Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[andersweinstein]

And you can put yourself in harm’s way without losing the right to self defense.

I would certainly think so too, but I've been wondering about why the first shooting is charged as first degree reckless homicide. And one thing I've been wondering is: what exactly is the reckless behavior the prosecution will be charging: is it just the way he discharged his firearm, as if to charge he was spraying fire wildly? Some remarks hint prosecution might be aiming to suggest the whole act of his inserting himself armed to protect property into a lawless area with rioters was the reckless behavior. Could something like that possibly be where he is going?

I would think that latter very implausible. If you go armed into a bad neighborhood, get mugged and shoot in self-defense, can they really charge *you* for being reckless in going there? That seems like victim blaming akin to saying you were "asking for it". But I don't feel I understand why exactly the first shooting is charged as reckless. It doesn't look very different from the similarly close-range shooting of Huber which is charged as intentional.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Thanks!

[RVInit]

Rittenhouse is a sniveling little POS who had no business being where he was armed with a lethal weapon. Another piece of testimony that stuck with me is when Bland talked about why he was trying to stay with Rittenhouse. It was because he saw Rittenhouse as a danger. His age, his demeanor, and the fact that he smart mouthed to an unarmed person at the gas station all concerned Balch, who testified that he tried to stay with Kyle all night and the takeaway of that testimony is that this guy believed Rittenhouse to be a danger. He didn't use those words, probably because he was trying to be more of a pro defense witness, but you have to ask yourself why he thought it so important to constantly be looking for Rittenhouse in order to stay with him. He describes that during times when he didn't know where Rittenhouse was, he was actively looking for him.

Also I wanted to mention that I was appalled at Vinnie Politan's CourtTV show, and could only watch it for 5 minutes. Which pains me because I used to love his show in the old days. His description of the prosecutor's opening statement made me think we were watching two completely different trials. Politan claimed that the prosecutor said that after chasing Rosenbaum, Rittenhouse shot him in the back. That is not what the prosecutor said in opening. WHat he said was that initially Rittenhouse was chasing Rosenbaum. That is confirmed by the video. Not by the doctored video the defense put on, but the entire video that did not have that little piece removed. That was strictly done for people who are not watching the trial. The defense put on a doctored video, pushed it out to social media, so now anyone who isn't watching the trial is not getting the complete picture. After Rittenhouse chases Rosenbaum for a short while, Rosenbaum goes one way around cars while Rittenhouse goes the other way. There are words that take place that we are told by the prosecutor that we will hear testimony about. Those words angered Rosenbaum, who then comes around the cars to come back into contact with Rittenhouse. There are more confrontational words spoken by both men, after which Rittenhouse turns to run and Rosenbaum runs after him and throws the bag at him. Rittenhouse turns after hearing gun fire and he shoots Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum does make an initial lunge but never touches the weapon. He loses his balance and continues falling as Rittenhouse continues firing off shots, the lethal shot being the one that hits Rosenbaum in the back because he has fallen forward.

I'm sure there will be disagreement on a jury of twelve people as to whether this part was self defense. I don't believe it was. It has been established that Rittenhouse was standing right by Balch when Balch was interacting with Rosenbaum a little while before the killing. It was established that Rosenbaum had nothing in his hands other than a plastic see-through bag from the hospital. Yes, I know all the rwnj are saying he had a chain in his hands. About three hours before he encountered the men with guns, Rosenbaum briefly picked up a chain and then it was discarded long before any of the gunmen ever came into contact with him. It is not possible that any of them could have had any reasonable suspicion that Rosenbaum was armed with anything, becaues there is ample testimony that Balch and Rittenhouse observed Rosenbaum for a long time at one point and Balch had to answer "no" to every single question about whether Rosenbaum was armed, whether he harmed any other person in any way. He was shit talking to lots of people. But so was nearly everyone else at that gas station. Everyone at that gas station was shit talking each other, including Rittenhouse. Balch even testified that he told Kyle to stop that nonsense because he is going to end up escalating something if he keeps saying sarcastic things to the unarmed protesters. And that is precisely what the prosecutor intends to prove according to his opening statement. That Rittenhouse shit talked Rosenbaum and that is why Rosenbaum came from behind the car to confront Rittenhouse. From watching the video, Rosenbaum had intially stopped any chasing of anyone at the point that he veered off and went one way around the cars. IMO by Rosenbaum's movements, I believe it is likely he wouldn't have cared one whit about Rittenhouse had he not shit talked. Directly prior to that, it was Rittenhouse who was running behind Rosenbaum, not the other way around as the defense is saying. There is nothing in that video that even suggests to me that Rosenbaum even knew Rittenhouse was behind him at that point. He only turns his attention to Rittenhouse when Rittenhouse, who goes the other way around the same cars, turns around and starts shit talking according to the prosecutor who says he will be putting on witnesses to testify to that fact. And you actually see Rittenhouse turn around in the video. That seems to correspond to what the prosecutor says the evidence will show.

