I love my country, but we're going through a rough patch

[TheDrake]

Seattle's City Council just cut their police budget, despite wide spread community outcry NOT to do so, their (Black and female) Police Chief has resigned in protest. And the rioting continues in Seattle.

Budget measures approved Monday will trim about $3 million of the department’s $400 million annual budget this year.

A less than 1% cut! How terrifying! It's going to be a lawless city now! Of course this happened just two years ago.

SPD’s budget will increase by 9.7% to $363 million.

I think they'll manage.

[TheDeamon]

Have been busy with other things, checked back on things and it appears to have escalated a lot in the past few days.

But there was this gem as well:

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/08/state-police-pull-troopers-out-of-portland-return-troopers-to-regular-assignments.html

Oregon State Police on Thursday pulled out the approximately 100 troopers helping both federal officers and Portland police in responding to nightly protests in the city that have often ended in confrontations with demonstrators and arrests.

State police committed to two weeks “and that two weeks ended today,” said spokesman Capt. Timothy R. Fox.

“We’re in a county that’s not going to prosecute this criminal behavior,” Fox added.

It was a pointed reference to Tuesday’s announcement by new Multnomah County District Attorney Mike Schmidt that his office won’t pursue many of the charges against demonstrators, including disorderly conduct, interfering with a police officer and even riot in some circumstances.

They embedded a link to report from Tuesday about that, it can be found here:

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2020/08/hundreds-of-portland-protesters-will-see-their-criminal-cases-dropped-as-da-announces-plan-to-recognize-the-right-to-speak.html

So it seems the only agencies that can get the violent protesters off the street for the duration are now the Federal Agents protecting the federal buildings, as those charges are going through the US Attorney's office and the county prosecutor can't do anything to stop that.

[TheDrake]

Misrepresentation Deamon? From your own article:

“What we’re doing is recognizing that the right to speak and have your voice heard is extremely important,” Schmidt said. “If you’re out there committing violence, you’re damaging property, those cases are going to be prosecuted. If you’re a person who is out there demonstrating and you get caught up in the melee, those are the kinds of cases that we’re talking about.”

So no, they aren't giving a free pass to the people actually committing criminal acts.

[TheDeamon]

Misrepresentation Deamon? From your own article:

“What we’re doing is recognizing that the right to speak and have your voice heard is extremely important,” Schmidt said. “If you’re out there committing violence, you’re damaging property, those cases are going to be prosecuted. If you’re a person who is out there demonstrating and you get caught up in the melee, those are the kinds of cases that we’re talking about.”

So no, they aren't giving a free pass to the people actually committing criminal acts.

Bu more selective yourself?

ALSO from that article:

The office also won’t prosecute people on a riot accusation alone. Prosecutors will proceed with a riot case only if it includes an accompanying allegation of specific property damage or use of force, he said.

...

About 550 cases have been referred to the District Attorney’s Office for prosecution since May 29 after people began to rally against police violence and systemic racism in the wake of the May 25 death of George Floyd, a Black man who died after a white Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes.

Of those cases, about 140 have been for felony crimes, including assault, arson, riot and theft. Of the felonies, prosecutors are pursuing charges in about 45 of the cases, with the rest either dropped or under review as prosecutors seek more information from police, said Nathan Vasquez, a senior deputy district attorney.

But I think the Oregon State Police spokesman in the initial(later) article sums it up well:

“The Oregon State Police is continually reassessing our resources and the needs of our partner agencies and at this time we are inclined to move those resources back to counties where prosecution of criminal conduct is still a priority,” he said.

[TheDrake]

Ok, but maybe, just maybe, lots of cases were referred that fell into that category of people who can't actually be proved to be involved? As you state, 140 cases were referred. 45 are being pursued. Maybe the other 95 were spurious and not clearly linked with evidence? I admit, we the public may not be able to objectively evaluate that. But 1/3 of cases are still more than no cases.

Of course the state police want every single thing they report to get charged. It isn't exactly unusual for a DA to not pursue a poorly founded case, is it?

[yossarian22c]

Armed protesters commit vandalism and destruction of government property and the officers don't arrest anyone.

protesters, some of them armed, shoved their way past state troopers
...
the confrontation with state troopers, which resulted in the shattering of a glass door
...
State Police personnel determined they could not have made arrests on the spot without elevating the potential for violence

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/905785548/unmasked-protesters-push-past-police-into-idaho-lawmakers-session

Whoops, not the Portland lawless mob. We can all relax, these are right wing protesters with guns storming a state legislature. Nothing to worry about.

