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

[Uninformed]

I don’t think those posting what is effectively misinformation are interested in accurate reporting. If, a big if, Rittenhouse is found guilty of one or more charges the seeds will have been sown for outrage at the corrupt courts etc.

[Dave from down under]

This is so sad and so horrific. I haven't had the stomach to watch this trial. If Rittenhouse gets off, it's open season on everybody and anybody "they" don't like.

You are taking all these rwnj tweets way too seriously. The jury is NOT getting the information that you are seeing on teh tweets. I don't know how else to keep saying that over and over and over and over again. This trial is NOT going the way they are saying it's going. I would NOT LIE TO YOU GUYS.

That said, of course, I have NO idea how the jury will find. I can only say that the trial si going far better for the prosecution than it is going for the defense. These people on Twitter are full of SHIT.

I so hope you are right.

Because I fear your juries will have on them some of those nutz ignoring the evidence just because…

[filly]

What do we know about the jury?

[raison de arizona]

What do we know about the jury?

It consists of 20 members — 11 women and nine men.

Nineteen members of the jury are white and one person of color.

IIRC one pregnant woman and one racist man have been dismissed.

A few other factoids: https://www.wisn.com/article/kyle-ritte ... e/38135570

[RVInit]

I have the same fears about the jury. The point that I'm making is that the only people who are posting on Twitter are Rittenhouse supporters. And tehy are misrepresenting what the JURY IS BEING SHOWN. There is no reason to believe the jury has the same "take" as what you are seeing on Twitter because Twitter is not telling you the truth about what is being presented to the jury.

For instance, I have gone over and over and over Grosskreutz and the contention that he "admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse". He did NOT admit he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse as is being reported, even by media!!

I have still 2.5 more hours of work, I have to sign back into to a meeting in 3 minutes. So today is a bust for me. I will try to listen to it later for today, but in the meantime, CHILL OUT. The trial is NOT going badly for the prosecution. AT ALL.

[Dave from down under]

Thank you for the reality check

The Kyleianes constant gas lighting does cause stress.

[RVInit]

So far I was able to listen to a little of the beginning while I wasn't needed in a meeting.

So, the drone footage mentioned yesterday was enhanced and cropped and several versions are being shown to the jury, including versions of the enhanced, cropped, and slowed down by 50%. You can see the "cloud" created by Rittenhouse first shot and that does appear slightly before Rosenbaum's hands are raised. That does tend to squash the idea that Rosenbaum grabbed at the gun first. I did see a little bit of later testimony, which I commented on earlier, but I am going to start from the beginning and give a more full account. But just as a preview, this also is consistent with the medical examiner's testimony, which I will talk about more fully after I listen to all of it. But, the day is starting well for the prosecution in my opinion, due to the fact that the "new" drone footage actually helps the prosecutor. Since it's from a better angle to judge the distance between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum it tends to diminish the testimony from the Daily Caller guy who said he thought Rosenbaum was trying to grab for Rittenhouse's weapon. The Daily Caller guy was behind Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum, the drone footage is great because you see all three of them and it's clear the drone footage is more accurate than the viewpoint of Daily Caller guy, since he is behind Rosenbaum and doesn't have a good handle on how far away he is from Rittenhouse. If you watch the video from today's testimony, this is all coming in a little before the 20 minute mark.

The prosecutor is also moving into evidence a folder that contains frames from the drone video. It will be interesting to see if they display any of those to the jury, especially the ones around the time of the shooting. That should further clarify the timing of when Rittenhouse shoots and when Rosenbaum lifts his hands.

[RVInit]

I should say, I am watching the feed from PBS News Hour. They have video on YouTube for every day of the trial. If you watch their video from today and want to see the close up drone footage of the shooting of Rosenbaum, start watching around the 20 minute mark. Around 21:28 is the start of a closeup enhanced portion of the shooting. Try to stop the video at different parts, note that you can tell when Rittenhouse shoots because a cloud appears. That makes it easy to tell how far Rosenbaum is from him at the time of the shooting. He takes aim at Rosenbaum before Rosenbaum throws the bag at him. He doesn't fire at this point, but he aims at him. He turns and starts running again. All he had to do is keep running, the reason Rosenbaum is able to catch up with him is because he keeps turning around to look at how far back Rosenbaum is.