[pipistrelle]

Someone upthread mentioned thinking of "medics" as associated with the military. My oldest brother was an army medic. I asked him about training — two solid weeks plus classes on preventive care (then he spent a lot of time treating STDs). He'd sent us photos of him bandaging "wounds" in field exercises.

Rittenhouse was even doing a good job play pretending medic.

[Maybenaut]

And you can put yourself in harm’s way without losing the right to self defense.

I would certainly think so too, but I've been wondering about why the first shooting is charged as first degree reckless homicide. And one thing I've been wondering is: what exactly is the reckless behavior the prosecution will be charging: is it just the way he discharged his firearm, as if to charge he was spraying fire wildly? Some remarks hint prosecution might be aiming to suggest the whole act of his inserting himself armed to protect property into a lawless area with rioters was the reckless behavior. Could something like that possibly be where he is going?

I would think that latter very implausible. If you go armed into a bad neighborhood, get mugged and shoot in self-defense, can they really charge *you* for being reckless in going there? That seems like victim blaming akin to saying you were "asking for it". But I don't feel I understand why exactly the first shooting is charged as reckless. It doesn't look very different from the similarly close-range shooting of Huber which is charged as intentional.

I think they charged it that way because they didn’t think they prove that the killing of Rosenbaum was intentional. To prove first degree reckless homicide the the government has to prove that Rittenhouse created a risk of death or great bodily harm to Rosenbaum; that the risk was unreasonable and substantial; and that Rittenhouse was aware that the risk was unreasonable and substantial. (Didn’t he say something about “only lethal,” or words to that effect? I think the government can get there).

They also have to show “utter disregard for human life,” which requires the jury to consider what the Rittenhouse was doing, why he was doing it, how dangerous the conduct was, how obvious the danger was, whether the conduct showed any regard for life, and all other facts and circumstances relating to the conduct.


I personally think the government can get there on all of this stuff, so long as the jury isn’t swayed by the self-defense claim.

[andersweinstein]

Directly prior to that, it was Rittenhouse who was running behind Rosenbaum, not the other way around as the defense is saying.

Just want to note this is not something defense is saying. It has always been known from ground video that during the walk down Sheridan Rd, Rosenbaum ran ahead of Rittenhouse, who started running a bit later. The defense theory is that Rittenhouse had no idea Rosenbaum was ahead of him, and Rosenbaum was running ahead to take up position behind parked cars from which to ambush Rittenhouse when he got to the lot.

Again, my idea has been that the aerial video is inconclusive, an ambiguous figure consistent with either interpretation, so not strong confirmation of one as against the other.

[andersweinstein]

And you can put yourself in harm’s way without losing the right to self defense.

I would certainly think so too, but I've been wondering about why the first shooting is charged as first degree reckless homicide.

I think they charged it that way because they didn’t think they prove that the killing of Rosenbaum was intentional. To prove first degree reckless homicide the the government has to prove that Rittenhouse created a risk of death or great bodily harm to Rosenbaum; that the risk was unreasonable and substantial; and that Rittenhouse was aware that the risk was unreasonable and substantial.

They also have to show “utter disregard for human life,” which requires the jury to consider what the Rittenhouse was doing, why he was doing it, how dangerous the conduct was, how obvious the danger was, whether the conduct showed any regard for life, and all other facts and circumstances relating to the conduct.

So since any intentional shooting meets those conditions, essentially any intentional shooting can just be charged it as "reckless" if prosecutors find that more convenient?

I still don't understand: why wouldn't they think they can prove it is intentional? It sure looks as intentional at anything. No one could plausibly claim there were four accidental discharges, for example. Jury instructions make clear the intention does not have to be premeditated, it can be formed at the moment of shooting or immediately before.

(Didn’t he say something about “only lethal,” or words to that effect? I think the government can get there).

