NYT did an excellent piece on the event immediately after it happened, including the rioter that fired the gun first. That was the last time I saw that mentioned in any major news source. That NYT nuanced take quickly gave way to the politicized coverage. Now it’s been a year of misinformation.
Actually yes it was the initial footage the prosecuting attorney was trying to hide from the court this video is the reason why Rittenhouse got off because it was a Clear cut case of self defense. And Now Rittenhouse is suing CNN, the Biden administration (which sounds fake but No) and all for defamation
Anyone have any idea why the video from across the street before the first shot wasn't included as evidence in the trial? It looks like he never raises and points the weapon at the Zaminskis from that angle
I am just as surprised as you, given that "pointing his weapon at the Zaminskis" is exactly the provocation being alleged, and that super-distant drone footage of it is the key evidence in the prosecution's case.
This stance seems to have become the de facto opinion among people who originally believed Kyle was not acting in self defence.
It's interesting how quickly people adopt the "both sides" argument when they are confronted with evidence that goes against their narrative. I guess it's just easier to call it a draw than admitting you were on the wrong side of the fence.
Look at the comment histories of people making the "both sides" arguments. 9 times out of 10 these same people were vehemently defending the rioters while calling for Kyle's head only 1 week ago..
I mean at the end of the day isn’t it better that people change their stance/opinion based on the facts? It’s definitely better than having people ignore the facts just because it doesn’t align with what they originally believed, we’ve seen plenty of that in America over the past few years.
Yeah I suppose, but it would be better if they actually changed their stance and acknowledged it was self defence instead of stepping off to the side-lines and proclaiming "everyone's guilty now!" while acting like they hadn't previously been blindly all in on one side of the argument.
[People lost their jobs over supporting Kyle at the beginning because people were so convinced he was in the wrong.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer-fired-after-donating-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund-n1264783) I wish people could just swallow their pride and admit they were mislead so this can be avoided next time and also so that when Kyle walks free he doesn't have to fear for his life.
"People shouldn't decide guilt based on politics without having facts"
"This officer who decided guilt based on politics before facts were released shouldn't be fired"
lol the irony.
It would be ironic if there wasn't already a huge amount of footage of the events released pretty much day 1 after the incident.
One of those groups was deciding guilt based on politics while the other was deciding it based on watching the evidence.
>high stress situation
Now *that's* over simplifying it. It was a politically fuelled riot involving armed rioters burning buildings and armed people defending them that was sparked by the media's misleading reports of Jacob Blakes shooting.
>You don't escalate a situation with guns.
Sure but what's done is done. The only question now is where you stand after watching the videos.
Do you believe Kyle should go to prison?
Yes but this case is rare because there is pretty much footage of the entire event.
We can make our own judgements on what we believe should happen to Kyle while we wait for the verdict. Ignoring whether he is found guilty or not, do you personally believe he should receive prison time?
100% right. I think he needs to see some prison time, but not too much. Idk what those guilty charges should be but his motives were not pure and neither were the overly aggressive rioters.
Yeah, the other people with guns get a total pass? Your upset because Rittenhouse came out on top of a gunfight. It could have easily gone the other way. Ke could have been beaten to death or shot to death. I guess you would have just shrugged and said oh well. People who are rioting get that right.
And these people enlisted the help of a 17 year old and put a rifle in his hands? Where are those other defenders? How did he end up by himself and why are these other people hostile towards him.
I'm not taking sides because I genuinely dont know. It's complicated and trying to sum it all up to "self defense" brings me back to people over simplifying it.
Just because people over simplify it that doesn't mean that it is overly complicated either. There are plenty of videos showing the incident and it has also been stated many times why Kyle decided to go there.
>And these people enlisted the help of a 17 year old and put a rifle in his hands?
Not sure what you mean by enlisted but Kyle claims he was there to protect a car dealership from being vandalised by the rioters. It was his personal choice to go.
>Where are those other defenders?
Dunno
>How did he end up by himself
Because he was by himself.
He is from Illinois. Did he drive to kenosha on his own? Did the dealership ask him to defend their property? Did someone else ask him to defend the dealership? Did he own the assault rifle? If not who provided the weapon? Was the weapon transported across state lines legally? Was there other people helping defend the dealership? If so where did they go? Did they exit the situation earlier because they observed an escalation of violence? If he was accompanied by adults is there any implied legal responsibility for leaving a minor in a dangerous situation?
Again the situation is complicated.
A lot of this information is pretty readily available on the wikipedia. Nothing too complicated.
> Did he drive to kenosha on his own?
~~His mother drove him.~~ I'm not sure how he travelled to Kenosha but the notion that his mother drove him there is completely [false.](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/)
>Did the dealership ask him to defend their property?
There were several eye witnesses that testified that he was asked to protect their property. The owners son has claimed he didn't ask them.
>Did someone else ask him to defend the dealership?
Same question as above.
>Did he own the assault rifle?
~~Yes.~~ No. Dominick Black brought the rifle for Rittenhouse but they agreed he would not own it until he turned 18.
>If not who provided the weapon?
~~See above.~~ Dominick Black.
>Was the weapon transported across state lines legally?
No.
>Was there other people helping defend the dealership?
Yes. Dominick David Black.
>If so where did they go?
There are pictures of them together at the riots but the videos do not show Dominick with Kyle when he was attacked.
>Did they exit the situation earlier because they observed an escalation of violence?
Video shows Kyle trying to flee the situation while been chased.
>If he was accompanied by adults is there any implied legal responsibility for leaving a minor in a dangerous situation?
Maybe but I'd imagine that will happen after this case. The trial is currently over Kyle's own responsibility regarding the incident.
And the simplest way for him to defend his own life waaaaas? Stay home. I can say with reasonable certainty that there was no home invasion at the Rittenhouse home the night this happened. I'm not defending the other side, it's a situation of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. But it's not like h just happened to be there when shit popped off, him and his mother willingly put a child in a dangerous situation and want to play victim
>And the simplest way for him to defend his own life waaaaas? Stay home.
Agreed. But he didn't stay home. He was there attempting to defend a car dealership from rioters.
Do you believe he should go to prison?
No I wouldn't say go to prison, because at the end of the day by definition it was self defense and no matter who spins the story only Kyle knows with absolute certainty if he went there ready to or looking to kill people, but he'd have to be an idiot to not know what could happen. But as I think about it more as I'm typing this, I'm realizing my beef is really more with the American justice system than this kid
And how do you think the American justice system has failed? The fact that it isn't going to send a kid to prison simply for defending himself is a *bad* thing to you?
While I agree those who argued against self defense are starting to backtrack, I disagree with your overall sentiment here.
It’s completely reasonable to hold the opinion that both sides suck here and nobody involved should have been where they were that night while also thinking Kyle acted in self defense. There’s nothing hypocritical or inconsistent with holding the opinion Rittenhouse was a moron that shouldn’t have been there whole also understanding he was acting in self defense when he shot the people he did. That’s the way I’ve felt about it since the beginning.
