Kyle Rittenhouse: Vigilante White Men

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

When one guy has a gun and the other guy has nothing, the one who started it isn't so important anymore.

Well it might in this case because it's an unusual circumstance. How often does an unarmed person chase an armed person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

When one guy has a gun and the other guy has nothing, the one who started it isn't so important anymore.

Well it might in this case because it's an unusual circumstance. How often does an unarmed person chase an armed person?

It happens in lots of mass shootings every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

Not quite. When shooter decided to run away in the first video, the situation basically resets at that moment for purposes of self defense law in Wisconsin.

How so? Other people were chasing him. If he still felt threatened what should he have done?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

When one guy has a gun and the other guy has nothing, the one who started it isn't so important anymore.

Well it might in this case because it's an unusual circumstance. How often does an unarmed person chase an armed person?

It happens in lots of mass shootings every year.

Not quite like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don’t believe you’ve ever taken the “good guy with a gun” argument seriously, so I’m not surprised that your misrepresenting it here. This isn’t a school where the facts get dicier. Here, shooter was running away in the first video and by all accounts was running away when the group of 5 caught up to him. For self defense to be triggered by the group of 5 the danger must be IMMINENT. What immediate danger did shooter pose while running away that justified attempting to kick him, hit him with a skateboard and then approach him with a drawn gun?

You’re right, I haven’t taken it seriously, and this is why!

Look, this kid shot someone and started running. There was chaos. Other people did what I think a lot of people would do in that situation: they tried to stop him. Maybe he was going to keep shooting, maybe they just didn’t want him to escape...who knows? Then the kid shot them too.

The kid was in the wrong, FULL STOP. No need to twist yourself in knots trying to mitigate his behavior, make excuses for him, etc. Why are you so invested in defending him?

Once again, the shooter started running, was chased then shot the person who was chasing him. Shooter started running again. Was chased down and violently attacked, then shot the people attacking him. If you want to declare he was wrong and not acting in self defense, then you need to get the facts right. I’m not invested in defending him or anyone else. I’m invested in justice and the way the law works. If when this is over he gets convicted on Murder 1 I’ll come back here and own I was wrong. But if I’m right people like you are going to be baffled at the outcome dispute the fact that there are people clearly telling you what is going to happen here.

The shooter didn't start running/wasn't being chased UNTIL AFTER HE SHOT SOMEONE.

In the first video, he is being chased into a parking lot with the gun in his hand. He shoots his first victim in the parking lot. We don't know why he was being chased to begin with.

Here's the thing though, you don't get to shoot someone because they're chasing you. In Wisconsin, you have to reasonably believe you need to use force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Being chased or grabbed isn't enough.

There must have been some provocation that happened off camera. A lot will depend on what that was. And what is reasonable under any specific circumstance is something for juries to decide.

PS. It will also depend on who made the first threatening move and how that was interpreted.

Not quite. When shooter decided to run away in the first video, the situation basically resets at that moment for purposes of self defense law in Wisconsin.

How so? Other people were chasing him. If he still felt threatened what should he have done?

He shouldn't have shot people. He should have used his mind to understand why he, a murderer carrying a loaded gun in his hands, appeared threatening to others.

This thread is beyond absurd.

[Anonymous]

He knew exactly what he was doing when he killed the first person, and when he killed the second person and shot the third.

He brought the gun to join his militia buddies and start some trouble. And he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

[Anonymous]

Not too impressed with the Kenosha police. They are a police department that should be defunded, disbanded. They should all be re-interviewed, the good ones re-hired, and the rest let go and replaced. If there are any good ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

Attacking a person does however so this may not turn out the way you think it will. None of the videos show the shooter advancing towards any of those he shot so that will be a major weakness against potential prosecution.

[Anonymous]

No way you can spin this: he drove across state lines and murdered 3 people. He’s going away for a very, very long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No way you can spin this: he drove across state lines and murdered 3 people. He’s going away for a very, very long time.

Gun nuts have a vested interest in making Rittenhouse a “self defense” martyr

I will bet money the NRA will get involved in this case, even though the organization does nothing for law abiding black gun owners like Philando Castille

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

Attacking a person does however so this may not turn out the way you think it will. None of the videos show the shooter advancing towards any of those he shot so that will be a major weakness against potential prosecution.

I honestly don't know how it will turn out. I think he could successfully argue self defense, but I can also see a prosecutor spinning this against him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"The people who were chasing him could have felt their life was in imminent danger. The dude was armed and loaded and was not a policeman. How did anyone know he wasn't going to start a mass shooting? Any aggression toward him was done in self-defense."

This.

No. Open carry and being locked and loaded *in and of itself* cannot trigger self defense or it would be open season on anybody who open carries. Clearly, that’s the wrong outcome. Imminent for self defense purposes has generally meant right away or concurrent. So, if it is 8 am and you believe your neighbor is going to shoot you at 5 pm, you can’t act in self defense at noon. Generally, imminent means about to happen right now.

Walking around with a gun in your hand in public is an aggressive act. You can't walk into the grocery store or a school or a church carrying a gun without eliciting the fight or flight response from most people.

Also, he had already killed someone? That seems....relevant?

In normal times the dudes who chased him down would be heroes for trying to stop a murderer from getting away, but here we are.

Relevant to what? That gave them the right to chase him, forcibly disarm him, kick him while on the ground, try to hit him in the head at full force with a skateboard, pull a gun on him?

Uh...yeah. Isn’t that the whole premise of the good guy with a gun argument? Or is there now suddenly some addendum related to needing absolute proof that he will shoot again?

If a shooter shoots kids in a classroom and then walks down the hall, is he leaving or going to another classroom to kill more people? How is anyone supposed to answer that? Where did this requirement come from? You stop the murderer however you can. That’s what sane, brave people do.

Do you even hear yourself?! Really, stop, I’m genuinely concerned for your soul.

NP. Nobody believes the premise of your argument because this is not an active shooter situation. How is this an active shooter if he only shot one person and then stopped shooting? Just give it up.

You can read his mind and know that he already had his scalp and was ready to go home peacefully. That the bystanders had no reasonable fear but just attacked him for the lolz.

Would a jury of his peers have the same telepathic knowledge? Or would they think the bystanders had a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm from the kid?

Of course they should have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. They appeared to be unarmed and were attacking a killer with an assault rifle. You are really desperate, still sticking to your story of an active shooter. Save the police work for actual police. If you choose to take big risks, you might pay for it with your life.

Yeah you might. But your own stupidity doesn't give somebody the right to shoot you.

That depends on what your stupidity causes you to do. There were multiple attacker coming after him and it looked like one of them attempted to strike him with something. And someone said that one of the attackers was armed with a gun, though I didn't see one in the video. It doesn't really matter anyway because a jury will determine if it its self defense.

[Anonymous]

NYT visual investigations team has put together Rittenhouse's actions last night from the available video.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html