[TheDrake]

Armed protesters commit vandalism and destruction of government property and the officers don't arrest anyone.

protesters, some of them armed, shoved their way past state troopers
...
the confrontation with state troopers, which resulted in the shattering of a glass door
...
State Police personnel determined they could not have made arrests on the spot without elevating the potential for violence

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/905785548/unmasked-protesters-push-past-police-into-idaho-lawmakers-session

Whoops, not the Portland lawless mob. We can all relax, these are right wing protesters with guns storming a state legislature. Nothing to worry about.

Not obeying police orders?!! BLAM BLAM BLAM! Wait, no? Oh, you say they were white guys?

[Lloyd Perna]

Fake news.  I just watched the video. This is what a peaceful protest is supposed to look like. They didn't force their way in, They waited peacefully at the entrance until they were let past.  On what grounds do you think they should have been arrested?

[TheDeamon]

Armed protesters commit vandalism and destruction of government property and the officers don't arrest anyone.

protesters, some of them armed, shoved their way past state troopers
...
the confrontation with state troopers, which resulted in the shattering of a glass door
...
State Police personnel determined they could not have made arrests on the spot without elevating the potential for violence

https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/905785548/unmasked-protesters-push-past-police-into-idaho-lawmakers-session

Whoops, not the Portland lawless mob. We can all relax, these are right wing protesters with guns storming a state legislature. Nothing to worry about.

Apples and oranges, but let us look at the perfidity of these guys.

But after the confrontation with state troopers, which resulted in the shattering of a glass door, Republican House Speaker Scott Bedke relented and allowed protesters to fill every seat.

I'd be all for determining if the property destruction was intentional and pressing charges against the vandal in question. Assuming it can be demonstrated as intended.

The response stands in stark contrast to 2014 when dozens of advocates pressuring lawmakers to pass LGBTQ protections were arrested for standing silently in a hallway, blocking access to the Idaho Senate chamber.

"Public Safety" becomes part of the consideration here, actual peaceful protesters don't pose a safety risk when confronted by law enforcement. People should remember also that for peaceful protesters getting arrested for civil disobedience is a badge of honor.

It's not fair, and sucks in a lot of ways, but it is the way the world works. As the Portland protesters and now many others are now demonstrating.

On Monday, an Idaho State Police spokeswoman, Lynn Hightower, said she wasn't aware of any pending charges against protesters. The following day she released a statement saying that "Idaho State Police personnel determined they could not have made arrests on the spot without elevating the potential for violence," and that an investigation was ongoing into any criminal behavior "that may have occurred.

Sounds great to me.

Protesters later made their way into committee rooms, defaced paper signs meant to leave one empty seat between those in the audience and laughed at one Democratic state lawmaker who refused to participate in the hearing because of the lack of social distancing.

The horror!

Also coming back to:

Whoops, not the Portland lawless mob. We can all relax, these are right wing protesters with guns storming a state legislature. Nothing to worry about.

https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/politics-blog/article83142507.html

Security in the Capitol is generally unobtrusive — there are no metal detectors, for example, and visitors have unrestricted access to public areas even on weekends. In line with Idaho’s pro-gun thinking, weapons are not banned in the building. They were for 12 years, initially under a 1996 executive order by Gov. Phil Batt that was twice renewed by his successor, Dirk Kempthorne.

But in 2008, lawmakers passed a law that only the Legislature could regulate firearms in Idaho. Later that year, Gov. Butch Otter allowed the Statehouse weapons ban to expire. It was unclear, his office said at the time, whether the governor could restrict firearms given the new law.

Being armed in Idaho's State Capital building is legal?

Whoops, not the Portland lawless mob. We can all relax, these are right wing protesters with guns storming a state legislature. Nothing to worry about.

Not obeying police orders?!! BLAM BLAM BLAM! Wait, no? Oh, you say they were white guys?

Proportionate response comes into play, the officers had no reason to believe an imminent threat to life was present, and likely lacked non-lethal options in sufficient quantities to otherwise address the issue. Being armed in the capital building is legal and does not in and of itself demonstrate a threat in the context of that building.

[TheDrake]

But they were disobedient! Unarmed people who are disobedient are shot in the street, never mind about entering government property. These guys were told "you cannot enter this chamber" and they refused to follow orders. Then they were resisting as the door didn't break itself. The Republican speaker encouraged this disorder by letting them do whatever they wanted and withdrawing the cops.

Tell me you think that it would go down the same way if they were wearing BLM shirts leaving every other detail identical.

[TheDeamon]

But they were disobedient! Unarmed people who are disobedient are shot in the street, never mind about entering government property. These guys were told "you cannot enter this chamber" and they refused to follow orders. Then they were resisting as the door didn't break itself. The Republican speaker encouraged this disorder by letting them do whatever they wanted and withdrawing the cops.

Tell me you think that it would go down the same way if they were wearing BLM shirts leaving every other detail identical.

If it was BLM they would have been setting fires and threatening the police officers while hurling epithets at the police.