I have watched over and over the slowed down version of the enhanced and cropped video. From what I can see I still say Rosenbaum appears to be in an upright position when the "cloud" appears from the first shot. He falls forward after his hip is shattered by the first bullet. I will get more into that later. During a break this morning I watched part of the medical examiner testimony, which comes later than the testimony I'm describing right now. But basically, the medical examiner used video to match up the position of Rosenbaum's body with the bullet wounds to determine which shots happened first. He determined the wound to the hip was the first wound, happened while he was upright (so not lunging for the gun) and the wound to the hand is consistent with his hand being near the end of the barrel. But that doesn't negate that the first wound occurred while he was upright. The trajectory of the wound, the amount of stippling all suggest this was the first shot as he is falling down when the hand shot happens. The third and fourth shots were taken when he was almost horizontal to the ground. So, the hip shot had to be first. That shot resulted in compound fractures to his hip and the medical examiner says it would have been hard to stay upright with that kind of damage.

[Dave from down under]

Thank you

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Thank you for the reality check

The Kyleianes constant gas lighting does cause stress.

I agree with RVInit. The testimony is so different than the analysis on Twitter. Perhaps it's the Wisconsin self defense law causing it. Dave perfectly described what I was thinking - Rittenhouse didn't kill Rosenbaum until Rosenbaum had fallen and his back was exposed. Why keep shooting? Self defense means use what is appropriate force. I need to read that instruction again.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

[RVInit]

So that suggests that Rosenbaum's death does not qualify for self defense. The first two shots rendered him unable to cause any harm to Rittenhouse. He was almost face down on the ground after the first two shots, neither of which was determined to be immediately fatal.

[Dave from down under]

Kyleisans will claim that you can only be safe from these left wing protesters when everyone of them is dead.

That is why Kyle only brought *lethal force* to a civil disturbance.

[RVInit]

Medical examiner is up now.

Anthony Huber died from a combination of the wounds to his chest combined with blood loss from those wounds. The heart and lungs were severely damaged from the shot to his chest.

This is the first time the defendant is showing any sign that any of the testimony is bothering him. He shows interest in looking at the autopsy photos, and from time to time the camera will catch him "stealing glances" at he photos. Prior to this testimony, the defendant has seemed oddly unconcerned about what is happening to him. Almost like he has no idea he's on trial. This testimony seems to be the first time he's realizing this is all real. I find it disturbing how easily he is looking at the photos. He has clearly been told not to look, when he knows the camera is on him he looks straight ahead, but he just can't seem to help himself, he keeps looking over at the photos. I find it fascinating, but also disturbing. I don't believe I will ever find out for sure, but I imagine that if I had been forced to kill someone in self defense that I would not be able to look at the photos without falling apart. I don't see the normal smile on Rittenhouse' face, but at least he seems a little affected by this part of the testimony.

[LM K]

This is so sad and so horrific. I haven't had the stomach to watch this trial. If Rittenhouse gets off, it's open season on everybody and anybody "they" don't like.

You are taking all these rwnj tweets way too seriously. The jury is NOT getting the information that you are seeing on teh tweets. I don't know how else to keep saying that over and over and over and over again. This trial is NOT going the way they are saying it's going. I would NOT LIE TO YOU GUYS.

That said, of course, I have NO idea how the jury will find. I can only say that the trial si going far better for the prosecution than it is going for the defense. These people on Twitter are full of SHIT.

You have and continue to be incredibly helpful!

[Dave from down under]

Reality is very different from the shoot-em-up game that he was playing that night with a real weapon.

But the drone footage of him looking at his first victim then strolling away got me..

[RVInit]

Thank you! I hope it's helpful.

[LM K]

I have the same fears about the jury. The point that I'm making is that the only people who are posting on Twitter are Rittenhouse supporters. And tehy are misrepresenting what the JURY IS BEING SHOWN. There is no reason to believe the jury has the same "take" as what you are seeing on Twitter because Twitter is not telling you the truth about what is being presented to the jury.

For instance, I have gone over and over and over Grosskreutz and the contention that he "admitted he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse". He did NOT admit he pointed his gun at Rittenhouse as is being reported, even by media!!

I have still 2.5 more hours of work, I have to sign back into to a meeting in 3 minutes. So today is a bust for me. I will try to listen to it later for today, but in the meantime, CHILL OUT. The trial is NOT going badly for the prosecution. AT ALL.

