andersweinstein wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:39 pm
LM K wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:58 pm
Interesting. Your definition of evidence is very skewed.
There is NO evidence of an unprovoked ambush, attempted ambush, or intention to ambush.
Why would Rittenhouse assume a potential ambush when people all around him were running for cover after hearing multiple gunshots in the area? What "evidence" do you have to support that that is what Kyle was thinking?
And why ignore the fact that Rosenbaum was being chased by Rittenhouse? Isn't Rosenbaum allowed to protect himself when being chased by an armed man? Or are the rules different for Rittenhouse?
I have mentioned the evidence I was appealing to earlier. Again, briefly, after being trapped on the wrong side of a police barricade, Rittenhouse is seen on video running from a gas station at 60th st with a fire extinguisher and walking south alone down Sheridan Road, though Richie McGinnis picks him up and tails him. Rittenhouse continues chanting "anyone need medical" as he walks. At some point you can see Rosenbaum emerge from a group of people setting a small fire in the middle of the road.
He walks ahead of Rittenhouse, with no sign of any interaction, then at some point breaks into a trot and runs ahead, apparently taking up a position behind a parked car.
Rosenbaum never stopped running. He never took "up a position".
According to McGinnis' eyewitness testimony in the criminal complaint, when Rittenhouse got at the lot it was Rosenbaum who tried to engage him and tried to get closer. Rittenhouse made a juke move and ran. What is visible on video is Rittenhouse fleeing Rosenbaum, not the other way around.
I'm not referring to when Rittenhouse got to the lot. I'm referring to the events that happened in response to gunfire. And you know that.
Rosenbaum was absolutely in front of Rittenhouse once gunshots were fired.
The defense theory is that Rosenbaum ran ahead to take up a position from which to accost Rittenhouse in a kind of ambush. Josh Ziminski, on the other side of the car, also participated, shouting "you aren't going to do shit motherfucker" and firing his gun into the air.
NOTHING in the videos or the criminal complaint supports the defense's theory. The defense doesn't know what Rosenbaum was thinking.
So, if there is no evidence, why do you assume Rosenbaum was going to ambush Rittenhouse? And why are you so adamant in your assumption?
Rosenbaum was seen earlier flying into a rage and behaving aggressively toward a different group of armed men at a gas station when someone there put out a fire in a dumpster which he had a hand in pushing. Rosenbaum shouted "shoot me, n****a" and had to be held back. Witnesses have stated he threatened to kill Kyle and made other threats against the armed men.
So what? Nothing in this confrontation suggests that Rosenbaum tried to hurt Rittenhouse. Or that Rosenbaum said that specifically to Kyle.
What witnesses are you referring to?
Although Rosenbaum's past will not be admissible evidence, it turns out he is an ex-con who lived from age 18 to 32 in Arizona state prison for raping young boys, had a no-contact order from his girlfriend for battering her, was homeless after being dumped onto the street on discharge from a psychiatric hospital after a suicide attempt, unable to get his meds, and does not seem to have had any interest in the Black Lives Matter cause (he had never been to a protest before and his girlfriend, who urged him not to go, said she had no idea why he went. The Washington Post claimed he "belonged to neither side" and represented their encounter as a non-political accident.)
Irrelevant. So why do you keep bringing this up?
Ex-cons have the right to not be killed. The mentally ill have the right to not be shot.
You appear to disagree. In fact, you think Rittenhouse did the right thing.
The Rittenhouse we see on video is not hostile to protestors, was there to protect property and give first aid to protestors as he said, and is never seen on video behaving aggressively or seeking out confrontation with protestors.
For those reasons I believe it is overwhelmingly more likely that Rosenbaum was the aggressor in this initial confrontation which looks like a kind of ambush.
Alas, Rittenhouse already had his gun in the ready position as he was running after Rosenbaum.
Nothing in the video looks like an ambush.
Not that it is legally relevant, but as a moral matter, it looks to me that Rosenbaum, though an exceptionally damaged individual, is a morally worse character than the misguided boy scout but basically decent Rittenhouse, and bears the responsibility for his own death by being aggressive enough to attack someone who brought a gun for self-defense with intent to do him harm. We should not be blaming the victim here! We should be blaming Rosenbaum, in my opinion.
Fuck that. Fuck ALL of that.
Rittenhouse is no victim. He's an idiot. He killed 2 men.
After that first shooting we have a more tragic situation. All evidence suggests Rittenhouse tried to run to the cops but encountered further interference with his person. But this post is long enough.
So, you support vigilante actions by Rittenhouse but not by those chasing him to stop him.
I am not sure why you believe Rosenbaum was running from Rittenhouse.
Hmmm. The video?
Why do you consistently ignore Rosenbaum's right to self-defense? If a guy armed with an AK was running behind me and got close enough for me to to touch him, I would reach for his gun, too.