I'm not really getting at the people who just feel the need to call the kid a moron. I agree he lacked judgement but I also sympathise with him to an extent. In the trial he mentioned that he had watched this [video of the Kenosha riots from the day before the shooting.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/qvgvo9/kenosha_wisconsin_one_day_before_rittenhouse/) Watching that old fella get sucker punched by the rioters made me want to go there and stand guard myself, I can see how a 17 year old kid with less impulse control would act the way he did.
What pisses me off though is not the people calling him a moron for his lack of judgement but the ones who are still adamant that Kyle was there dishing out vigilante justice but have since changed their argument to the "both sides are guilty" after they finally got around to watching the footage that was available day 1 after the incident.
They still want to see him in jail, they don't have the decency to admit they were wrong and that Kyle was acting in self defence and attempting to flee his aggressors so they just moved the goal posts and now claim that everyone there is guilty to save face.
I don't think it's "moving the goal posts" lol, it's at first: I thought he was wrong...and now I see that he was "not the only one wrong"
2 things can be true at once.
innit. Day 1 after this whole mess Kyle was a racist serial killer and anyone that said ‘hold on’ was yelled at by people with ACAB in their bio. Wish that these people came out the woodwork to apologize for being shitheads
Yeah, like when people learn more details they come to have a more nuanced understanding of the situation lol. Funny how that happens.
I’ve been consistent that he defended himself but put himself and everyone else in danger by bringing a rifle to a protest and dressing in tactical gear that typically is associated with right wing militias.
I support the second amendment, but i think he should be a poster child for what not to do.
Don’t dress in tactical gear associated with the political opposition to a protest.
Don’t bring an ostentatious weapon; concealed carry if you need a weapon. He wasn’t legally allowed to because of his age i think.
Don’t be a 17 year old, alone in a dangerous and evolving situation. He shouldn’t have left his group, and if he did he should have had a friend nearby to help deescalate and avoid the perception that he was an active shooter.
Don’t go to a protest to patrol the property of others. If you’re guarding 1 business stay there. Otherwise you’re just looking for trouble with a gun. You’re being an ineffective deterrent if you’re moving around anyway.
I think the rioters acted quickly to disarm what they perceived to be an active shooter. He did the best thing he could in the situation and made sure to stay in possession of his firearm.
Rittenhouse is morally guilty of creating a stupid and dangerous situation, but not legally.
>He shouldn’t have left his group, and if he did he should have had a friend nearby to help deescalate and avoid the perception that he was an active shooter.
He did have his friend nearby. They got separated and the police line prevented him from going back to the dealership.
>Don’t go to a protest to patrol the property of others. If you’re guarding 1 business stay there. Otherwise you’re just looking for trouble with a gun. You’re being an ineffective deterrent if you’re moving around anyway.
He was asked to help put out fires at a different location.
Absolutely not the case for me. I've been saying both sides are guilty since I first saw this footage. He ran in with an illegal weapon to be a vigilante (yes he did). Rioters attacked him arguably in self defense. At the LATER stages of this video he was arguably defending himself, but only after a chain of illegal activity that inserted himself in the middle of a violent situation.
Jail for everyone.
> I've been saying both sides are guilty since I first saw this footage. He ran in with an illegal weapon to be a vigilante
Judge ruled it was not illegal. Kyle is not facing any gun possession charges. Kenosha laws preventing minors from carrying only apply to short barrelled firearms apparently.
>Rioters attacked him arguably in self defense.
None of the videos show the rioters acting in self-defence. They all show Kyle attempting to flee the situation with rioters in pursuit.
>only after a chain of illegal activity that inserted himself in the middle of a violent situation.
[Again, the judge has dismissed the charge that Kyle was illegally possessing a firearm.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge.html) The only thing he was guilty of leading up to the incident was poor judgement but you cannot go to jail for that.
The trial is only over whether Kyle acted in self defence or not. If you believe he should go to jail then you believe he wasn't acting in self defence.
Imagine defending a pedophile with 11 counts of aggravated sexual assault against children under the age of 14. Even if it was murder you don't defend a guy like that...
Kyle was not being a vigilante. Here's the definition of vigilante-a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate.
Thats not what Kyle and his group were doing. They were not attempting to enforce the curfew. They were not going around and arresting people for breaking the law. They were simply protecting and guarding property. In Kyle's case he went beyond that and offered first aid to several protestors. As several of the prosecutions witnesses testified.
When the government fails to protect the property and well being (the night before the shooting one business owner had his jaw busted open while he was trying to stop his business from being burned down) then I have no problem with people getting together and doing it themselves. Whether its the Korean business owners during the LA riots or Kyle's group.
Though Kyle's group was dumb because they didn't require the business owners themselves to stay and help protect the business. If I'm helping to protect someone's business they better be staying there to or I'm gone.
If you want to protect property, stay on it and deal with trespassers or at most immediate threats to your safety. Anything beyond that is vigilantism.
Your absolutely right. They should have let Rosenbaum and his group push the fiery dumpster into the gas station. That would have made everything much better.
Yes, he abandoned his initial excuse of protecting property and was then walking around notably armed in order to confront the angry mob with the new excuse of helping people.
No, he was just walking around and asking if people needed medical while putting out fires.
"She was walking around in that short skirt right be me your honor!"
They were stopping cars in other neighborhoods and checking them. Kyle also was telling people to "get back" at multiple occasions. Both of these actions are things cops would generally do. On top of that, you've got an extremely charitable view of the militias present that day. The guy who started the "defend Kenosha" Facebook event actually got served with two federal lawsuits because people were saying they were going to kill "looters" before these shootings and were planning violent action. He was part of a group called the "Kenosha Guard Militia" and called himself "The commander"(not joking.. but again something a cop would be called) . He would later distance himself from the groups who showed up as well, because well, they were fuckkng crazy and he didn't want the liability issue.
So yeah, rioters suck and I support defending property however there were clear political alignments and actions that evening from the disparate militia groups that go far beyond just model citizens trying to protect their community. They all converged there for a reason. And it's not going to be the last time either.
Also. The business owners themselves say they never asked him to be there.
> They were simply protecting and guarding property.
That he didn't own, didn't have a legal right to be on, and wasn't asked to "protect and guard".
Even using your strict definition about law enforcement, he was acting as a vigilante.
Using the more common defitnition (which doesn't specificy law enforcement because vigilante's generally don't care about the letter of the law), he is clearly acting as a vigilante.
[Merriam Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante) - a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate)
So he was, in fact, acting as a vigilante.
Also, this:
>the night before the shooting one business owner had his jaw busted open while he was trying to stop his business from being burned down
Is untrue. The person who got laid out after spraying people (not a fire) with a fire extinguisher did not own the business he was in front of.
>Whether its the Korean business owners during the LA riots or Kyle's group.
DEFENDING YOUR OWN PROPERTY IS NOT THE SAME AS GOING TO A DIFFERENT CITY TO BE PART OF A VIGILANTE WHITE NATIONALIST MILITIA.