Well said, my friend!

In general, I trust juries. I trust this jury. Most jurors take their responsibility very seriously and work in good faith. Juries work hard.

While the jury may come to judgements that I do not agree with, I trust this jury to do it's best and will accept their judgement.

The perception of the Twitterverse is ignoring so much evidence. Some pro-Rittenhouse tweeters are hard at work and are tireless. They're not interested in tweeting about what is actually happening in court. They're invested in cherry picking ridiculous tidbits.

[andersweinstein]

Defense motion to reconsider the ruling on minor gun possession charge was curtly denied "for the reasons in ADA Kraus' brief".



At the pre-trial hearing, the denial of the initial motion was a tad tentative -- "I'm going to deny it for now, but that's no guarantee I won't re-examine this" followed by remarks on how statutes have to be clear enough for people of ordinary intelligence to understand "so I'm going to deny the motion subject to reconsideration without motion, I want to give more study to this, and believe me, its not because I haven't looked at it extensively at this point".

[RVInit]

Mr Rosenbaum died from multiple gunshot wounds.

He has a number of injuries. Two injuries where bullet entered the body and did not exit. One graze wound to the head. The wound on the hand and eye are believed to be from the same bullet.

What is stippling? They look for evidence that allows them to estimate the distance of the wound from the muzzle of the gun. Dr is explaining the different things that come out of the gun along with the bullet - soot (closer to the gun), gunpowder (intermediate range). Gunpowder stippling with be more dense the closer to the gun, less dense as you get further from the gun. Pseudo stippling occurs when something else hits the skin and causes abrasions, this is referred to as pseudo stippling. Look different than gunpowder stippling. Can be caused by ricochet bullet for instance.

The gunshot wound to the right side of the groin passes in at groin and hits pelvis and causes bad fracture. Area of bruising to right buttock with incomplete exit wound, so bullet is still there. The stippling is present here, which suggests intermediate range gunshot wound. Intermediate range depends on weapon, type of ammo, typically it's around a few feet distance. Estimated around 4 feet or so in this case given gun and ammo. The stippling is fairly spread out, but it's within a few feet of the muzzle. Front to back, left to right wound. This would not have been immediately lethal wound.

Gunshot wound to the hand. Left hand has complex wound, tearing of skin, up middle finger, soot is observed, fracture of bone of index finger, exits to the back of the hand beyond knuckle. Basically front to back, right to left, slightly upwards trajectory. No bullet fragments. Fair amount of soot indicating close range wound. The path of this bullet went to the left thigh. (I originally thought he said "eye", so I think I reported that, obviously in error). This is a ricochet wound more than likely. Most likely was from the bullet passing through hand, hitting pavement and ricochet to thigh. Not a lethal wound for either of these wounds. They were superficial.

Graze wound to head. Superficial, the bullet grazed the surface of the skin, appears to be traveling back to front, downward trajectory. The angle is sharply downwards but back to front. Not fatal.

Wound to chest and abdomen. Enters the back near upper midline. Passes through right chest cavity, great deal of injury to lung, perforates diaphragm, serious injury to liver, shatters several ribs. The bullet was collected from inside the body. Lethal injuries due to amount of major injury to organs.

5'4"" tall 153 lbs.

Gives description of how he could tell this was back to front. Use direction of tearing of skin to determine that this graze wound to the head occurred back to front, so he was horizontal when the bullet hit. Third shot.

Thigh wound suggests the bullet fragmented and several pieces of the bullet created wounds.

Hand wound. Right side of middle finger is the entrance part of the injury.

None of the photos of Rosenbaum's autopsy are being shown on screen, at least so far. Rittenhouse is very interested in Rosenbaum's injuries, even more so than Huber's as he is looking over at these photos.

[tencats]

Rittenhouse judge says person caught filming jurors, orders deletion along with 'new procedures'
Published 9 hours ago
https://www.foxnews.com/us/kyle-rittenh ... deo-delete

The Wisconsin judge overseeing the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse announced Tuesday that deputies had caught someone recording video of the jurors earlier in the day and would be taking new steps to ensure the incident did not happen again, in addition to ordering the person to delete the images.