This quote definitely sounds bad, but on reflection it is not remarkable. It would be extremely odd for someone arming himself for self-defense to use non-lethal ammunition. I think it would be exceedingly unusual for civilians to use non-lethal ammunition at all, that's specialized stuff for law enforcement applications, isn't it? So he was just answering the dumb question honestly: no, they didn't have non-lethal. It doesn't add anything to the fact that he went there armed with a rifle (as opposed to mace, say). But, sure, it could have some persuasive effect to hear him say this.

[Maybenaut]

So since any shooting meets those conditions, essentially any shooting can be charged it as "reckless" if prosecutors find that convenient?

Why not? In what universe is it OK to go around shooting people?

I still don't understand: why wouldn't they think they can prove it is intentional? It sure looks as intentional at anything. No one could plausibly claim there were four accidental discharges, for example. Jury instructions make clear the intention does not have to be premeditated, it can be formed at the moment of shooting or immediately before.

To clarify, I’m speculating about that. I don’t know what evidence the state had when it made it’s charging decision. All I know is that if I got a charge sheet on my desk that charged reckless conduct, I would assume that it’s because the state, for reasons of its own, thought they couldn’t prove intent.

(Didn’t he say something about “only lethal,” or words to that effect? I think the government can get there).

This quote definitely sounds bad, but on reflection it is not remarkable. It would be extremely odd for someone arming himself for self-defense to use non-lethal ammunition. I think it would be exceedingly unusual for civilians to use non-lethal ammunition at all, that's specialized stuff for law enforcement applications, isn't it? So he was just answering the dumb question honestly: no, they didn't have non-lethal. It doesn't add anything to the fact that he went there armed with a rifle (as opposed to mace, say). But, sure, it could have some persuasive effect to hear him say this.

well, I was specifically talking about that in the context of whether he knew what he was doing had an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. So when he said it was “lethal” then the government can easily prove that he knew that the risk was substantial. As to unreasonable, you can’t use lethal force to protect mere property. And that’s what they’re all saying they were there to do, right? Protect the property?

[andersweinstein]

So since any shooting meets those conditions, essentially any shooting can be charged it as "reckless" if prosecutors find that convenient?

Why not? In what universe is it OK to go around shooting people?

Not saying it's OK, just intuitively odd to me to count an intentional shooting as a reckless one, just because it is more convenient for prosecutors to do so. (I edited my original post to change "shooting" to "intentional shooting" to clarify the question)

I realize now it would be possible to intentionally shoot someone in the leg with intent only to wound and then if they die it is not intentional homicide because intent was not to kill. So I guess we need to distinguish a subset of intentional shootings for cases like that.

well, I was specifically talking about that in the context of whether he knew what he was doing had an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm. So when he said it was “lethal” then the government can easily prove that he knew that the risk was substantial.

He shot him 4 times intentionally with his gun. They need a quote to show he knew the gun was loaded? OK. They need it to show he knew that shooting someone with a loaded gun created a substantial risk to the shootee? OK. I just don't see this as something that needs a lot of proof.

As to unreasonable, you can’t use lethal force to protect mere property. And that’s what they’re all saying they were there to do, right? Protect the property?[/color]

OK again, but defense is denying he shot to protect property. They're not disputing it was a 100% intentional shooting. So, sure they can use this stuff to tick all the boxes for reckless homicide. But that was never going to be any kind of hurdle for the prosecution that would be difficult to clear. The *only* dispute in this case is going to be over self-defense.

[Maybenaut]

The government is allowed to charge an offense however they want. I doubt they did it for “convenience.” And, of course, at the time they charged Rittenhouse, they wouldn’t have known what the defense theory was going to be (although they likely could have speculated).

Perhaps the only “dispute” is self defense, but the government still has to tick those boxes. This is what I do for a living. In appellate cases where the real dispute is over issues like self defense or consent, I still look at what the government was required to prove, and what evidence they presented on each element. Sometimes (not often) the government gets so wrapped up in the anticipated defense that they’ll fail to present evidence on an element that would have been easy to prove.

[raison de arizona]

Not saying it's OK, just intuitively odd to me to count an intentional shooting as a reckless one, just because it is more convenient for prosecutors to do so. (I edited my original post to change "shooting" to "intentional shooting" to clarify the question)

If I intentionally shoot someone in a crowd, that could certainly be considered reckless IMO. That doesn't make every intentional shooting reckless, but I can certainly see this as reckless.

