LETS GET REAL . The whole issue with Rittenhouse is that Kenosha civil unrest . The protests began in the city in August 2020, after Jacob Blake — a Black man — was shot in the back seven times by a White police officer. The demonstrations came to a head on August 25, (1)>>when Rittenhouse, who is alleged to have come to Kenosha from Illinois to defend the city against protesters, allegedly shot three men and killed two, including 26-year-old Huber. Multiple buildings were set on fire in Kenosha Monday, Aug. 24 during the second night of unrest following the police shooting of Jacob Blake Sunday night, Aug. 23. Officials with the Kenosha Fire Department said 37 fires, combined with "emergency medical services for numerous accidents, assaults and injuries with traumas of varying degrees, including a shooting" were "resource-intensive." It's interesting with all this burning that was going on nation wide last year. Now lets talk a little about Kyle Rittenhouse. I am going to write this small piece , am sure it's going to make few people angry on both sides . (1.2)>>And, once there’s a gun in play, that gun becomes all-important. If someone attacks you while you’re in possession of a gun it’s logical to assume they want to take the gun and are going to use it.It’s a big part of why you see so many ‘police shoot unarmed man’ headlines. If someone is coming at you, and they know you have a gun, it’s not reasonable to expect you to wait for them to take your gun before you shoot. So lets GO. Upon cross-examination, the Defense backed Grosskreutz into a corner on 3 key issues - (2)>>Why where you following Rittenhouse if you felt your life was in danger, why had you drawn your firearm before approaching Rittenhouse, and mainly, did Rittenhouse shoot you AFTER you pointed your gun at him?He could not give a clear answer to either of the first two questions, arguing semantics about terminology (chasing/following/running after/going the same direction as) as well as being shown to have had gun-in-hand before even approaching Rittenhouse at that final moment.Finally, he's claimed that Rittenhouse aimed at him so he put his hands up, then when Rittenhouse re-racked the rifle, he decided to make a move and that's when he was shot. Defense plays the video again, and you can clearly see Grosskreutz putting his hands up, Rittenhouse aiming at him but NOT shooting and then lowering the rifle BEFORE Gaige Grosskreutz charges at Rittenhouse and points his pistol at him, at which point Rittenhouse raises the rifle again and fires. (3)>>The reason this seriously hurts the Prosecution's case is because Rittenhouse is being defended on the grounds of Self Defense. The Witness Testimony in the shooting of Rosenbaum largely supported the notion that Rosenbaum was in the process of assaulting Rittenhouse, lunging for his rifle before being shot. This was already a serious blow to the Murder Charge.The second shooting of Anthony Huber is a lot more clear cut as the video shows Huber striking Rittenhouse with a Skateboard, which becomes a weapon when used to hit somebody. When asked, Grosskruetz agreed that being struck with a skateboard constitutes serious bodily harm, bolstering the argument for self defense in this shooting.This third shooting of Grosskruetz was ultimately the last hope to prove intent on Rittenhouse's part- the idea that Rittenhouse had shot a surrendering person would help establish malicious intent. But that narrative was quickly dismantled by the Defense with the video evidence to back it up.Lastly, when asked why he had a gun at all, Grosskruetz referenced the Second Amendment and claimed he carried it for protection. He also made an earlier statement that he believed the presence of a gun greatly increases the chances of an incident taking place. So he simultaneously gave Kyle Rittenhouse a justification for being armed, and basically admitting to knowing that bringing his own gun increased the chances of injury/death which calls his own intent into question - if you know this, and brought it anyway, what were you really intending to do with it?This trial does not seem to be going well for the prosecution, and defending the integrity of rioters won’t make it any better. (4)>>MAYBE I see a "acquittal" .
(1)>>when Rittenhouse, who is alleged to have come to Kenosha from Illinois to defend the city against protesters .Points of fact they got wrong in this:- He never crossed state lines with a gun.- The gun was not as assault rifle. Assault rifles are select fire weapons, this was a semiautomatic firearm, producing more or less the same rate of fire as any standard handgun that most Americans keep in their nightstand.- Even the prosecution in this case has bizarrely exonerated him of any sort of murder charge, it's quite clear he shot in self defense, even by their own admission.If you'd like to be taken seriously, try telling the truth at least. There are plenty of other things you can criticize or try him for, but these things are not one of them. (1)>>And, once there’s a gun in play, that gun becomes all-important. Yeah, that was aggravating. The politics surrounding the situation make it a point of contention, understandably, but far too many people try to inject a racial lens in a shooting where a) all people involved were white b) the person who used racial slurs was actually one of the men who were shot, not the shooter c) even if you could definitively prove Rittenhouse is an avowed racist, that doesn't do much to address the defense's arguments that he acted in self defense To be clear, I don't think Rittenhouse should have been there, and he's kinda thrown in his lot with some pretty unsavory extremists on the right. But none of that has bearing on this case. (2)>>Why where you following Rittenhouse if you felt your life was in danger. Okay I don't know how many of you actually watched the footage of the entire incident. But it was self defense, he was chased and attacked then retaliated after he was knocked to the ground. Then tried to turn himself in. Afterwards still turned himself in at his home city.HOWEVER, he was in possession of an illegal firearm. If anything he should be charged with reckless endangerment and the illegal possession of a firearm.Regarding the kid, don't tell your older friends to buy you weapons. And if you are that dumb, don't bring it to a riot Regarding the people that died. Don't attack someone with a rifle. (3)>>The reason this seriously hurts the Prosecution's case is because Rittenhouse is being defended on the grounds of Self Defense. Self defense has two burdens, however. The first, as pointed out, is that he was defending himself after being pushed to the ground. It's the second burden that's important here: he inserted himself into a dangerous situation which led to his alleged need to defend himself. He was outside of his own town and state, with a an illegally obtained weapon, in a highly volatile situation. 17 or not, it isn't much of a stretch to say that he did not NEED to be in that dangerous situation. He could have simply stayed at home. (4)>>MAYBE I see a "acquittal" .Conspiracy theory I've seen tossed around is that Binger knowns the case is sunk and is doing his best to be seen as being aggressive while trying to trigger a mistrial to get the political heat off the State. The "truth" is never the "main goal" in a criminal trial. The prosecution is not trying to find "truth", they are generally trying to convince a jury that the defendant committed all the elements of a crime, and the defense is trying to poke holes in the prosecution theory and raise doubt.They figure there will be riots if the jury comes back "Not Guilty" but if they get a mistrial with prejudice they can wash their hands of the case and lean on the narrative they were just being good aggressive prosecutors and the judge was just biased.Only the judge can declare a mistrial and usually it’s because it’s requested by either side. Now if it wasn’t looking good for Rittenhouse or the jury comes back with a guilty verdict, I’m sure the defense would use this in their appeal. But if a prosecutor requests a mistrial based on their own statements, I highly doubt a judge would grant it and based on what’s been reported on this case, I think the defense would go ballistic and win that argument