The jury entered the Kenosha County courtroom on Tuesday morning and was greeted by Judge Bruce Schroeder, who referenced "the incident at the bus pick-up this morning." Before the panel of jurors arrived, Schroeder had revealed that someone was spotted filming the group.

"I've been assured that … the video, which had been taken, has been deleted," Schroeder told the jury, "and new procedures are being instituted so that something like that … should not recur."

The jurist added that he was "frankly quite surprised that it did." He went on to say that he and the deputies had established "different procedures to do with respect to if it would occur."

Before the jury arrived, Schroeder told the court that if a similar incident were to happen again, he had instructed deputies to "take the phone and bring it here."

[RVInit]

LOL, I fell asleep during some of the testimony. Too tired to go all the way back. I think most of my short nap was during a break, so I don' think I missed much.

The defense cross exam of the medical examiner was shorter than I would have thought, and not very fruitful as to Rosenbaum. As to Huber I think the defense scored quite a few points, Huber was doing various things including hitting Rittenhouse with the skateboard, but ultimately was unsuccessful at getting the gun away from Rittenhouse. The gun was securely attached to Rittenhouse and no amount of work was going to deprive him of that weapon. But Huber definitely made contact with the gun itself, hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard.

Re-direct of medical examiner. Prosecutor is establishing with the medical examiner that the injuries to Rosenbaum's hand provide evidence that he was not holding anything in his hand when he sustained injuries. I think the reason the prosecutor is going here is because they already know the defense intends to try to show that Rosenbaum had a chain that he was threatening Rittenhouse with. Numerous witnesses have been asked about whether they ever say Rosenbaum with any kind of weapon and particularly a chain. He apparently had picked up a chain earlier in the evening, was seen carrying it around for a short time, then he dropped it and there is no evidence that he had that chain at any time that he ever came in contact with Rittenhouse or any of the other armed men. I believe that is why the prosecutor is asking the medical examiner about his hand position and could he have been holding anything in his hand at the time of his hand injuries from the gun.

The medical examiner confirms the video that he used in order to evaluate the gunshot wounds in relation to the gunshots. The medical examiner states that he can clearly see the reflection of the light on Rosenbaum's back as the first shot from Rittenhouse's gun is heard and he states unequivocally that Rosenbaum is upright at this point. There is no doubt or hesitation from the medical examiner on this point. Discredits the suggestion that Rosenbaum was lunging after the gun. The video that this doctor used to match the gunshots with the wounds is from an angle that I don't recall having seen before, or it was only briefly shown with no witness really explaining the significance of that point. So, now there are two different videos from different sources and angles along with testimony that discredits the idea that Rosenbaum was reaching for Rittenhouse's gun. The only testimony that supports the contention that Rosenbaum was "lunging for the gun" was the Daily Caller videographer, who testified that he believed that is what he saw. But he also admitted that he did not see Rosenbaum ever actually make contact with the gun, just that from his viewpoint behind Rosenbaum he believed Rosenbaum reached for the gun.

Next the prosecutor asks if it's possible that the bullet wound on the hand could have been caused by the first gun shot and the medical examiner says no. The reason is that if the bullet had hit the hand first, it would have affected the amount and character of the stippling that is observed on Rosenbaum's "groin" wound. He reiterates that it is his opinion the first shot hit the groin, causing the severe damage to the pelvis as it traveled to that area and the hand wound is from the second shot. The third and fourth shots are harder to tell as to which of the wounds were caused by each of those because both of them had to occur after he was more or less horizontal and either of those wounds could have happened before the other. One of those two was the fatal shot that damaged major organs.

It is established that when the medical examiner talks about the distance he means the distance from the barrel of the gun to the body part where the wound occurs. Not the distance between the shooter and the person, but the distance between the end of the gun to the body part of the wound. He has not seen the actual weapon in this case. (the second chair prosecutor seems less skilled, maybe less experienced, than the lead prosecutor. He is the one questioning the medical examiner. He is doing a better job with this witness than some of the other witnesses he has questioned).

He is demonstrating an approximate distance between the gun and himself. Rittenhouse is laughing.