[TheDrake]

Oh, I forgot. Everyone sporting a BLM t-shirt is a violent Antifa terrorist.

[DonaldD]

Some of the Antifa terrorists shot people yesterday Kenosha

[TheDrake]

Antifa is off track. I didn't say what if they formed a black bloc and tried to rush in to the government building with fireworks, bicycle locks, and molotov cocktails.

[Wayward Son]

Some of the Antifa terrorists shot people yesterday Kenosha

What makes you think it was Antifa?

Apparently a militia group called for armed protesters to show up last night.  What makes you think it wasn't one of them?

[TheDrake]

Some of the Antifa terrorists shot people yesterday Kenosha

What makes you think it was Antifa?

Apparently a militia group called for armed protesters to show up last night.  What makes you think it wasn't one of them?

I think that's what Donald intended, to present another reversal, but it was a little cryptic for me. I had to look up the story - which actually doesn't specify who that individual was or why he was there. It does appear that the vigilantes are being given a free pass to be on the streets after curfew.

[Mynnion]

The individual was a 17 year old white male who appears to have been part of a group from outside Kenosha that came to town to protect it.  There are sources stating he was a wannabe police officer but that may just be hearsay.  He was certainly not associated with Antifa.

[DonaldD]

Apparently, I omitted the [/sarc] tag...

[TheDeamon]

Some of the Antifa terrorists shot people yesterday Kenosha

The Kenosha "shooter" last night was militia.

Haven't seen the video, don't know the circumstance on the first guy getting shot in the head but that caused the guy to start running from the scene.

A skateboarder ran him down/knocked him over and (reportedly) looked to about to hit the guy with the skateboard when the militia member shot at the skateboarder, which resulted in a shot through the chest(possibly even the heart) killing the skateboarder.

Which set the stage for the third guy getting shot in the arm when he drew a gun on the militia guy.

[Mynnion]

Information is still vague on the first shooting however I was disgusted by the account on Fox that failed to mention the first shooting and only mentioned that he was being chased.  They didn't out and out say it was self-defense but leaving out the fact that he was being chased after he had shot someone makes it sound that way.  If the first attack hadn't occurred an argument of fear for his life might be made.  Hopefully Fox will do a better job moving forward.

[TheDeamon]

Information is still vague on the first shooting however I was disgusted by the account on Fox that failed to mention the first shooting and only mentioned that he was being chased.  They didn't out and out say it was self-defense but leaving out the fact that he was being chased after he had shot someone makes it sound that way.  If the first attack hadn't occurred an argument of fear for his life might be made.  Hopefully Fox will do a better job moving forward.

More information has come forward on that front, it appears that the shooter was trying to disengage with the first "victim" prior to shooting him. Victim #1 was chasing and verbally harassing the shooter prior to shots being fired, he even threw what looks to be a molotov cocktail at his eventual killer. The shooter then turned around and opened fire, ultimately killing the first guy. After which, according to recent reporting, it seems the world had one less registered sex offender/pedophile in the world.

Victim #2 has previously been covered,  but he also has a rap sheet, including battery and repeated instances of domestic abuse.

Victim #3(the only one to survive) also has a criminal record, by some reporting he is not legally allowed to posses a firearm, and now it seems he's not going to have much function in one of his arms going forward.

[TheDrake]

Victim #2 has previously been covered,  but he also has a rap sheet, including battery and repeated instances of domestic abuse.

What on God's green earth does that have to do with anything?

[TheDeamon]

Victim #2 has previously been covered,  but he also has a rap sheet, including battery and repeated instances of domestic abuse.

What on God's green earth does that have to do with anything?

Nothing much, although it'll certainly help the shooter in making a self-defense case in front of a jury. His victims aren't very sympathetic characters, and that's likely to make the jury less inclined to seek justice on their behalf.

I also find it interesting that during a "protest" that was about Police Misconduct, 3 people get shot at this evident, and all three of them have Police Records of their own.

[DonaldD]

Some of the Antifa terrorists shot people yesterday Kenosha

The Kenosha "shooter" last night was militia.

Haven't seen the video, don't know the circumstance on the first guy getting shot in the head but that caused the guy to start running from the scene.

A skateboarder ran him down/knocked him over and (reportedly) looked to about to hit the guy with the skateboard when the militia member shot at the skateboarder, which resulted in a shot through the chest(possibly even the heart) killing the skateboarder.

Which set the stage for the third guy getting shot in the arm when he drew a gun on the militia guy.

After watching the video - little if any of this is true.

[rightleft22]

What is the truth about Kyle Rittenhouse?

That he is a 17 year old boy
That he belonged to a 'militia'' that had no businesses to be on the streets very much responsible for creating what they fear.
That the police once again showed poor judgment is condoning the 'militia' presence. Had the militia been black that would not have been the case.