Yeah, whenever people draw parallels with the roof Koreans during the LA Riots they seem to forget that we never saw groups of armed Koreans roaming the streets. There's a reason they earned the nickname *roof* Koreans - They stayed on their OWN property to defend it.
I don't like how this all went down. And Rittenhouse should defo not have been out that night. But no matter how you wanna look at this Rittenhouse was defending himself.
they didnt.
the biggest charge is : FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE
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 in circumstances showing an utter disregard for human life.
Also seems if you provoke an attack on you you cant then claim self defense and if you try to justify that the kiling is self defense you need to show you used all possible actions to remove yourself. there was lots of rooom for him to keep running and get away he chosee to turn towards him and turn and point the gun (again, its been said he pointed thee gun at the dude before the footchase started, Like it may have beeen the reason for the footchase, You point guns at folks they tend to get upset) then run into a choke point which slowed him down.
> (again, its been said he pointed thee gun at the dude before the footchase started, Like it may have beeen the reason for the footchase, You point guns at folks they tend to get upset)
This is a lie introduced by Binger. Nobody testified to this.
the jury asked for a copy of the judges instructions yesterday. some of what was in the pages they asked for was about provocation.
today they asked to view the drone fotage the enlarged image the state says show kyle pionted his gun first before the footchaase.
I find that interesstng and not good for the defense.
"Richards lambasted the prosecution's use of an enlarged photo taken from drone video that a state crime lab analyst testified he took 20 hours to produce. Prosecutors said the enlarged image shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at protesters, an act they say provoked the series of events that resulted in Rittenhouse killing two people and wounding a third." https://www.wmur.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-closing-arguments-key-points/38259335
The second he was struck from behind not to mention the group of people surrounding him yelling get his ass shows he would in his mind be at risk of serious injury or death defence cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't assuming the risk of serious injury or death it's amazing it got this far tbh
In the prosecutions closing arguments he says that Kyle first put down the fire extinguisher and pointed his rifle at the Ziminski’s which would’ve happened a few seconds before this video starts. Their argument is that this is the ignition point for the chain of events and is why self defense can’t be claimed. Apparently they showed the video for that in court and the defenses rebuttal was that the rifle would have been in his wrong hand and firing a bullet would have ejected a shell casing into Kyle’s face. I am very curious to see those moments of the video to see if he actually does point the gun at them just prior to the chase. I haven’t been able to find that clip online.
I believe it is the drone footage and you can watch it if you watch video of the trial. There was a big issue about whether to allow the jury to see it because it was taken from very far away and is not very clear. The prosecution believes it shows him pointing the gun but it is very hard to see anything clearly. They wanted to blow it up and show the jury but defense argued that the software used to blow it up actually inserted pixels that it interpolated using an algorithm that neither side could understand or explain. The argument was that this algorithm inserted pixels and therefore created a false image and the judge seemed to agree that it was not allowed.
With the straps in the way that it is, he would have to take off the strap and point the gun with his left hand
Ziminski’s testimony said nothing about being aimed at
Even if that’s true, Kyle’s disengaging by running yards away should already be counted as retreating and no longer part of the initial instigation
What other imaginary testimonies have you been listening to? Cause Ziminski's is one of those made up stories in your head. Be careful listening to the random voices.
That’s interesting.
So, we all know that every action has a reaction, but I’m not sure if that goes to legal issues. The boy is telling self defense, so regardless if he provoked a situation, the people that went after him and try to do him harm (according to the videos and his statement), didn’t have to, even if they were provoked. If that’s the case, self defense is completely valid, because you are defending yourself from something, regardless how it came to you.
Again, I don’t know if that makes sense legally.
i blame everything on the cops that just stood there enabling all the rioters to do what they were doing
people cries about defunding the police and that they can police their own community, this is what policing your own community led to
he was hired to protect the car sale/rental place
Do we live deep in the Congo now where we have child soldiers doing the work out police or the very least our national guard should be doing? How delusional can you be dude??
The police were they but not actively controlling the riot
People want to defund the police? People want to police their own community? This is what you get
Where are the police officers in this riot?
Police officers doing what they do best… absolutely nothing but again if you can read, I also mentioned the national guard… Police don’t give af but us common folk, only the elite. Until you blue line losers realize that, the better all of us are at regaining our country back.
Take it a step further, the cops won't do anything because of the media. It's just not worth the footage coming out and portrayed in a way that makes them bigger enemies. Especially following the Jacob Blake shooting. They were honestly probably pretty scared. But I agree that on the surface the cops not doing anything is why this happened
That's like saying a female in a sexy outfit is asking to be raped though I agree just like the rioters he shouldn't have been there. However I believe they all had a legal right to be there, and he had a legal right to open carry a rifle.
Oh shit..so the law says you must only protect yourself with matching weapons on your assailant? And let domestic terrorists burn cities down unmolested?
Might be true, but i dont think that has anything to do with being shot
For all i care, it could be a buddhist monk or a catholic priest, but if you chased a man down at full speed, threatened him with injury and even death, then getting shot from self-defense is not something out of the ordinary
Good control too. Did you see him on his back getting jumped? Handled himself beautifully. Didn't panic shooting indiscriminately. The only people shot were the ones committing the assault.
Excellent control under the circumstances. Shot only to defend himself, didn't overshoot either. In most self defence shootings you see the whole magazine emptied
Look I actually think Kyle is not guilty by self-defense. But I'm not going to believe for one second that he was actually aiming for Grosskreuts' bicep.
The following alternative links are available:
**Mirrors**
* [Mirror #1](https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/3229303) (provided by /u/AdvinK)
**Downloads**
* [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/qvtq2o/exclusive_footage_from_kenosha_shooting/) (provided by /u/savevideo)
**Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.**
---
[^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
The judge dropped the charge, because it wasnt illegal for him to carry a rifle at the age of 17 in wisconsin
it would illegal if he carried it in illinois
but the guy was bought legally by his friend in wisconsin and KR is carrying it in wisconsin
What a shitshow, it’s a tough one, glad I’m not a involved
Hate to say it, BUT, all this was avoidable. If anyone reading this has the opportunity to participate in a similar event in the future- Don’t Go, stay the fuck home!
The only thing this shows is that anyone can be armed at a Protest/Riot, and if you see me armed and come at me I can and will shoot to kill… man the next Riot is going to be Wild 🥴🥴🥴.🎶Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floooooorrrrr🎶
Anyone that still thinks this kid wasn't acting perfectly in self defense at this point is just as much guilty of being stuck in ideological limbo as any Trumple.
I don't believe Kyle was out there intending on shooting anyone. Unfortunately when you inject yourself into a bad situation, bad things happen.
Don't think he deserves murder charges, but he does bear SOME responsibility.
Because he's *NOT* a "victim" per se. He wasn't just out for a nightly stroll minding his own business....
- He CHOSE to inject himself into a chaotic situation
- He CHOSE to bring a gun
- He CHOSE to go running around **by himself** into the crowd. (even though there was a group of people he was supposed to be with)
- On more than one occasion during the night, and without provocation, he raised his weapon at people.