Re-cross. The attorney is trying to suggest that Rosenbaum would have been closer to the gun on the first shot. The medical examiner disagrees saying the stippling would have been much closer together if he was that close on the first shot. Now the defense attorney is trying to make some new point about the hand shot and if his hand was touching the barrel at the time of the shot. But that ignores the fact that Rittenhouse has already taken the first shot. Even if Rosenbaum touched the gun on the second shot, Rittenhouse didn't shoot him because he touched the gun, as it has already been established that the first shot was to the hip.

The defense made the point that a shot to the hip would not have caused him to fall or move forward. The doctor agrees that shot would not have caused him to fall or move forward, backward, or any other direction. He agrees that Rosenbaum had to have forward momentum. that was the final question. The prosecutor declined to ask any further questions. I think I would have made the point that he was running at the time of the shots, so clearly that would be considered forward momentum. Rittenhouse was moving backward and Rosenbaum were moving forward during the entire time of the shots.

I think so far today I would say the prosecutor scored more points than the defense, who I think probably did a good job of making it difficult to establish evidence as to Huber. But as to Rosenbaum I have been very surprised at the strength of evidence. At the beginning of the trial I thought guilt as to Rosenbaum was probably a lost cause. But now I definitely do not think that is the case. I am more inclined to believe that a reasonable jury that is not predisposed to political viewing of this case and weighing actual testimony would easily find guilt as to Rosenbaum, Grosskreutz, and reckless endangerment of Daily Caller guy. Huber is a harder sell I think just given the difficulty of getting past the fact that he hit Rittenhouse with the skateboard several times. I would have to re-review all evidence as to Huber, but that may be a lost cause at this point.

[Dave from down under]

,

He is demonstrating an approximate distance between the gun and himself. Rittenhouse is laughing.

Thank you again!

As to Rittenhouse laughing - I’m sure the jury noticed.
I hope that they don’t have his sense of humour

[LM K]

This is disputed. The defense theory is that there was some kind of coordinated ambush by both Ziminski and Rosenbaum, although their collusion in this may well have been tacit. Ziminksi did scream "you're not gonna do shit, motherfucker" and fired the first shot behind Rittenhouse as he was being chased. At minimum firing that first shot as Rittenhouse was fleeing is highly significant all by itself. Kid was being chased and somebody fires a gunshot behind him. C'mon now.

I've asked you several times; what evidence you have that supports this theory about this alleged ambush?

I summarized this in this very post. Remember the criminal complaint represented Rosenbaum as initiating the confrontation and accosting Kyle. Video showed Kyle walking alone, oblivious with the fire extinguihser. Kyle is seen fleeing him. Now we know for certain he ran behind a parked car and came out after Kyle passed. Rosenbaum had a problem and had explicitly threatened him etc.What is so hard about the idea he made good on his threat?

If some evidence ever emerges that Kyle aggressed, sure I'll consider it. There just hasn't been any. Now they're saying the aerial footage shows this. We'll see.

No, you have never explained what evidence exists; you've said only that this is the defense theory and you agree with it for xyz reasons.

SPECIFICALLY: what evidence do you have about an ambush!!?

A criminal complaint is not evidence.

The trial has also shown that some of what McGinnis said can be disputed. I don't doubt McGinnis' testimony of his experience of that night. Drone footage now shows that McGinnis didn't see everything that happened.

I posted the drone footage last night. Certainly you've viewed it. Why are you answering as if you haven't watched it?

You said: "What is so hard about the idea he made good on his threat?"

FINALLY! You admit that you're assuming Rosenbaum was going to ambush Rittenhouse!

Are assumptions evidence? No.

Rittenhouse was mouthing off all night. You know that.

What?? No evidence he ever mouthed off even once. True when someone yelled "Fuck You" he did say "I love you too, ma'am". Someone in court laughed. That is flip, and he was advised better not to engage. But that is the response of someone who is not taking the bait when aggressed, not someone trying to start a fight.

That the entirety of his reported "mouthing off". Otherwise he is seen just walking away from confrontation as from Yellow Pants guy, or when he gets pepper sprayed by someone in the crowd.

Actually, that is mouthing off. Let's review Balch's testimony.

After considerable testimony about other matters, Binger asked Balch if he had told Rittenhouse “to keep his mouth shut and not engage with people.”

Balch said several people needed such instructions; Rittenhouse was one of them — at least in part due to the “I love you too, ma’am” comment.

“I told him, ‘hey, don’t say that; don’t even respond,'” Balch recalled.

