10-27-2021, 02:30 PM
JJ is a good guy, but his take on this appears to be rooted in emotion and not in fact.
Here are some facts you'd have to consider when pondering this case;
Kyle crossing state lines is irrelevant. If he had illegally brought a gun across state lines that would be a crime, but he didn't. It also would have zero bearing on whether he acted in self defense. This crossing state lines talking point is really beaten to death by the left wing media. The Young Turks literally can't stop mentioning it. It is, however, wholly irrelevant So, we can safely eliminate Kyle's exercising his right to travel within the United States from consideration in this case.
Did Kyle initiate the violence? I don't claim to be privy to every piece of evidence in this case, but I have, to date, not seen a single piece of evidence that shows Kyle initiating violence against anyone. JJ keeps using the word "instigating", albeit without supplying any proof of such. However, let's look at that. What instigation, short of violence, would allow for the violent attack on Rittenhouse that is captured on film? Saying mean words? Putting out a fire with a fire extinguisher? Being armed in a state that allows open carry? This is a rather important question.
Was Kyle attacked? Here we have reams of evidence proving that, yes, he was. The incident proceeding the first shooting is on video and clearly shows Kyle being chased by a large group of people. One of these people fires a hand gun. The handgun was fired into the air, but a person running from the mob would obviously not be aware of that. Would any of us, being chased by an angry mob and hearing a gun shot from behind us, assume that the gun was only being fired into the air and thus was no threat to us? Would the "reasonable person" think that? We then know that Rosenberg physically assaulted Rittenhouse. There is no video of this, that I have seen, but eyewitness accounts are consistent in this regard. There are also statements that Rosenberg was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, which is technically robbery. Would a "reasonable person" think that there was no danger in a member of a mob taking their firearm from their person by force?
Moving on to the second two shootings, both of which are entirely captured on video. The second shooting occurs after Kyle is struck in the head/shoulder are by a skateboard, assault with a deadly weapon. His responding as he did is the textbook definition of self defense. He was attempting to flee the area and was attacked with a deadly weapon, only then responding with deadly force. The third shooting occurred after Kyle was approached by a person with a handgun who also attempted to disarm him, moving from a posture of aggression to surrender and then back to a posture of aggression. (Of note but not relevant to the case, the third person was a felon illegally in possession of a firearm, also of note but not relevant to the case, all three people shot were convicted felons) This is again textbook self defense.
Really, the case comes down to whether Rittenhouse was justified in fearing for his life before the first shooting. If the answer is yes then the next two shooting are logical extensions of that fear. If the answer is no, then they are not. Other frequently raised points such as; 1. Kyle shouldn't have been there, 2. Kyle shouldn't have been armed, 3. Kyle allegedly possessed the gun illegally, 4. Kyle crossed state lines, etc. are irrelevant to the case. Only one of these is possibly a violation of the law and none of them justify attacking him. Did Kyle demonstrate poor judgment by going there? Maybe, but this is subjective, especially if you take his desire to protect the property of others at face value. Did he knowingly put himself into a volatile situation? Undeniably so, but, again, this is not illegal and is no less true of any of the protestors/rioters.
Let me give you a for instance. I am walking down a dimly light street in a known high crime area. I have a noticeably expensive watch on and am counting a wad of hundred dollar bills. I am also carrying a concealed hand gun. I am accosted by two people who attempt to rob me at knifepoint. I pull my firearm while they lunge at me with the knives and I shoot them both. Did I exercise bad judgment? Absolutely. Was what I did foolish and stupid? Absolutely. Does either of those two points have any bearing on whether I legally defended my person with lethal force? 100% not at all.
This case has become political, for obvious and varied reasons, and consequently has been clouded by the political rancor in this country. However, the bottom line is the incident is not political at all, (although IMO the prosecution of Rittenhouse absolutely is, but that's my opinion) it is whether Rittenhouse acted in self defense. With the evidence available I don't see how anyone looking at the case through a legal, dispassionate, lens can conclude otherwise. Now, there could absolutely be evidence that contradicts what is already available that we are not yet privy to. But given what we do know and the video evidence there can be no other, logical conclusion.
I am, of course, open to a cogent argument claiming otherwise. I would only ask that you not include irrelevancies as described above for reasons already listed.