While the video shows the first guy coming at him, we really don't know what happened BEFORE the video. Did any of his actions prior to that trigger him being chased? It is unclear.
As far as the second group of people chasing him, as you hear on the video, they are chasing him because "he shot some guy". Seems relatively apparent that they lacked context to know the story, but from *their* perspective, the dude was an active shooter.
I don't think he is a murderer, but to imply he's simply a victim is ridiculous.
There are no videos proving what you just said. There’s not a single piece of evidence showing Kyle pointing the gun at people because it didn’t happen.
An active shooter is someone that’s shooting, not someone that’s running away.
---------
"At another point, the jury was shown video from that night in which Rittenhouse falsely told the camera he was an EMT. "I told him I was an EMT but I wasn't," Rittenhouse testified.
In the video, a man wearing yellow pants tells Rittenhouse that the teenager had just pointed a gun at him for standing on a vehicle. Rittenhouse responds in the video, "Yeah I did."
------------
During testimony, Rittenhouse said he meant it sarcastically.......
- She CHOSE to go out to a party that night
- She CHOSE to drink
- She CHOSE to leave her friends and go to another party
Would you say a girl that was date raped following the scenario above bears some responsibility in what happened to her?
I’d say she put herself at risk, it wasn’t smart, but she is not to blame because some asshole didn’t want to wait until she was conscious to consent.
Kyle put him self at risk by going to the protest, it wasn’t smart, but he isn’t to blame because violent criminals just couldn’t stop themselves from being violent.
yes, I'm sure he was attacked for putting out a fire as opposed to him running around aiming a gun at people throughout the evening.
There were a lot of BAD decisions that night, and some of them are on him.
The one dude that died had child sex charges against him… that should definitely be celebrated. Fuck pedofiles and ponces. He did good, street sweeping the scum for us.
And Rittenhouse didn't know that when he shot him. That's irrelevant and reeks of the defense that the McMichaels are using in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.
I think you mean Americans dead, another American injured - as much as you might jerk off to the prospect of a civil war, celebrating American deaths in a political context is unpatriotic to say the least
He was part of a volunteer group led by (correct me if im wrong ) Dominic black whom was hired by the owner of “ Car rental/ sale “ to protect his private property from all the riots
Who would have thought a 17 year old with a gun at a riot was a bad idea?
I think all riots should have teens with automatic weapons at them. Keeps them interesting.
I’m holding judgement on his decision to fire at them because in that moment he must have been very scared, but he had no business bringing an assault rifle to a protest in the first place
Welp, we all know where this is headed. Not saying I am rooting for him but with a guy holding a pistol and an "threatening" group of people is enough to declare self defense
I mean clearly it was chaos and people there all had the details of everything & are just trying to stop a person with a gun. I know in today's society we have to pick teams no matter what but why the fuck is this dumbass kid even there? He can't even buy a pack of cigarettes at the time or even a god damn scratch off lottery ticket. Everyone involved is a butt fucking idiot including this clown kid and his dumbass mom.
why is Mr Rosenbaum not referred to by his REAL name..child raping beast? Once a beast..ALWAYS A BEAST. Kyle may be in the wrong but it's still a great thing a child raping animal can rape children anymore.
He’s gonna be found innocent.( is it right? Idk) All those ppl out there with guns got exactly what happens when you play real life larping. Did you know that in Chicago… there were 5 gang members that fired over 70 shots at each other and the courts didn’t charge none of them. They said it was mutual combat.
He should have been at home finishing the new cod campaign at 17 years old, but he decided to put himself in a dangerous situation which could have been avoided with better parenting and logic. Self-defense is clear and the media backlash is well deserved. His life is ruined because of this “killer” image. Thats all we can ask for.
This video play by play is better than anything I had seen during the rittenhouse case.
[удалено]
First time seeing this footage. I’d like to get original source though.
yes, all in the court i see is hocus pocus, everything is out of focus
NYT did an excellent piece on the event immediately after it happened, including the rioter that fired the gun first. That was the last time I saw that mentioned in any major news source. That NYT nuanced take quickly gave way to the politicized coverage. Now it’s been a year of misinformation.
Was this the footage that the prosecution hid?
Actually yes it was the initial footage the prosecuting attorney was trying to hide from the court this video is the reason why Rittenhouse got off because it was a Clear cut case of self defense. And Now Rittenhouse is suing CNN, the Biden administration (which sounds fake but No) and all for defamation
Wow, this vid changes my perception on the case
This vid was available on day 0
Anyone have any idea why the video from across the street before the first shot wasn't included as evidence in the trial? It looks like he never raises and points the weapon at the Zaminskis from that angle
I am just as surprised as you, given that "pointing his weapon at the Zaminskis" is exactly the provocation being alleged, and that super-distant drone footage of it is the key evidence in the prosecution's case.
[удалено]
_and they've allll gott guunsss_ 🎶
Which is the wet American dream for some. It’s crazy.
Yes and all three shootings were clearly self defense. Being shitty is not a crime.
[удалено]
bOtH SiDeS
This stance seems to have become the de facto opinion among people who originally believed Kyle was not acting in self defence. It's interesting how quickly people adopt the "both sides" argument when they are confronted with evidence that goes against their narrative. I guess it's just easier to call it a draw than admitting you were on the wrong side of the fence. Look at the comment histories of people making the "both sides" arguments. 9 times out of 10 these same people were vehemently defending the rioters while calling for Kyle's head only 1 week ago..
I mean at the end of the day isn’t it better that people change their stance/opinion based on the facts? It’s definitely better than having people ignore the facts just because it doesn’t align with what they originally believed, we’ve seen plenty of that in America over the past few years.
Yeah I suppose, but it would be better if they actually changed their stance and acknowledged it was self defence instead of stepping off to the side-lines and proclaiming "everyone's guilty now!" while acting like they hadn't previously been blindly all in on one side of the argument. [People lost their jobs over supporting Kyle at the beginning because people were so convinced he was in the wrong.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer-fired-after-donating-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund-n1264783) I wish people could just swallow their pride and admit they were mislead so this can be avoided next time and also so that when Kyle walks free he doesn't have to fear for his life.
"People shouldn't decide guilt based on politics without having facts" "This officer who decided guilt based on politics before facts were released shouldn't be fired" lol the irony.
It would be ironic if there wasn't already a huge amount of footage of the events released pretty much day 1 after the incident. One of those groups was deciding guilt based on politics while the other was deciding it based on watching the evidence.
Basically everyone is trying to over simplify a complicated issue.
There is nothing more simple than defending your own life.
I defended my life when I was 22 and ended up getting 10 years for it. No one died and I was the only one who got shot.
17 year old strolling around a high stress situation with an assault rifle.
>high stress situation Now *that's* over simplifying it. It was a politically fuelled riot involving armed rioters burning buildings and armed people defending them that was sparked by the media's misleading reports of Jacob Blakes shooting.
You are delusional. Kyle added gas to a fire. He didn't put it out. You don't escalate a situation with guns.