What is the truth is the America is loosing its mind

[TheDeamon]

Some of the Antifa terrorists shot people yesterday Kenosha

The Kenosha "shooter" last night was militia.

Haven't seen the video, don't know the circumstance on the first guy getting shot in the head but that caused the guy to start running from the scene.

A skateboarder ran him down/knocked him over and (reportedly) looked to about to hit the guy with the skateboard when the militia member shot at the skateboarder, which resulted in a shot through the chest(possibly even the heart) killing the skateboarder.

Which set the stage for the third guy getting shot in the arm when he drew a gun on the militia guy.

After watching the video - little if any of this is true.

Evidently the New York Times had a group of people going over livestream feeds from the night in question to see what happened. Even the New York Times people concluded he has a strong self-defense claim on all three shootings.

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298839097923063809

A teenager faces charges in shootings that left 2 people dead in Kenosha, WI. The @nytimes Visual Investigations team reviewed hours of livestreams to track 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse’s movements during and leading up to the shootings.

---
In the hours before the shooting incident, @KristanTHarris, @RichieMcGinniss and @ElijahSchaffer all interviewed Rittenhouse, who said he was protecting a local vehicle dealership together with several other armed men. He also offers medical assistance to protesters.
---
Rittenhouse is around that area in most of the footage we reviewed. About 15 minutes before the first shooting, police drive past Rittenhouse, and thank the group he’s with. “We appreciate you guys, we really do,” they broadcast through the speakers of their armored vehicles.
---
Rittenhouse walks up to a police vehicle with his rifle slung and talks with officers. One tosses a water bottle to the armed men, as seen in
@KristanTHarris's livestream.
---
Rittenhouse eventually leaves the dealership (https://t.co/udrONTtQEY?amp=1) and is barred by the police from returning, as seen
@Ruptly footage, six minutes before the shooting:https://t.co/bxzrk75jk8?amp=1
---
To better understand what happened next, we synchronized 6 livestreams, which revealed that there were two separate shooting incidents, about one and a half minutes apart, involving multiple gunmen.
--- https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298840777251008512
At 23:19, Rittenhouse is seen in this YouTube livestream. He's being chased into a parking lot. While he is being pursued, an unknown gunman fires the first shot into the air.

Also present in that video they highlight one of his pursuers had a handgun, also not mentioned here, the guy who wound up being shot is one of the pursuers, and is seen throwing what appears in other videos to be a Molotov cocktail which lands next to his feet, but thankfully for him, the bottle didn't break and explode into flames.

But continuing the thread..

Rittenhouse turns toward the sound of the gunfire as another pursuer lunges toward him. He then fires four times with his assault rifle, and appears to shoot the man in the head.
--- https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298841139810893824
The muzzle flash of the first shot by the unknown gunman and the smoke rising from the handgun can be seen in this video capturing the first shooting from a different angle.
---
It’s unclear why Rittenhouse was being chased or why he was in the area of this car dealership about four blocks away from the one he claimed to be protecting. We do know vehicles in this lot were damaged minutes before the first shooting.
--- https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298841820802297856
The initial shot and Rittenhouse’s four subsequent discharges of his AR-15-style weapon are followed by three more shots in the parking lot — we don’t know who fired them. Rittenhouse seems to make a phone call and then flees the scene.
--- https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298842098163216384
While fleeing from the scene, Rittenhouse is again chased by several people. He trips and falls to the ground and fires four shots as three people rush him. One person appears to be hit in the chest, while another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm.

Incomplete description, but close, he is hit in the head by one protester whose own momentum causes him to keep moving across the street and away from Rittenhouse. Shortly after being hit in the head, Rittenhouse stumbles to the ground, at which point the second guy gets on top of Rittenhouse, where the video the NYTimes is using does NOT have a good angle, but it looks like Victim #2 is either hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard, or is trying to use the skateboard to provide leverage for holding Rittenhouse down.

Rittenhouse rolls over with rifle in hand and fires up into the victim #2's stomach, and then fires again at the oncoming man with the handgun drawn.

In any case, this is a shades of grey situation, and Rittenhouse does seem to have a valid "in fear for my life" defense in this scenario, that video makes it clear that he was being pursued by a (justifiably) angry mob, and had every reason to fear what they might try... Considering one member of that mob had recently just tried to set him on fire with a molotov cocktail.

[DonaldD]

Rittenhouse rolls over with rifle in hand and fires up into the victim #2's stomach, and then fires again at the oncoming man with the handgun drawn.

Look, there is no question that Rittenhouse was in a sh!tload of trouble by the time he was being chased, and very likely was fearing for his life.  But the third victim was simply not carrying a handgun. If you look at one video, and stop it just before he is shot, there is something 'funny' about his hand, and this is somehow characterized as a drawn handgun. We see what we expect to see.