[andersweinstein]

[Rosenbaum] was shit talking to lots of people. But so was nearly everyone else at that gas station. Everyone at that gas station was shit talking each other, including Rittenhouse. Balch even testified that he told Kyle to stop that nonsense because he is going to end up escalating something if he keeps saying sarcastic things to the unarmed protesters. And that is precisely what the prosecutor intends to prove according to his opening statement. That Rittenhouse shit talked Rosenbaum and that is why Rosenbaum came from behind the car to confront Rittenhouse. From watching the video, Rosenbaum had intially stopped any chasing of anyone at the point that he veered off and went one way around the cars. IMO by Rosenbaum's movements, I believe it is likely he wouldn't have cared one whit about Rittenhouse had he not shit talked.

Interestingly, because "shit-talking" is not illegal, it looks to me like merely shit-talking would NOT count as provocation for the purpose of bringing in the "role of provocation" considerations in WI self-defense law. It looks to me like you can shit-talk someone all you want in WI and it doesn't affect your privilege of self-defense if they attack you. The only way it would affect you is if you were doing it with the specific intention of provoking an attack so you can kill them and claim self-defense.

[RVInit]

Not saying it's OK, just intuitively odd to me to count an intentional shooting as a reckless one, just because it is more convenient for prosecutors to do so. (I edited my original post to change "shooting" to "intentional shooting" to clarify the question)

If I intentionally shoot someone in a crowd, that could certainly be considered reckless IMO. That doesn't make every intentional shooting reckless, but I can certainly see this as reckless.

It would be hard for me to think that the jury wouldn't find recklessness as regards the journalist. Which is one of the charges. They used FMJ ammo, which has been adequately testified that it is not allowed for hunting because those bullets tend to go right through the animal (in this case a human) and could continue to travel on to hit something else. In this case the journalist. The testimony by Balch was that normally when using a gun for self defense he would use hollow point bullets, which tend to just stay in the body of the target. But when target practice they tend to use FMJ which can go right through and hit other things. So, they used the same ammo for their supposed "self defense" in Kenosha that they would normally use for target practice. Oops. That's not a good look any way you slice it. And that was testified to by Balch with a straight face and apparently he missed the whole point of what he was saying. I wonder how many jurors missed the point. Who knows, maybe all of them, maybe some. But maybe one or two took notes on that and will bring it up in deliberations. I would if I were sitting on that jury. It certainly goes to reckless disregard if nothing else.

[raison de arizona]

Interestingly, because "shit-talking" is not illegal, it looks to me like merely shit-talking would NOT count as provocation for the purpose of bringing in the "role of provocation" considerations in WI self-defense law. It looks to me like you can shit-talk someone all you want in WI and it doesn't affect your privilege of self-defense if they attack you. The only way it would affect you is if you were doing it with the specific intention of provoking an attack so you can kill them and claim self-defense.

You seem to be considering Rosembaum an assailant under that statute, I'm not so sure I agree with that.

[andersweinstein]

Not saying it's OK, just intuitively odd to me to count an intentional shooting as a reckless one, just because it is more convenient for prosecutors to do so. (I edited my original post to change "shooting" to "intentional shooting" to clarify the question)

If I intentionally shoot someone in a crowd, that could certainly be considered reckless IMO. That doesn't make every intentional shooting reckless, but I can certainly see this as reckless.

Well this is a bit like the reckless endangerment charge for bystander Richie McGinnis. They actually got into a fine point about the jury instructions on this charge, which involves the issue of endangering an innocent bystander if acting in self-defense against another party. The question was whether perfect self-defense against another is automatically a defense against reckless endangerment of a third party. A hypothetical is if you are attacked on the street and shoot the bad actor but there are four little children all around him, are you automatically off the hook for creating a risk to the children by shooting. Instructions are a little ambiguous on this, at one point they suggest yes, at another, no. Defense wanted only the yes part included, but judge left them as is.

[raison de arizona]

Well this is a bit like the reckless endangerment charge for bystander Richie McGinnis. They actually got into a fine point about the jury instructions on this charge, which involves the issue of endangering an innocent bystander if acting in self-defense against another party. The question was whether perfect self-defense against another is automatically a defense against reckless endangerment of a third party. A hypothetical is if you are attacked on the street and shoot the bad actor but there are four little children all around him, are you automatically off the hook for creating a risk to the children by shooting. Instructions are a little ambiguous on this, at one point they suggest yes, at another, no. Defense wanted only the yes part included, but judge left them as is.