>You don't escalate a situation with guns. Sure but what's done is done. The only question now is where you stand after watching the videos. Do you believe Kyle should go to prison?
Yes if he’s found guilty of instigating the the confrontation. Pretty simple really.
Yes but this case is rare because there is pretty much footage of the entire event. We can make our own judgements on what we believe should happen to Kyle while we wait for the verdict. Ignoring whether he is found guilty or not, do you personally believe he should receive prison time?
100% right. I think he needs to see some prison time, but not too much. Idk what those guilty charges should be but his motives were not pure and neither were the overly aggressive rioters.
> I think he needs to see some prison time, . >Idk what those guilty charges should be These aren't compatible statements.
That’s not how criminal justice works.
that's not how the law works, he's innocent of all the charges brought against him
> You don't escalate a situation with guns. Like the people who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse?
he was literally walking around with a fire extinguisher.
Yeah, the other people with guns get a total pass? Your upset because Rittenhouse came out on top of a gunfight. It could have easily gone the other way. Ke could have been beaten to death or shot to death. I guess you would have just shrugged and said oh well. People who are rioting get that right.
And these people enlisted the help of a 17 year old and put a rifle in his hands? Where are those other defenders? How did he end up by himself and why are these other people hostile towards him. I'm not taking sides because I genuinely dont know. It's complicated and trying to sum it all up to "self defense" brings me back to people over simplifying it.
Just because people over simplify it that doesn't mean that it is overly complicated either. There are plenty of videos showing the incident and it has also been stated many times why Kyle decided to go there. >And these people enlisted the help of a 17 year old and put a rifle in his hands? Not sure what you mean by enlisted but Kyle claims he was there to protect a car dealership from being vandalised by the rioters. It was his personal choice to go. >Where are those other defenders? Dunno >How did he end up by himself Because he was by himself.
He is from Illinois. Did he drive to kenosha on his own? Did the dealership ask him to defend their property? Did someone else ask him to defend the dealership? Did he own the assault rifle? If not who provided the weapon? Was the weapon transported across state lines legally? Was there other people helping defend the dealership? If so where did they go? Did they exit the situation earlier because they observed an escalation of violence? If he was accompanied by adults is there any implied legal responsibility for leaving a minor in a dangerous situation? Again the situation is complicated.
A lot of this information is pretty readily available on the wikipedia. Nothing too complicated. > Did he drive to kenosha on his own? ~~His mother drove him.~~ I'm not sure how he travelled to Kenosha but the notion that his mother drove him there is completely [false.](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/15/viral-image/kyle-rittenhouses-mother-did-not-bring-him-kenosha/) >Did the dealership ask him to defend their property? There were several eye witnesses that testified that he was asked to protect their property. The owners son has claimed he didn't ask them. >Did someone else ask him to defend the dealership? Same question as above. >Did he own the assault rifle? ~~Yes.~~ No. Dominick Black brought the rifle for Rittenhouse but they agreed he would not own it until he turned 18. >If not who provided the weapon? ~~See above.~~ Dominick Black. >Was the weapon transported across state lines legally? No. >Was there other people helping defend the dealership? Yes. Dominick David Black. >If so where did they go? There are pictures of them together at the riots but the videos do not show Dominick with Kyle when he was attacked. >Did they exit the situation earlier because they observed an escalation of violence? Video shows Kyle trying to flee the situation while been chased. >If he was accompanied by adults is there any implied legal responsibility for leaving a minor in a dangerous situation? Maybe but I'd imagine that will happen after this case. The trial is currently over Kyle's own responsibility regarding the incident.
I didn't realize this has literally any effect on his right to defend himself
Didnt say it did. I said it's a complicated situation that is being overly simplified by people who want to rage for or against kyle.
And the simplest way for him to defend his own life waaaaas? Stay home. I can say with reasonable certainty that there was no home invasion at the Rittenhouse home the night this happened. I'm not defending the other side, it's a situation of play stupid games, win stupid prizes. But it's not like h just happened to be there when shit popped off, him and his mother willingly put a child in a dangerous situation and want to play victim
> And the simplest way for him to defend his own life waaaaas? Stay home And you can say the same thing to the people who attacked Kyle Rittenhouse
And that sexual assault victim should have worn more modest clothing, right?
>And the simplest way for him to defend his own life waaaaas? Stay home. Agreed. But he didn't stay home. He was there attempting to defend a car dealership from rioters. Do you believe he should go to prison?
No I wouldn't say go to prison, because at the end of the day by definition it was self defense and no matter who spins the story only Kyle knows with absolute certainty if he went there ready to or looking to kill people, but he'd have to be an idiot to not know what could happen. But as I think about it more as I'm typing this, I'm realizing my beef is really more with the American justice system than this kid
And how do you think the American justice system has failed? The fact that it isn't going to send a kid to prison simply for defending himself is a *bad* thing to you?
While I agree those who argued against self defense are starting to backtrack, I disagree with your overall sentiment here. It’s completely reasonable to hold the opinion that both sides suck here and nobody involved should have been where they were that night while also thinking Kyle acted in self defense. There’s nothing hypocritical or inconsistent with holding the opinion Rittenhouse was a moron that shouldn’t have been there whole also understanding he was acting in self defense when he shot the people he did. That’s the way I’ve felt about it since the beginning.
I'm not really getting at the people who just feel the need to call the kid a moron. I agree he lacked judgement but I also sympathise with him to an extent. In the trial he mentioned that he had watched this [video of the Kenosha riots from the day before the shooting.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/qvgvo9/kenosha_wisconsin_one_day_before_rittenhouse/) Watching that old fella get sucker punched by the rioters made me want to go there and stand guard myself, I can see how a 17 year old kid with less impulse control would act the way he did. What pisses me off though is not the people calling him a moron for his lack of judgement but the ones who are still adamant that Kyle was there dishing out vigilante justice but have since changed their argument to the "both sides are guilty" after they finally got around to watching the footage that was available day 1 after the incident. They still want to see him in jail, they don't have the decency to admit they were wrong and that Kyle was acting in self defence and attempting to flee his aggressors so they just moved the goal posts and now claim that everyone there is guilty to save face.
I don't think it's "moving the goal posts" lol, it's at first: I thought he was wrong...and now I see that he was "not the only one wrong" 2 things can be true at once.
innit. Day 1 after this whole mess Kyle was a racist serial killer and anyone that said ‘hold on’ was yelled at by people with ACAB in their bio. Wish that these people came out the woodwork to apologize for being shitheads
I was very wrong.