But after Grosskreutz, the third victim, is shot in the arm (nearly severing it according to some reporting, but clearly, very seriously injured) he clearly grabs the injured arm with his other hand - the one supposedly holding the drawn gun - yet nowhere is that gun in evidence - he doesn't drop it, he isn't holding it between his hand and his arm, it's just gone. And honestly, after being shot in the arm and reflexively grabbing the injured limb, do you really think that hand would continue holding onto the gun while also clutching the injury?

Also, from when he had his hands in the air, empty, and when he supposedly points the gun at the shooter, his hands never do anything that could be conceivably interpreted as "drawing" the weapon - they don't even approach his body.

So we have a gun that miraculously appears in his hand from nowhere, then mysteriously disappears once he is shot.  Granted, videos are difficult to unpack sometimes, so I might have missed something, but it is not obvious if so.

[rightleft22]

Rittenhouse does seem to have a valid "in fear for my life"

Rittenhouse should never have been allowed to be in the situation. 

He and his 'brothers' are responsible in if not actual creating the conditions exasperating them to which they might 'gear for their lives"
By defending Rittenhouse in this way a segment of the population is supporting the idea handing over of policing to such 'militias' and this is not the DNC making the streets unsafe its the GOP

[TheDeamon]

Rittenhouse does seem to have a valid "in fear for my life"

Rittenhouse should never have been allowed to be in the situation. 

He and his 'brothers' are responsible in if not actual creating the conditions exasperating them to which they might 'gear for their lives"
By defending Rittenhouse in this way a segment of the population is supporting the idea handing over of policing to such 'militias' and this is not the DNC making the streets unsafe its the GOP

Shades of grey. What happened with Rittenhouse is an example of why you allow law enforcement to do their jobs and protect private property, so that the private citizens don't attempt to do so in their stead. This also holds for the two guys who were subsequently shot while attempting to detain Rittenhouse during his run for the police line. What they should have done is followed him until he reached the police and made sure he was arrested. Instead they decided they wanted to make the police come for him... And probably rough him up more than a little in the interim.

When those enforcement actions shift from trained personnel to Joe Citizen, things will trend towards getting worse exponentially more quickly.

As some of my more conservative associates on Facebook posted back when "Defund the police" first started trending. "In a place without police, most crimes will come with a more immediate death penalty." And Rittenhouse just demonstrated the validity of that statement. Just like the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP did as well.

[rightleft22]

When those enforcement actions shift from trained personnel to Joe Citizen, things will trend towards getting worse exponentially more quickly.

As some of my more conservative associates on Facebook posted back when "Defund the police" first started trending. "In a place without police, most crimes will come with a more immediate death penalty." And Rittenhouse just demonstrated the validity of that statement. Just like the Seattle CHAZ/CHOP did as well.

And who is responsible for allowing the police enforcement to shift to Joe Citizen in this case. If I were to buy into what I heard in the RNC convention I might pick up a gun as well. Disgusting.

Your equating "Defund the police" = No police - is not what the majority of the people want with regards to addressing police issues mean when they use the term 'defund the police' Of course that dons't suit the "Law and order' narrative. But anyone who thinks "Defending the police" would = no police is a fool.

[wmLambert]

...And who is responsible for allowing the police enforcement to shift to Joe Citizen in this case. If I were to buy into what I heard in the RNC convention I might pick up a gun as well. Disgusting.

Disgusting that you blame Trump for citizens arming themselves when the police are not allowed to protect them, because of Democrats and activists who want to defund the police, and Dem Mayors who order the police not to do their jobs. When I worked at the Criminal Justice 5nstitute, I learned that police do not stop crimes as they are committed. They come after the fact with clipboards to take notes. They tell citizens that it has always been the citizen's responsibility to protect themselves. The threshold laws usually limit self-protection to one's household, but when attacks begin to occur in the streets, of course self-protection must be extended.

Good training by groups like the NRA teach limits to self-protection with weapons. Any activist who attacks anyone brandishing a gun deserves his participation in the Darwin Awards.

[TheDeamon]

--- https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298842098163216384
While fleeing from the scene, Rittenhouse is again chased by several people. He trips and falls to the ground and fires four shots as three people rush him. One person appears to be hit in the chest, while another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm.

Incomplete description, but close, he is hit in the head by one protester whose own momentum causes him to keep moving across the street and away from Rittenhouse. Shortly after being hit in the head, Rittenhouse stumbles to the ground, at which point the second guy gets on top of Rittenhouse, where the video the NYTimes is using does NOT have a good angle, but it looks like Victim #2 is either hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard, or is trying to use the skateboard to provide leverage for holding Rittenhouse down.