I'm thinking that if I'm attacked by a small guy wielding a plastic bag filled with toiletries who is surrounded by children, and I kill two kids and the guy, I'm probably going to be in trouble for plugging the kids. But I don't know WI law other than what I've read and that seems strange and foreign to me, so maybe it is cool there. Dunno.

[andersweinstein]

Interestingly, because "shit-talking" is not illegal, it looks to me like merely shit-talking would NOT count as provocation for the purpose of bringing in the "role of provocation" considerations in WI self-defense law. It looks to me like you can shit-talk someone all you want in WI and it doesn't affect your privilege of self-defense if they attack you. The only way it would affect you is if you were doing it with the specific intention of provoking an attack so you can kill them and claim self-defense.

You seem to be considering Rosembaum an assailant under that statute, I'm not so sure I agree with that.

Well defense will have to argue that to make its self-defense case. You can always take a different view of the facts.

[andersweinstein]

Well this is a bit like the reckless endangerment charge for bystander Richie McGinnis. They actually got into a fine point about the jury instructions on this charge, which involves the issue of endangering an innocent bystander if acting in self-defense against another party. The question was whether perfect self-defense against another is automatically a defense against reckless endangerment of a third party. A hypothetical is if you are attacked on the street and shoot the bad actor but there are four little children all around him, are you automatically off the hook for creating a risk to the children by shooting. Instructions are a little ambiguous on this, at one point they suggest yes, at another, no. Defense wanted only the yes part included, but judge left them as is.

I'm thinking that if I'm attacked by a small guy wielding a plastic bag filled with toiletries who is surrounded by children, and I kill two kids and the guy, I'm probably going to be in trouble for plugging the kids. But I don't know WI law other than what I've read and that seems strange and foreign to me, so maybe it is cool there. Dunno.

Yeah, that seems natural and I gather it is the standard view, it's just that the WI jury instructions include an unqualified, blanket statement in them: "If the defendant was acting lawfully in self-defense, (his) (her) conduct did not create an unreasonable risk to another." So that's the weirdness. Defense wanted only that blanket statement included, judge offered the above hypothetical and left instructions as is.

[p0rtia]

Rittenhouse is a sniveling little POS who had no business being where he was armed with a lethal weapon.

Respectufully

Yeah, that.

Moreover: That I live in a country where his presence in that location, armed, at that time, might somehow be perceived as rational, positive, or excusable, let alone legal*, fills me with daily anguish.

[filly]

Rittenhouse is a sniveling little POS who had no business being where he was armed with a lethal weapon.

Respectufully

Yeah, that.

Moreover: That I live in a country where his presence in that location, armed, at that time, might somehow be perceived as rational, positive, or excusable, let alone legal*, fills me with daily anguish.

You nailed it!

[Foggy]

Yeah, what p0rtia said.

How is the jury reacting to all the shit-talking?

[Azastan]

Rittenhouse is a sniveling little POS who had no business being where he was armed with a lethal weapon.

Respectufully

Yeah, that.

Moreover: That I live in a country where his presence in that location, armed, at that time, might somehow be perceived as rational, positive, or excusable, let alone legal*, fills me with daily anguish.

You nailed it!

And not just that someone would consider it legal, but that the Supreme Court is actively considering expanding the availability of lethal weapons in the state of New York.

Because EVERY human being in the United States of America needs to own a gun.

[LM K]

2. So Rittenhouse was wandering around and then received a call from someone "sending" him to a specific location? Who called Rittenhouse? Is my understanding of your comment correct?

I believe Black testified it was Nick Smith. Nick Smith is his friend and former Car Source employee who he said recruited Black and Rittenhouse for the volunteer gig. I don't think the call sending him south is going to be disputed, but am not certain.

3. How was Black related to Rittenhouse? Did they meet that night? Did Black have Rittenhouse's phone number? Did Black call Rittenhouse to request Rittenhouse's assistance?

Dominick Black was Rittenhouse's close Kenosha buddy whom he'd become "like a brother" with over the previous year. Black is the one who bought the gun for him back in the spring. Rittenhouse had been staying over with Black near downtown Kenosha the night before, during which there was a tremendous amount of burning and property destruction. Black is the guy Rittenhouse called after shooting Rosenbaum.

Thank you, Anders.

