ObjectivityIncarnate

I would certainly consider roaming the streets openly wielding a firearm to fall under a reasonable definition of “provocation”.

Who cares what you would consider provocation? The fact is no one there on that day felt provoked by it. No one reacted negatively to his arrival while obviously visibly armed, nor his walking around visibly armed, for hours, while he handed out water bottle and gave first aid to people. And why is it that the first person to react negatively to him was a maniac who pissed because the dumpster fire he set was extinguished? His rage had literally nothing to do with Rittenhouse’s weapon.

If the mere existence of the gun was so provocative, explain why no one there gave a shit about it. Reconcile your assertion with the facts, if you can.

It is unreasonable to expect a person on the street to distinguish between an active shooter and a “good guy with a gun”.

That’s not really relevant, because Huber and Grosskreutz’s actions are completely nonsensical regardless of whether they assessed Rittenhouse as one or the other accurately. They both decided to try and kill Rittenhouse, and he prevented them from doing so, absolutely justified in defending his life against two more attempted murders, after already being forced to do so once, with Rosenbaum.

Not to mention that Rittenhouse was moving TOWARD the police line to report what had just happened with Rosenbaum, verbally announcing that he was doing so, when the other two decided they wanted to kill him instead.

Debunk the bullshit with facts? Yeah, that is what people with integrity try to do.

Though, a correction: I’m a defender of the truth, not of Rittenhouse. I have no attachment to the kid, but I hate deception, and I just happened to be curious enough to make myself very familiar with the facts of this case when it became a big controversy, and once I realized how many basic things were complete fabrications, it just made me more curious to get at the actual facts, instead of believing dipshits’ narratives in the media, especially those who had already taken a side based on their pre-existing political biases.

The fact that most of the bullshit still floating around about this case is still REALLY easily-debunked surface-level garbage that only a gullible, or a ‘true believer’ in one of those narratives (though I repeat myself) just makes it easier. Half of this shit is so blatantly wrong even the prosecution in the trial didn’t even TRY to argue it, lol.

I like correcting falsehoods, and making liars mad is fun, so here I am.

Shooting competitively is completely irrelevant to whether it’s mundane to see someone in a public place armed with a rifle, in public.

The fact that you still can’t get around, is that nobody in that area on that day in Kenosha was intimidated by Rittenhouse being there armed, neither on arrival, nor as he walked around with the gun on him the whole time. The fact that your REFUSE to even address this fact and instead try to evade it over and over proves that you know it’s a brick wall your assumption runs smack into.

Stop being such an intellectual coward, and admit your argument holds no water.

you’re clearly as blinded by ideology

Bullshit, I’m the one stating facts and you’re the one insisting your baseless assumptions are true, even when there is evidence directly contradicting it.

You’re just desperately trying to rationalize your unwillingness to confront reality honestly, by constantly repeating the same nonsense.

His actions and words are not contradictory though. There’s no contradiction. He wants to hunt down people under the guise of “looters”, by his own texts

And then he…hunted down nobody. Aggressed on nobody. Fled as his first reaction every time unprovoked aggression came his way, instead of ever escalating. Only used his weapon when the alternative was literally to forfeit his own life.

“No contradiction”, huh? Are you that foolish to really think that, or that scummy to claim it, fully knowing how bullshit it is?

Check out the master manipulator, bringing up a topic and then getting a reply on that topic.

lol

Can’t help but notice you’ve not shown any of what I said to be inaccurate.

We are talking about his intent here, right?

Yes, which is ultimately defined by his actions. If his actions contradict his words, you can’t pretend the words hold more weight than what he actually did.

Nothing he did that day in Kenosha supports the assumption that his intention was to go there and shoot anyone. Nothing. Period.

And YOU and the defense claim he was acting righteously because he was “stopping looters.”

Uh, no, nobody claimed that. Did you even watch the trial?

1. Washington isn’t Wisconsin.
2. You still can’t get around the fact that no matter how much anyone claims it was a big deal, the people there did not think it was a big deal. So the claim that it was inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory has zero merit. Again, even when he was aggressed upon, the aggression was COMPLETELY UNRELATED to his weapon.

Face facts.