Rittenhouse rolls over with rifle in hand and fires up into the victim #2's stomach, and then fires again at the oncoming man with the handgun drawn.

On a subsequent rewatch, you CAN see the skateboard, but it happens so fast, and the angle is such it is easy to miss.

I also missed a detail, Rittenhouse was hit in the head by the guy that then continued running past, he stumbles to the ground, where a second guy comes running across the top of him in an apparent effort to kick him while on the ground(timestamp 0:19) while Victim# is following up right behind the kicker, where for a couple of frames Victim#2 can been holding the skateboard with two hands apparently poised to strike with the board when hecomes tangled with Rittenhouse's legs and fumbles the board, where this photo (from the other side of the street) was then taken while Victim#2 was stumbling and the board hits Rittenhouse in the head:
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1298984879200190464/photo/1

At timestamp 0:21 on the chosen clip from the NYTimes, you can see Victim#2 drop the skateboard where it lands flatface down on the pavement before he picks it up again, where a split second later Rittenhouse opens fire and (fatally) shoots him. The guy in white pants who is seen rolling next to Rittenhouse in the above photo is the guy who (attempted to) kicked him.

[DonaldD]

--- https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298842098163216384
While fleeing from the scene, Rittenhouse is again chased by several people. He trips and falls to the ground and fires four shots as three people rush him. One person appears to be hit in the chest, while another, who is carrying a handgun, is hit in the arm.

Incomplete description, but close, he is hit in the head by one protester whose own momentum causes him to keep moving across the street and away from Rittenhouse. Shortly after being hit in the head, Rittenhouse stumbles to the ground, at which point the second guy gets on top of Rittenhouse, where the video the NYTimes is using does NOT have a good angle, but it looks like Victim #2 is either hitting Rittenhouse with a skateboard, or is trying to use the skateboard to provide leverage for holding Rittenhouse down.

Rittenhouse rolls over with rifle in hand and fires up into the victim #2's stomach, and then fires again at the oncoming man with the handgun drawn.

On a subsequent rewatch, you CAN see the skateboard, but it happens so fast, and the angle is such it is easy to miss.

I also missed a detail, Rittenhouse was hit in the head by the guy that then continued running past, he stumbles to the ground, where a second guy comes running across the top of him in an apparent effort to kick him while on the ground(timestamp 0:19) while Victim# is following up right behind the kicker, where for a couple of frames Victim#2 can been holding the skateboard with two hands apparently poised to strike with the board when hecomes tangled with Rittenhouse's legs and fumbles the board, where this photo (from the other side of the street) was then taken while Victim#2 was stumbling and the board hits Rittenhouse in the head:
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1298984879200190464/photo/1

At timestamp 0:21 on the chosen clip from the NYTimes, you can see Victim#2 drop the skateboard where it lands flatface down on the pavement before he picks it up again, where a split second later Rittenhouse opens fire and (fatally) shoots him. The guy in white pants who is seen rolling next to Rittenhouse in the above photo is the guy who (attempted to) kicked him.

Not sure what you are trying to argue, TheDaemon... a gunman was seen shooting somebody in the head, and he was still holding the gun and running away. You seem to be suggesting that the unarmed people who were attempting to disarm the gunman are somehow guilty of something.

Query me this - if the gunman was Muslim, and a crowd of unarmed people attempted to disarm the Muslim shooter, would you be pointing out how it looks like one of those people tried to hit him with a skateboard? Or what if he was a member of Antifa?

[TheDeamon]

Not sure what you are trying to argue, TheDaemon... a gunman was seen shooting somebody in the head, and he was still holding the gun and running away. You seem to be suggesting that the unarmed people who were attempting to disarm the gunman are somehow guilty of something.

Query me this - if the gunman was Muslim, and a crowd of unarmed people attempted to disarm the Muslim shooter, would you be pointing out how it looks like one of those people tried to hit him with a skateboard? Or what if he was a member of Antifa?

Your response validates the "nightmare scenario" for "good guy with a gun" where a shooting happens, good guy brings out his gun and "handles" the shooter, just in time for others to decide he is the bad guy.

In the instance of the first shooting, Rittenhouse was not the first person to shoot, and as the New York Times outlined, the guy who was shot as a consequence of Rittenhouse's response, happened be in a direct line between Rittenhouse and where the muzzleflash from the first shots being fired could clearly be seen. That victim #1 had also just tried to set Rittenhouse on fire made his demise that much less tragic, and clearly self-defense. However, everyone else present is operating in "fog of war" and most of them don't know that, and have no way of knowing that.

That said, there are claims of earlier footage where Victim #1 and Vicitim #2 were threatening Rittenhouse prior to their ultimately fatal confrontations(I've only heard it talked about, haven't seen it, and haven't seriously tried to find it as of yet), and the chase that was witnessed prior to the first shooting was a consequence of Rittenhouse having put out a fire they'd just set.