“It can cause somebody to escalate the situation if they feel like you’re making fun of them a little bit,” Balch testified when asked to explain. “It just wasn’t needed.”

Balch said the "I love you too, ma'am" was part of why he told Rittenhouse to watch what he was saying. Balch never said that that was the only time Rittenhouse mouthed off. Balch said it was part of why he told Rittenhouse to shut up. Rittenhouse was mouthing off to protesters.

During the time Balch was with Rittenhouse, the group was purposely "verbally aggressive" with "agitators". (See Balch's Facebook comment posted below.) Rittenhouse was right in the middle of these verbally aggressive interactions.

So no, I'm not relying on one statement.

I've now established that Balch was concerned about what Rittenhouse was saying ... thus how Rittenhouse was interacting with protesters.

One of the armed vigilantes was so worried about Rittenhouse's behavior and comments that he glued himself to Rittenhouse.

He sheparded Rittenhouse because he seemed green, inexperienced. But he didn't express any worry that Rittenhouse was a danger to attack. He seems more to be backup protecting Rittenhouse from attack. They have said they were going out on the buddy system.

I think it is true his inexperience led to the debacle -- he was stupid enough to wander around for his fantasy of being a medic, get himself separated, and then walk into a hostile crowd all alone and get himself attacked.

Again, you're talking about exactly one comment, that "Thank you, ma'am". That's the only one. You're trying to say that someone who might say "I love you too ma'am" to a hostile person who yells "Fuck you" has shown they are an aggressor eager to start fights and might shoot people.

We have video of Rittenhouse walking among the crowd, and several people don't even look up from their phones as he does so.

Anyway, the epistemological situation seems perfectly symmetrical. Anti-Kyle's beliefs look every bit as unshakeable by evidence to me. Anti-Kyles seize on these slender reeds of support and say "Aha!" and disregard other evidence. It may be confirmation bias on both sides.

Look up the definition of "epistemological".

I never said that Balch thought or implied that Rittenhouse was "a danger to attack." I said. Please review what I wrote. My comment was and is accurate.

Balch's Facebook "official statement".

This is my Official Statement regarding actions that took place on 8/25/2020-8/26/2030 in Kenosha Wisconsin.

I’m gonna start with a list of terms and their definition.


Yesterday at 6pm i joined a contingent of militia along with two unaligned observers headed to Kenosha Wisconsin to protect citizens, their property and their livelihoods.

After infiltrating in Kenosha we found a group of militia made up mostly of males in their early 20’s and late teens. Realizing that they were undermanned and had no leadership on ground at all. We joined them and I inserted myself into a tactical advisement role. The owners then deputized us to protect his properties. We then were joined by another group of bikers carrying hatchets, ball bats and firearms.

After sorting it out we left them at the southern location. As that was the least likely place for them to meet protesters.(where the first shooting and subsequent exchanges of fire came from.) we then moved to the north location 2 city blocks to the north. Where we took up defensive positions and placed men on the roof. We were on the demarcation line for MHT and NML. Protesters coming south on Sheridan would encounter us before anyone else thus giving us the ability to set the tone for the interactions between BLM, Antifa and Agitators with Militia.
For the first couple of hours things were mostly uneventful aside from Agitators trying to break into and burn down a restaurant. We crossed into NML to stop this and aided by BLM we were able stop that. The same agitators around 30-45 minutes later probed our northern boundary. And we shooed them off by being verbally aggressive. As the night dragged on we made frequent trips to the southern location eventually we found that it had been abandoned by the bikers. So I gave the hospital security my phone number. And they agreed to inform me if something happened there.

When I returned from that trip we were joined by another friend of mine a Marine Veteran and maintained our perimeter.*

There was no "buddy system". Why do you think there was?

Balch didn't "shepherd" Rittenhouse. Balch stayed with Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse's didn't know what he was doing and needed to be supervised. Someone who is "green" and "inexperienced" with an AK-47 is a risk to themselves and others. Balch knew that Rittenhouse wasn't equipped to be in Kenosha that night.

You appear to believe that the vigilantes weren't engaging with the protesters. Rittenhouse, along with Balch and other vigilantes weren't peaceful.

While Balch was with Rittenhouse, the group of vigilantes was purposely "verbally aggressive" with "agitators". Those are Balch's own words.