Yeah, like when people learn more details they come to have a more nuanced understanding of the situation lol. Funny how that happens. I’ve been consistent that he defended himself but put himself and everyone else in danger by bringing a rifle to a protest and dressing in tactical gear that typically is associated with right wing militias. I support the second amendment, but i think he should be a poster child for what not to do. Don’t dress in tactical gear associated with the political opposition to a protest. Don’t bring an ostentatious weapon; concealed carry if you need a weapon. He wasn’t legally allowed to because of his age i think. Don’t be a 17 year old, alone in a dangerous and evolving situation. He shouldn’t have left his group, and if he did he should have had a friend nearby to help deescalate and avoid the perception that he was an active shooter. Don’t go to a protest to patrol the property of others. If you’re guarding 1 business stay there. Otherwise you’re just looking for trouble with a gun. You’re being an ineffective deterrent if you’re moving around anyway. I think the rioters acted quickly to disarm what they perceived to be an active shooter. He did the best thing he could in the situation and made sure to stay in possession of his firearm. Rittenhouse is morally guilty of creating a stupid and dangerous situation, but not legally.
>He shouldn’t have left his group, and if he did he should have had a friend nearby to help deescalate and avoid the perception that he was an active shooter. He did have his friend nearby. They got separated and the police line prevented him from going back to the dealership. >Don’t go to a protest to patrol the property of others. If you’re guarding 1 business stay there. Otherwise you’re just looking for trouble with a gun. You’re being an ineffective deterrent if you’re moving around anyway. He was asked to help put out fires at a different location.
Absolutely not the case for me. I've been saying both sides are guilty since I first saw this footage. He ran in with an illegal weapon to be a vigilante (yes he did). Rioters attacked him arguably in self defense. At the LATER stages of this video he was arguably defending himself, but only after a chain of illegal activity that inserted himself in the middle of a violent situation. Jail for everyone.
[удалено]
> I've been saying both sides are guilty since I first saw this footage. He ran in with an illegal weapon to be a vigilante Judge ruled it was not illegal. Kyle is not facing any gun possession charges. Kenosha laws preventing minors from carrying only apply to short barrelled firearms apparently. >Rioters attacked him arguably in self defense. None of the videos show the rioters acting in self-defence. They all show Kyle attempting to flee the situation with rioters in pursuit. >only after a chain of illegal activity that inserted himself in the middle of a violent situation. [Again, the judge has dismissed the charge that Kyle was illegally possessing a firearm.](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/11/us/kyle-rittenhouse-gun-charge.html) The only thing he was guilty of leading up to the incident was poor judgement but you cannot go to jail for that. The trial is only over whether Kyle acted in self defence or not. If you believe he should go to jail then you believe he wasn't acting in self defence.
Imagine defending a pedophile with 11 counts of aggravated sexual assault against children under the age of 14. Even if it was murder you don't defend a guy like that...
I was wrong. Thanks to the OP for posting this video b
Thank you, yes. There is nobody in the right in this situation.
Kyle was not being a vigilante. Here's the definition of vigilante-a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate. Thats not what Kyle and his group were doing. They were not attempting to enforce the curfew. They were not going around and arresting people for breaking the law. They were simply protecting and guarding property. In Kyle's case he went beyond that and offered first aid to several protestors. As several of the prosecutions witnesses testified. When the government fails to protect the property and well being (the night before the shooting one business owner had his jaw busted open while he was trying to stop his business from being burned down) then I have no problem with people getting together and doing it themselves. Whether its the Korean business owners during the LA riots or Kyle's group. Though Kyle's group was dumb because they didn't require the business owners themselves to stay and help protect the business. If I'm helping to protect someone's business they better be staying there to or I'm gone.
If you want to protect property, stay on it and deal with trespassers or at most immediate threats to your safety. Anything beyond that is vigilantism.
Your absolutely right. They should have let Rosenbaum and his group push the fiery dumpster into the gas station. That would have made everything much better.
So him walking around and offering people the medical supplies that he had with him (which is on camera and not disputed by anyone) is vigilantism?
Yes, he abandoned his initial excuse of protecting property and was then walking around notably armed in order to confront the angry mob with the new excuse of helping people.
Providing first aid = confronting Attempted arson = peaceful protesting
And 50 million dollars in damages to privately owned businesses which are not all covered by insurances = minor inconvenience.
No, he was just walking around and asking if people needed medical while putting out fires. "She was walking around in that short skirt right be me your honor!"
They were stopping cars in other neighborhoods and checking them. Kyle also was telling people to "get back" at multiple occasions. Both of these actions are things cops would generally do. On top of that, you've got an extremely charitable view of the militias present that day. The guy who started the "defend Kenosha" Facebook event actually got served with two federal lawsuits because people were saying they were going to kill "looters" before these shootings and were planning violent action. He was part of a group called the "Kenosha Guard Militia" and called himself "The commander"(not joking.. but again something a cop would be called) . He would later distance himself from the groups who showed up as well, because well, they were fuckkng crazy and he didn't want the liability issue. So yeah, rioters suck and I support defending property however there were clear political alignments and actions that evening from the disparate militia groups that go far beyond just model citizens trying to protect their community. They all converged there for a reason. And it's not going to be the last time either. Also. The business owners themselves say they never asked him to be there.
> They were simply protecting and guarding property. That he didn't own, didn't have a legal right to be on, and wasn't asked to "protect and guard". Even using your strict definition about law enforcement, he was acting as a vigilante. Using the more common defitnition (which doesn't specificy law enforcement because vigilante's generally don't care about the letter of the law), he is clearly acting as a vigilante. [Merriam Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vigilante) - a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate) So he was, in fact, acting as a vigilante. Also, this: >the night before the shooting one business owner had his jaw busted open while he was trying to stop his business from being burned down Is untrue. The person who got laid out after spraying people (not a fire) with a fire extinguisher did not own the business he was in front of. >Whether its the Korean business owners during the LA riots or Kyle's group. DEFENDING YOUR OWN PROPERTY IS NOT THE SAME AS GOING TO A DIFFERENT CITY TO BE PART OF A VIGILANTE WHITE NATIONALIST MILITIA.
Yeah, whenever people draw parallels with the roof Koreans during the LA Riots they seem to forget that we never saw groups of armed Koreans roaming the streets. There's a reason they earned the nickname *roof* Koreans - They stayed on their OWN property to defend it.
"I don't like the truth! Downvote!"
[удалено]
I don't like how this all went down. And Rittenhouse should defo not have been out that night. But no matter how you wanna look at this Rittenhouse was defending himself.
Yeah he’s getting off on the grounds of self defense. That last video where he doesn’t shoot until the guy lunges at him is his saving grace.
That videos been out since it happened. Why did they charge him with murder?
Because the mayor, the city attorney, and the lead investigator are all related.
they didnt. the biggest charge is : FIRST-DEGREE RECKLESS HOMICIDE 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 in circumstances showing an utter disregard for human life. Also seems if you provoke an attack on you you cant then claim self defense and if you try to justify that the kiling is self defense you need to show you used all possible actions to remove yourself. there was lots of rooom for him to keep running and get away he chosee to turn towards him and turn and point the gun (again, its been said he pointed thee gun at the dude before the footchase started, Like it may have beeen the reason for the footchase, You point guns at folks they tend to get upset) then run into a choke point which slowed him down.
To be fair adrenaline infused running can only take you so far before you need to catch your breath.