But in any case after exercising his legal right to self-defense, he's now on the wrong side of an angry mob, which as you correctly point out, mostly believes he wasn't acting in self-defense. Which causes things to escalate, fatally.

This is one of those messy legal situation where both sides were mostly "in the right" with regards to the law. Rittenhouse was legally authorized to used deadly force, as from his point of view, he was in imminent danger of either serious bodily harm, or even death.

While many (but not all) members of the crowd were also legally authorized to try to detain him on suspicion of having just committed murder. (the ones who had reason to believe he had acted in self-defense would be in the situation of either being legally compelled to stay out of it and stand as a witness, or help protect Rittenhouse; if they attacked him, they were likely engaging in criminal conduct, as that would have been an unlawful detention at that point; kind of like the situation with Ahmaud Arbery only without the racial aspect, and the gun possession flipped)

[DonaldD]

Victim #2 has previously been covered,  but he also has a rap sheet, including battery and repeated instances of domestic abuse.

Victim #3(the only one to survive) also has a criminal record, by some reporting he is not legally allowed to posses a firearm, and now it seems he's not going to have much function in one of his arms going forward.

I'm just going to leave this up in case anybody wants to update it.

[TheDeamon]

Victim #2 has previously been covered,  but he also has a rap sheet, including battery and repeated instances of domestic abuse.

Victim #3(the only one to survive) also has a criminal record, by some reporting he is not legally allowed to posses a firearm, and now it seems he's not going to have much function in one of his arms going forward.

I'm just going to leave this up in case anybody wants to update it.

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ny-kenosha-victims-identified-as-anthony-huber-joseph-rosenbaum-20200827-zvrsv7fpqfftlmjyrtjrmg5wwa-story.html

Online arrest records show Huber was arrested several times on battery, drugs and other charges. Rosenbaum had an open criminal case on battery, disorderly conduct and domestic abuse charges, according to the Wisconsin Circuit Court website. His previous record could not immediately be confirmed.

Huber being the skateboarder, so the second one shot. Rosenbaum was the first one to be shot.

Also Rosenbaum earlier in the same night he was shot:
https://twitter.com/Julio_Rosas11/status/1298474730966659072

17 second mark, about 35 second, and again around 55 seconds, at 1:05 he's challenging the militia to "shoot me nigga"

It does not seem that Rittenhouse was around for that encounter.

Doing some more digging on the 3rd Victim, I'm currently unable to support the claims I'd heard about him having a record. but:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8674391/Third-injured-Kenosha-shooting-victim-social-justice-activist.html

Gaige Grosskreutz, 26, from West Allis, 40 miles north of Kenosha, was left in a serious condition after being shot by 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse amid protests in the city on Tuesday night.

Compared to Rittenhouse who traveled less than 20 miles.. (Oh right, he crossed a state line, that changes everything)

https://www.theblaze.com/news/armed-leftist-kenosha-shooting-regrets

Grosskreutz is a member of a social justice group, the People's Revolution Movement of Milwaukee,

Such a nice friendly group name, and he was armed too.

[DonaldD]

I see you haven't looked at all into Rittenhouse yet...

[TheDeamon]

I see you haven't looked at all into Rittenhouse yet...

Oh, you mean the protester who has been at it for 90 days/nights and his attempted character assassination? I did find that one, but it doesn't match up with the video evidence, or anything else for that matter. It looks more like sloppy journalism, given the same reporter talked to "a business owner in Kenosha" who knew all three victims well(remember one of them was from Milwaukee, 40 miles away) and thought they were great people.

So basically that report is barely worth using as toilet paper. The journalist found someone who wanted to get their hits in on Rittenhouse, and didn't care to check further, they heard what they wanted too--Rittenhouse was a bad person, the victims were "good people." And they're covered for liability, as they're merely reporting what somebody told them.

[TheDrake]

We really don't know a lot about any of these people, or what they are like today. Nor does any of their background really matter, what matters were those 60 minutes. You could be a racist klan member and still be justified in self defense, and you can be a wife beating pedophile POS and still be an innocent victim.

[DonaldD]

We really don't know a lot about any of these people, or what they are like today. Nor does any of their background really matter, what matters were those 60 minutes. You could be a racist klan member and still be justified in self defense, and you can be a wife beating pedophile POS and still be an innocent victim.

QFT

Just as in every case, the apologist machine goes into overdrive with the character assassination of victims who do not meet one's political criteria or objectives, where that background is completely irrelevant to the crimes committed against them, or to their actions during those crimes.

[DonaldD]

I see you haven't looked at all into Rittenhouse yet...