Nice work ignoring everything else and hyper-focusing on ‘he really meant black people when he said ‘shoplifters’, trust me’.

Meanwhile, none of his attackers were black either, lol.

Keep grasping at those straws.

I think anyone who claims open carrying a firearm doesn’t escalate a situation is either incredibly unaware, or intentionally ignorant.

It’s much more likely that you just don’t live in an open carry state, so you’re projecting how you’d feel about it if it happened where you do live, unable to empathize with the fact that it’s much more mundane to someone who does live in a state with legal open carry.

How do you contend with the fact that nobody reacted negatively to his arrival, nor his presence over several hours? That’s the fact that your contention cannot escape. You can claim it’s inherently provocative/aggressive/escalatory to be armed there that day, but how do you explain that no one actually there gave a shit about it? No one ran screaming from him when he showed up. He was walking around giving first aid, handing out water bottles, extinguishing fires, all while obviously armed with a long rifle, and literally no one cared.

Even when someone DID react negatively to him, that reaction had literally NOTHING to do with his gun! Rosenbaum was pissed that the dumpster fire he set got put out!

Your claim that his being armed, in and of itself, escalated the situation, simply does not hold any water.

Funny we have him on text saying that’s what he was doing and on video doing exactly that.

Lie. I defy you to link to that video, with timestamp, of him “doing exactly that”.

the totally original claim that the protestors weren’t from the area

It’s not a ‘claim’. It’s a fact.

Crossing state lines

You mean traveling one town over, where he used to work and where his dad lives, an area he had exponentially greater ties to than any of the people who attacked him did?

Gee, wonder why you don’t say it that way. Could it be because you’re trying to make it sound like he traveled far out of his way to an unfamiliar area, because that helps your narrative about him ‘being where he doesn’t belong’ (while conveniently not considering whether any of his attackers ‘belonged’ there)? Hoping that the technically-true “cross state lines” obscures the fact that he lived on the border of the other state?

You’re absolutely transparent. Don’t try this disingenuous garbage on someone who knows the facts and knows about your pathetic rhetorical maneuvers.

specifically to confront protestors with a deadly weapon

He confronted literally no one. And no, existing while armed in a state where open carry is legal doesn’t count.

He wasn’t even counter-protesting!

Do you know what “confront” means?

he was an idiot for choosing to bring a firearm near known civil unrest

I mean, you can say it was a bad choice to go, period, but choosing to be armed while he was there was absolutely correct, both in a vacuum and in hindsight. Rosenbaum likely would have killed or at least injured Rittenhouse if the same sequence of events went down, except with him being unarmed.

He was obviously, visibly armed with a long rifle the entire time he was there, but no one thought anything of it. He was walking around for hours doing his thing and nobody was freaking out. The first person TO freak on him, did so for a reason completely unrelated to him being armed, and it’s only that altercation that even got the other two attackers’ attention on him at all.

both parties were endangered and forced into action by fear for their lives by the fact that the firearm was in the situation to begin with.

No. Rosenbaum, the catalyst for all this, was absolutely NOT “endangered and forced into action” nor had any reason to be in fear of his life, just because someone was armed in his vicinity, in a state where open carry is legal.

Rosenbaum was the aggressor, and he had zero justification for his aggression.

As a protestor, I’d fear for my life if an armed counter protestor showed up

1. Rittenhouse was not a counter protestor. He did zero counter protesting. He was even handing out water bottles to, and performing basic first aid on request (he was walking around yelling “medic! friendly!” to let others know he was available for such), for protesters.

2. Despite how you would feel, you must contend with the fact that no one freaked out when Rittenhouse arrived, nor did they while he was walking around offering his ‘services’, even though he was very obviously armed with a long rifle the entire time. Given the fact that it’s a legal open carry state, I’m not surprised by this, but the fact is that his presence while armed was perceived as entirely mundane right up until Rosenbaum flipped out on him (again, for a reason that also had nothing to do with his gun).

He went on to shoot people for imagined slights?

There is video, goofball. Three people attempted to murder him, unprovoked.

It’s not imagined that Rosenbaum screamed a literal death threat at him and then chased him down and tried to take his weapon to make good on said threat.