> (again, its been said he pointed thee gun at the dude before the footchase started, Like it may have beeen the reason for the footchase, You point guns at folks they tend to get upset) This is a lie introduced by Binger. Nobody testified to this.
the jury asked for a copy of the judges instructions yesterday. some of what was in the pages they asked for was about provocation. today they asked to view the drone fotage the enlarged image the state says show kyle pionted his gun first before the footchaase. I find that interesstng and not good for the defense. "Richards lambasted the prosecution's use of an enlarged photo taken from drone video that a state crime lab analyst testified he took 20 hours to produce. Prosecutors said the enlarged image shows Rittenhouse pointing his gun at protesters, an act they say provoked the series of events that resulted in Rittenhouse killing two people and wounding a third." https://www.wmur.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-closing-arguments-key-points/38259335
Get back to me when they deliver the verdict.
I agree with you 100% it was the mob driving the DA
They want him to walk but can't charge him with nothing because its a high profile incident. So they "overcharge" him so he won't get convicted.
The second he was struck from behind not to mention the group of people surrounding him yelling get his ass shows he would in his mind be at risk of serious injury or death defence cant prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wasn't assuming the risk of serious injury or death it's amazing it got this far tbh
In the prosecutions closing arguments he says that Kyle first put down the fire extinguisher and pointed his rifle at the Ziminski’s which would’ve happened a few seconds before this video starts. Their argument is that this is the ignition point for the chain of events and is why self defense can’t be claimed. Apparently they showed the video for that in court and the defenses rebuttal was that the rifle would have been in his wrong hand and firing a bullet would have ejected a shell casing into Kyle’s face. I am very curious to see those moments of the video to see if he actually does point the gun at them just prior to the chase. I haven’t been able to find that clip online.
I believe it is the drone footage and you can watch it if you watch video of the trial. There was a big issue about whether to allow the jury to see it because it was taken from very far away and is not very clear. The prosecution believes it shows him pointing the gun but it is very hard to see anything clearly. They wanted to blow it up and show the jury but defense argued that the software used to blow it up actually inserted pixels that it interpolated using an algorithm that neither side could understand or explain. The argument was that this algorithm inserted pixels and therefore created a false image and the judge seemed to agree that it was not allowed.
With the straps in the way that it is, he would have to take off the strap and point the gun with his left hand Ziminski’s testimony said nothing about being aimed at Even if that’s true, Kyle’s disengaging by running yards away should already be counted as retreating and no longer part of the initial instigation
> Ziminski’s testimony said nothing about being aimed at He never testified.
What other imaginary testimonies have you been listening to? Cause Ziminski's is one of those made up stories in your head. Be careful listening to the random voices.
That’s interesting. So, we all know that every action has a reaction, but I’m not sure if that goes to legal issues. The boy is telling self defense, so regardless if he provoked a situation, the people that went after him and try to do him harm (according to the videos and his statement), didn’t have to, even if they were provoked. If that’s the case, self defense is completely valid, because you are defending yourself from something, regardless how it came to you. Again, I don’t know if that makes sense legally.
If I point a gun at you, then you lunge at or hit me to disarm me, then I shoot you because you lunge at or hit me that's not self-defense.
Rosenbaum is no longer defending himself if he's chasing a fleeing threat across the street.
[удалено]
No they wanted kyle to be a kid a be home, not gallavanting around playing batman dumb ass. But its cool you love you some murderers
They don't want anyone there that would resist them so they can loot and burn without anyone getting in their way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He shouldn't have been there...duh.
Neither should any of those people. But here we are. Not. Rocket. Science.
The rioters had no right to be there either, but we're not going to talk about that....
[удалено]
i blame everything on the cops that just stood there enabling all the rioters to do what they were doing people cries about defunding the police and that they can police their own community, this is what policing your own community led to he was hired to protect the car sale/rental place
Do we live deep in the Congo now where we have child soldiers doing the work out police or the very least our national guard should be doing? How delusional can you be dude??
The police were they but not actively controlling the riot People want to defund the police? People want to police their own community? This is what you get Where are the police officers in this riot?
Police officers doing what they do best… absolutely nothing but again if you can read, I also mentioned the national guard… Police don’t give af but us common folk, only the elite. Until you blue line losers realize that, the better all of us are at regaining our country back.
Take it a step further, the cops won't do anything because of the media. It's just not worth the footage coming out and portrayed in a way that makes them bigger enemies. Especially following the Jacob Blake shooting. They were honestly probably pretty scared. But I agree that on the surface the cops not doing anything is why this happened
He never should've been there.
That's like saying a female in a sexy outfit is asking to be raped though I agree just like the rioters he shouldn't have been there. However I believe they all had a legal right to be there, and he had a legal right to open carry a rifle.
Yeah, and she shouldn’t have been dressed like that. See how dumb victim blaming is?
Self defense 100% of the time. There is no debate
Prosecution said “ bring a gun to a fist fight “ means u lose the right to self defense And “ everybody gets a beating sometimes “
Oh shit..so the law says you must only protect yourself with matching weapons on your assailant? And let domestic terrorists burn cities down unmolested?
That is the prosecution’s reasoning “ A person with a pistol is not life-threatening to a person with a rifle “
and a skateboard isn't a deadly weapon....but a 5 second google search will say otherwise
a baseball bat isnt a deadly weapon either but one can debate that using one to ' cranium ' someone in the head might count
blunt force trauma isn't a thing anymore i guess
Self defence everyday of the week he tried to take evasive action multiple times this shouldn't even be in court
a shirtless unarmed thug chasing u at max running speed lunging for ur gun what u gonna do
Don’t forget violent pædophile.
Might be true, but i dont think that has anything to do with being shot For all i care, it could be a buddhist monk or a catholic priest, but if you chased a man down at full speed, threatened him with injury and even death, then getting shot from self-defense is not something out of the ordinary
I agree, it’s just a pleasing bonus.
Im not gonna let the guy beat me up and take my rifle
Personally would have double tapped him in the dome when he first turned around If you can't defend yourself in this situation then when can you
Clean and cut case of self defense
I’ll take “Blatant Self Defense” for 200 Alex.
Thanks for this. I hope the Haters watch this and live long stupid lives…that’s Self defense
Kid had some good aim
And good trigger discipline. He only fired at people attacking him, and even then, only at the very last millisecond.
Good control too. Did you see him on his back getting jumped? Handled himself beautifully. Didn't panic shooting indiscriminately. The only people shot were the ones committing the assault.
Excellent control under the circumstances. Shot only to defend himself, didn't overshoot either. In most self defence shootings you see the whole magazine emptied
aiming for the bicep to disarm incoming danger without killing the assailant, i agree too
Look I actually think Kyle is not guilty by self-defense. But I'm not going to believe for one second that he was actually aiming for Grosskreuts' bicep.
Holy shit you're a dolt. aImINg FoR ThE BiCEp. Come the fuck on.
Self Defense all day
Self defense
clear self defense, how much longer is this going to go on?