Here are some facts you'd have to consider when pondering this case;
Kyle crossing state lines is irrelevant. If he had illegally brought a gun across state lines that would be a crime, but he didn't. It also would have zero bearing on whether he acted in self defense. This crossing state lines talking point is really beaten to death by the left wing media. The Young Turks literally can't stop mentioning it. It is, however, wholly irrelevant So, we can safely eliminate Kyle's exercising his right to travel within the United States from consideration in this case.
Did Kyle initiate the violence? I don't claim to be privy to every piece of evidence in this case, but I have, to date, not seen a single piece of evidence that shows Kyle initiating violence against anyone. JJ keeps using the word "instigating", albeit without supplying any proof of such. However, let's look at that. What instigation, short of violence, would allow for the violent attack on Rittenhouse that is captured on film? Saying mean words? Putting out a fire with a fire extinguisher? Being armed in a state that allows open carry? This is a rather important question.
Was Kyle attacked? Here we have reams of evidence proving that, yes, he was. The incident proceeding the first shooting is on video and clearly shows Kyle being chased by a large group of people. One of these people fires a hand gun. The handgun was fired into the air, but a person running from the mob would obviously not be aware of that. Would any of us, being chased by an angry mob and hearing a gun shot from behind us, assume that the gun was only being fired into the air and thus was no threat to us? Would the "reasonable person" think that? We then know that Rosenberg physically assaulted Rittenhouse. There is no video of this, that I have seen, but eyewitness accounts are consistent in this regard. There are also statements that Rosenberg was trying to disarm Rittenhouse, which is technically robbery. Would a "reasonable person" think that there was no danger in a member of a mob taking their firearm from their person by force?
Moving on to the second two shootings, both of which are entirely captured on video. The second shooting occurs after Kyle is struck in the head/shoulder are by a skateboard, assault with a deadly weapon. His responding as he did is the textbook definition of self defense. He was attempting to flee the area and was attacked with a deadly weapon, only then responding with deadly force. The third shooting occurred after Kyle was approached by a person with a handgun who also attempted to disarm him, moving from a posture of aggression to surrender and then back to a posture of aggression. (Of note but not relevant to the case, the third person was a felon illegally in possession of a firearm, also of note but not relevant to the case, all three people shot were convicted felons) This is again textbook self defense.
Really, the case comes down to whether Rittenhouse was justified in fearing for his life before the first shooting. If the answer is yes then the next two shooting are logical extensions of that fear. If the answer is no, then they are not. Other frequently raised points such as; 1. Kyle shouldn't have been there, 2. Kyle shouldn't have been armed, 3. Kyle allegedly possessed the gun illegally, 4. Kyle crossed state lines, etc. are irrelevant to the case. Only one of these is possibly a violation of the law and none of them justify attacking him. Did Kyle demonstrate poor judgment by going there? Maybe, but this is subjective, especially if you take his desire to protect the property of others at face value. Did he knowingly put himself into a volatile situation? Undeniably so, but, again, this is not illegal and is no less true of any of the protestors/rioters.
Let me give you a for instance. I am walking down a dimly light street in a known high crime area. I have a noticeably expensive watch on and am counting a wad of hundred dollar bills. I am also carrying a concealed hand gun. I am accosted by two people who attempt to rob me at knifepoint. I pull my firearm while they lunge at me with the knives and I shoot them both. Did I exercise bad judgment? Absolutely. Was what I did foolish and stupid? Absolutely. Does either of those two points have any bearing on whether I legally defended my person with lethal force? 100% not at all.
This case has become political, for obvious and varied reasons, and consequently has been clouded by the political rancor in this country. However, the bottom line is the incident is not political at all, (although IMO the prosecution of Rittenhouse absolutely is, but that's my opinion) it is whether Rittenhouse acted in self defense. With the evidence available I don't see how anyone looking at the case through a legal, dispassionate, lens can conclude otherwise. Now, there could absolutely be evidence that contradicts what is already available that we are not yet privy to. But given what we do know and the video evidence there can be no other, logical conclusion.
I am, of course, open to a cogent argument claiming otherwise. I would only ask that you not include irrelevancies as described above for reasons already listed.
