, a series of reckless and dumb decisions just led to it.

A movie set is not the same thing as a place where folks are rioting and folks are trying to help stop the rioting or protect people and property. 

There's nothing in-extremis in a movie set requiring snap judgements because pedophiles might be trying to kill someone. 

19 minutes ago, Yama said:

The rifle apparently wasn't his, it was handed to him by some other equally reckless dumbass. What he should have done was to say "No thanks, I'm just 17, this time I'll stick with the pepper spray and keep close to you guys". There is a reason why most places have legislation preventing underaged people wandering around with deadly firearms, and Rittenhouse showed why such laws exist.

You keep making this point, but you fail to observe that Kyle ONLY shot people who were trying to harm him. This in a crowd of people who arguably had burned down property the previous night and had committed crimes of assault. 

Your points still seem to tread directly on the path of If only the victims didn't make themselves available to be harmed, then there'd be not injuries. 

The body armor was something he gave to someone else. Sees like an act of kindness and consideration of others. 

You argue he had no business in Kenosha. 
He worked there. His father lived there. Other members of his family lived there. Your point on this fails a sniff test. 

 

[rmgill]

32 minutes ago, BansheeOne said:

You remember what I said about the annoying tendency in contemporary American political debate to piss off people who agree 95 percent with you by attacking them over the last five percent, then complain that the world is against you? You even cut off half of my sentence in your last quote, then used the qualification I made in the second part as a counter-argument to the first. 

You're correct in they the events that follow after the violence starts are entirely separate. I agree an I did gloss over that. 

 But the idea that citizens should not be taking an active role in their neighborhood community, especially when police are being less and less involved at all, runs down a very dark path. The Kitty Genovese effect is getting worse. (See the rape on the SEPTA train in Philly.)  To see folks here, or anywhere else, jumping on Rittenhouse because of his idealism and, by observable actions, restraint, while ignoring the rioters clear, repeated transgressions, it rankles beyond expression. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by rmgill