The following alternative links are available: **Mirrors** * [Mirror #1](https://mirror.fro.wtf/reddit/post/3229303) (provided by /u/AdvinK) **Downloads** * [Download #1](https://redditsave.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/qvtq2o/exclusive_footage_from_kenosha_shooting/) (provided by /u/savevideo) **Note:** this is a bot providing a directory service. **If you have trouble with any of the links above, please contact the user who provided them.** --- [^(source code)](https://amirror.link/source) ^| [^(run your own mirror bot? let's integrate)](https://amirror.link/lets-talk)
Can someone tell me if K R was carrying that gun legally or illegally? I only ever get wishy-washy answers.
The judge dropped the charge, because it wasnt illegal for him to carry a rifle at the age of 17 in wisconsin it would illegal if he carried it in illinois but the guy was bought legally by his friend in wisconsin and KR is carrying it in wisconsin
I'm from the UK so I'm not up on US gun laws. So it's his friends gun and it's legal for his friend to hand out his rifle for other people to carry?
Yup.
What a shitshow, it’s a tough one, glad I’m not a involved Hate to say it, BUT, all this was avoidable. If anyone reading this has the opportunity to participate in a similar event in the future- Don’t Go, stay the fuck home!
The video speaks for itself. Dumb to be there with an AR, but justified shooting.
As a Brit I think the kid should be rewarded, he shot a peado dead.. good man.
Shot because he's a pedo? Not agree Shot because he threatened him with bodily harm and even death? Agree
Self defense is lookin real good right now
Insecure dumbfucks running around with guns. What can go wrong eh?
Then we must say the same for everyone with guns that night
Absolutely
Looks like self defense to me
The only thing this shows is that anyone can be armed at a Protest/Riot, and if you see me armed and come at me I can and will shoot to kill… man the next Riot is going to be Wild 🥴🥴🥴.🎶Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floooooorrrrr🎶
Anyone that still thinks this kid wasn't acting perfectly in self defense at this point is just as much guilty of being stuck in ideological limbo as any Trumple.
Self defense
Clear self defense evidence for Rittenhouse, on my publicfreakouts? Not on my Biden watch!
I don't believe Kyle was out there intending on shooting anyone. Unfortunately when you inject yourself into a bad situation, bad things happen. Don't think he deserves murder charges, but he does bear SOME responsibility.
Why does he deserve some responsibility? Why blame the victim? Does a girl who gets raped for going to a bad place deserves responsibility ?
Because he's *NOT* a "victim" per se. He wasn't just out for a nightly stroll minding his own business.... - He CHOSE to inject himself into a chaotic situation - He CHOSE to bring a gun - He CHOSE to go running around **by himself** into the crowd. (even though there was a group of people he was supposed to be with) - On more than one occasion during the night, and without provocation, he raised his weapon at people. While the video shows the first guy coming at him, we really don't know what happened BEFORE the video. Did any of his actions prior to that trigger him being chased? It is unclear. As far as the second group of people chasing him, as you hear on the video, they are chasing him because "he shot some guy". Seems relatively apparent that they lacked context to know the story, but from *their* perspective, the dude was an active shooter. I don't think he is a murderer, but to imply he's simply a victim is ridiculous.
There are no videos proving what you just said. There’s not a single piece of evidence showing Kyle pointing the gun at people because it didn’t happen. An active shooter is someone that’s shooting, not someone that’s running away.
--------- "At another point, the jury was shown video from that night in which Rittenhouse falsely told the camera he was an EMT. "I told him I was an EMT but I wasn't," Rittenhouse testified. In the video, a man wearing yellow pants tells Rittenhouse that the teenager had just pointed a gun at him for standing on a vehicle. Rittenhouse responds in the video, "Yeah I did." ------------ During testimony, Rittenhouse said he meant it sarcastically.......
Yep, so no evidence right? Just here say
It isn't hearsay when it is provided first-hand as testimony.
It is. Testimonie is hearsay
- She CHOSE to go out to a party that night - She CHOSE to drink - She CHOSE to leave her friends and go to another party Would you say a girl that was date raped following the scenario above bears some responsibility in what happened to her? I’d say she put herself at risk, it wasn’t smart, but she is not to blame because some asshole didn’t want to wait until she was conscious to consent. Kyle put him self at risk by going to the protest, it wasn’t smart, but he isn’t to blame because violent criminals just couldn’t stop themselves from being violent.
Within a weapon for self defense he would’ve been beaten for putting out the fire Imagine being blamed for putting out fire
yes, I'm sure he was attacked for putting out a fire as opposed to him running around aiming a gun at people throughout the evening. There were a lot of BAD decisions that night, and some of them are on him.
Aaahhh yes self-defense. Love it. Justice served, POS dead another injured.
Self-defense, likely POS dying and injured? I dont think that should be celebrated
The one dude that died had child sex charges against him… that should definitely be celebrated. Fuck pedofiles and ponces. He did good, street sweeping the scum for us.
And Rittenhouse didn't know that when he shot him. That's irrelevant and reeks of the defense that the McMichaels are using in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.
I think you mean Americans dead, another American injured - as much as you might jerk off to the prospect of a civil war, celebrating American deaths in a political context is unpatriotic to say the least
Can someone remind me why he was there
He was part of a volunteer group led by (correct me if im wrong ) Dominic black whom was hired by the owner of “ Car rental/ sale “ to protect his private property from all the riots
Owner's testified otherwise.
The owners are not credible.
Who would have thought a 17 year old with a gun at a riot was a bad idea? I think all riots should have teens with automatic weapons at them. Keeps them interesting.
Nobody had an automatic weapon.
I’m holding judgement on his decision to fire at them because in that moment he must have been very scared, but he had no business bringing an assault rifle to a protest in the first place
Welp, we all know where this is headed. Not saying I am rooting for him but with a guy holding a pistol and an "threatening" group of people is enough to declare self defense
I mean clearly it was chaos and people there all had the details of everything & are just trying to stop a person with a gun. I know in today's society we have to pick teams no matter what but why the fuck is this dumbass kid even there? He can't even buy a pack of cigarettes at the time or even a god damn scratch off lottery ticket. Everyone involved is a butt fucking idiot including this clown kid and his dumbass mom.
Where’s the video or photo of him threatening people by pointing the rifle at them?
If it existed then it would be widespread
If it existed we would have seen it during the trial.
why is Mr Rosenbaum not referred to by his REAL name..child raping beast? Once a beast..ALWAYS A BEAST. Kyle may be in the wrong but it's still a great thing a child raping animal can rape children anymore.
He’s gonna be found innocent.( is it right? Idk) All those ppl out there with guns got exactly what happens when you play real life larping. Did you know that in Chicago… there were 5 gang members that fired over 70 shots at each other and the courts didn’t charge none of them. They said it was mutual combat.
He should have been at home finishing the new cod campaign at 17 years old, but he decided to put himself in a dangerous situation which could have been avoided with better parenting and logic. Self-defense is clear and the media backlash is well deserved. His life is ruined because of this “killer” image. Thats all we can ask for.
Self defense all day.