It’s not imagined that Huber tried to kill Rittenhouse with full swings of a skateboard (over 10 pounds on average, inarguably a lethal weapon when swung at the head) to the head, one of which connected.

It’s not imagined that Grosskreutz pointed his handgun (by the way, actually illegally possessed, unlike Rittenhouse’s rifle) at Rittenhouse’s head, before Rittenhouse raised his rifle and shot his arm (having a faster reaction time literally saved his life in that instance). Hell, he literally admitted to that being the sequence of events in court.

The only imagining is happening on your side. The facts contradict your narrative, that’s why you have no choice but to grasp at straws and lie when you’re confronted by them.

Most pushing back against the false narrative don’t actually think it’s relevant, vis a vis self-defense, but generally they consider it a bonus.

I know I’m not mourning Rosenbaum. Not only is he 100% responsible for his own death, having taken several completely irrationally-aggressive actions that collectively led to that end, but he just happens to be a five-time child rapist? Yeah, not exactly shedding tears for him over here.

Extinguishing a fire is not provocation or confrontation.

It’s not evidence of anything. Actions speak louder than words. The actions he took that day directly contradict any stated intention to shoot anyone. He used his weapon as a literal last resort all 3 times, when not doing so would have meant forfeiting his own life.

Textbook self-defense.

Even I could put on a suit and walk in off the street and convince the jury of his liability in those killings.

‘yes your honor, he’s liable because he dared to put out that fire, and then ran away when the guy who said it screamed “I’m going to kill you” and charged at him, and then tried to wrestle the rifle out of his hand.’

Buffoon.

It would have made zero difference. Actions speak louder than words, and what he did that day directly contradicts this ‘message’.

Edit: not a single inaccurate statement in my comment, but narrative-clingers gotta downvote because inconvenient facts just make them that mad, lol. Shameful.

Fact checking time~

the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to

The gun was not in his possession until the day after he arrived.

to a state he didn’t live in

But that he previously worked in, and his father lived in. Not exactly a strange neighborhood.

to shoot protestors he didn’t know

It’s obvious he didn’t go there “to shoot protesters”, for several factual, verifiable reasons:

1. He had hours of opportunities to open fire on protesters, and never did. He did not even anti-protest.
2. He didn’t shoot anyone unprovoked, and every time he was provoked, he ran away instead of escalating.
3. The only people who were shot by him that day were people who, when he ran away from their provocation, instead of letting him run away, chased him down and tried to kill him when they caught him. He prevented their murder attempts. This is crystal
4. None of those who were shot were ever protesting; all three were destructive rioters with violent criminal records who were there not there to support any cause.
5. Actions speak louder than words. Tons more people, tell their buddies they’d ‘kick that guy’s ass if I was there’ etc., but do not act that way at all when they’re actually in the situation. And that happens in the actual situation is what matters. Also, none of the rioters who attacked Rittenhouse were known to have shoplifted/looted, so they don’t even fall into the category he was speaking about.

ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with

There are text records of the business requesting his help, and one of the co-owners of that business, after denying it, was seen taking a posed ‘thank you’ picture with him after they had spent some time at the dealership that day. The evidence is clear they were there because they were directly requested to be there.

Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.

Nope, but I can understand how you’d reach that conclusion, considering you have basically every relevant fact of the case wrong. That’s what happens when you get narratives from social media, instead of drawing conclusions based on facts and evidence. There’s a ton of hard video evidence, you know.

It’s funny that on the day the verdict was delivered, the megathreads on Reddit announcing it were full of people admitting coming to terms with the fact that it was ironclad self-defense, and that social media and sensationalized news sources had created a narrative that directly contradicted the facts. And now years later, the only people still really talking about that case are the ideologues on both wings still clinging so desperately to those bullshit narratives, still repeating the same easily-debunked talking points they were fed by their echo chamber of choice, that were debunked before the trial even began. Hell, you can still find people claiming all the people he shot were black, lol.

This case has become such a perfect litmus test for identifying ideologues over people who both care about what’s actually true, and are actually willing to inform themselves instead of just swallowing whatever talking points they’re fed. Especially considering how EASY it is to debunk the bullshit, in this particular case.

It almost makes me not want to correct the lies, to make sure I can keep easier tabs on the liars, lol.