[RVInit]

Uh oh. No way Rittenhouse can possibly get on the witness stand. I am at the beginning of today's testimony and already another witness is relaying several lies Rittenhouse told him. Including after shooting Rosenbaum, but before shooting the other people, Kyle ran past him, they had a short conversation where Kyle denied that he had shot anyone. He's looking like a serial liar at this point.

[LM K]

I finally found video showing your timeline. My apologies for my mistakes.

Your strongly asserted claim that Rosenbaum was going to ambush Rittenhouse is 100% unsupported by evidence. Rosenbaum ran towards cars when nearby gunfire was heard and the entire crowd was running. A lot of people were running in the same direction as Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Ya know ... like the reporter.

Why do you ignore that a large group of people fled the area after nearby gunfire? Why do you ignore that a large group of people ran in the direction of the cars because they heard nearby gunfire? Why do I say large? The defense just said it

So Anders; where is the evidence that Rosenbaum intended to ambush Rittenhouse, esp when he was running behind Rittenhouse? How do you "ambush" someone in front of you?

It looks like you have some misconception about the timeline. People in the area did start scattering after the gunfire, but there was no gunfire before the pursuit by Rosenbaum. Rittenhouse arrived at the lot at a run, apparently encountered Josh Ziminski who we know often held his pistol in his hand (unsafely, with his finger on the trigger) and stopped, Rosenbaum emerged from his hiding place behind him, Rittenhouse bolts and Rosenbaum's chase began. Then Josh Ziminski fired the first shot into the air and screamed "you're not gonna do shit motherfucker". 2.5 s later Rittenhouse fired four times in quick succession, then another never identified protestor/rioter fired three more shots into the air from the south side of the lot.

1. I've found NO evidence that Rosenbaum was hiding from Rittenhouse before the chase began. Why do you think Rosenbaum was "hiding"?

In fact, Rosenbaum was walking, in the middle of the street, in the same direction as Rittenhouse when the chase began. There was NO ambush.

See 16:30.



2. How does Ziminski play into this? Rittenhouse had no idea how Ziminski held his gun.

So people did flee after the gunfire started -- more after the rifle shots than Ziminski's shot, I think - but were not fleeing gunfire before the pursuit. Some people were running at various times before the pursuit but we can't tell exactly why. Rittenhouse looks to have entered the lot on the sidewalk at a run, announcing "Friendly Friendly Friendly" as he had done earlier when entering groups of protestors to try to indicate he was not their enemy. He could have been rushing to get to a fire inside the SUV.

Again, evidence? What video shows Rittenhouse saying "Friendly Friendly Friendly"? I can't hear it. I know that there might be video in which Rittenhouse's words can be heard.

Found it.

I personally am convinced the overwhelmingly best theory is that Rosenbaum with Ziminski ambushed a completely unsuspecting Rittenhouse in a wholly unprovoked attack. As I see it, it is the evidence that Rittenhouse did anything to provoke this attack that is lacking. But people who have convicted him in advance in their minds will project some imagined aggression of his into inconclusive data.

1. My question is and has been this. What evidence leads you to believe that Rosenbaum was going to ambush Rittenhouse? Look at 16:30 in the above video.

2. Rittenhouse's gun was provoking. There is video of peaceful but heated confrontations between armed vigilantes and protesters. The armed vigilantes were repeatedly told that their weapons were problematic.

Isn't it possible that Rosenbaum did feel that the armed vigilantes were a threat? See 1:25.



3. Are you serious about projection? Is it possible that your disgust about Rosenbaum's criminal history is coloring your perception/assumptions that Rosenbaum was going to "ambush" Rittenhouse. Video shows Rosenbaum walking down the lighted street just before running after Rittenhouse.

Seriously, Rittenhouse was in front of Rosenbaum for some time. How do you ambush someone in front of you? Why do you avoid this question?

But whether the jury can be convinced of this view, who knows. There are incredible perspectival differences in how people interpret the same evidence in this case. I can't claim my own take is any more immune from bias than anyone else's, just that it doesn't come from right-wing, pro-gun, or anti-BLM political views in my case.

But your biases about Rosenbaum are bothersome. You applaud Rittenhouse for killing Rosenbaum. And your assumptions based on Rosenbaum's mental illness bother me. (Rosenbaum had bipolar disorder.)

Edit: Deleted a duplicate video.

Edit: See crossed out text to see edit.