Oh, you mean the protester who has been at it for 90 days/nights and his attempted character assassination? I did find that one, but it doesn't match up with the video evidence, or anything else for that matter.

I have no idea to whom you are referring.  But it sounds like you've put some effort into being cynical of his claims.

[TheDeamon]

We really don't know a lot about any of these people, or what they are like today. Nor does any of their background really matter, what matters were those 60 minutes. You could be a racist klan member and still be justified in self defense, and you can be a wife beating pedophile POS and still be an innocent victim.

Last I checked, chasing someone across a parking lot(Victim #1) does not qualify as self-defense. Now being chased across a parking lot(Rittenhouse) and opening fire in response to someone firing gunshots within 100 feet of you, and someone(Victim #1) grabbing for your gun when you do turn around to assess the situation...

[TheDrake]

I'm not at all convinced right now with the timeline and actions taken. Apparently somebody other than Rittenhouse fired a weapon. Did he fire it AT him? Assuming he did, it is still grossly irresponsible to return fire without checking background, let alone foreground. I can't find any corroboration for your claim that somebody tried to throw a gasoline bomb at Rittenhouse. And none of it explains what he was doing out there, and whether or not he was deliberately provoking the mob - as opposed to the stated idea that he was "defending property".

[TheDeamon]

I'm not at all convinced right now with the timeline and actions taken. Apparently somebody other than Rittenhouse fired a weapon. Did he fire it AT him? Assuming he did, it is still grossly irresponsible to return fire without checking background, let alone foreground. I can't find any corroboration for your claim that somebody tried to throw a gasoline bomb at Rittenhouse. And none of it explains what he was doing out there, and whether or not he was deliberately provoking the mob - as opposed to the stated idea that he was "defending property".

Dude, honestly. Look at the New York Times article. Unless you're saying the videos are deep fakes and the NYTimes was unable to detect it, that happened. The New York Times reported on it, and they're hardly sympathetic to Trump supporters. If they say it happened, and even provide the video evidence to support it, it happened that way. It even happens to be a continuous clip with regards to the first shooting.

Edit: the link, again since you clearly haven't bothered to follow it in the other threads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.html

It should also be noted that they have some video footage of him being interviewed earlier that night.

The guy is a boyscout for all intents and purposes, regardless of if he literally is one or not. Maybe more than a bit overconfident in the ability of the gun to protect him, which did land him in trouble later than night, but  that doesn't make him someone that out looking to shoot people.

[TheDeamon]

Okay, they only had a still image of the first shooting.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/26/video/26vid-kenosha-muzzle3/26vid-kenosha-muzzle3-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

Here is the video they took the still image from:

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298841139810893824

okay, twitter for some reason won't let me direct link to that post.

They have two video in that thread which show the first shooting.

The one they took the still from is described as "The muzzle flash of the first shot by the unknown gunman and the smoke rising from the handgun can be seen in this video capturing the first shooting from a different angle."

The other video is described as "At 23:19, Rittenhouse is seen in this YouTube livestream. He's being chased into a parking lot. While he is being pursued, an unknown gunman fires the first shot into the air." and in that one, you can see victim #1 throw what looks to be a molotov cocktail at Rittenhouse, although subsequent reporting seems to indicate it wasn't one in reality. It still was a bottle with a flaming piece of cloth attached.

[rightleft22]

The guy is a boyscout for all intents and purposes, regardless of if he literally is one or not. Maybe more than a bit overconfident in the ability of the gun to protect him, which did land him in trouble later than night, but  that doesn't make him someone that out looking to shoot people.

A 17 year old boy had not business being being where he was, boy-scout or not. He was out after the curfew and has some responsibility of if not creating the conditions where he felt his life was at risk, part of the problem. 

[DonaldD]

The guy is a boyscout for all intents and purposes, regardless of if he literally is one or not.

And here is video of (reportedly) the boyscout jumping a girl from behind and wailing on her with his fists: Videos reportedly show Kyle Rittenhouse involved in fight, punching female last month in Kenosha.

[TheDeamon]

The guy is a boyscout for all intents and purposes, regardless of if he literally is one or not.

And here is video of (reportedly) the boyscout jumping a girl from behind and wailing on her with his fists: Videos reportedly show Kyle Rittenhouse involved in fight, punching female last month in Kenosha.

Let's see, from that report, and reflected in the video:

Moments later, the argument escalates as the teen identified as Rittenhouse and another male begin exchanging words with the female in sweatpants. Seconds after that, the female in sweatpants starts scuffling with a third female.

Rittenhouse then appears to land several punches on the female in sweatpants as another male nearby tries unsuccessfully to hold Rittenhouse back.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say female #3 in that report is a friend of his, and when female #2 physically attacked #3, it was game on for him, in defense of #3.

Not a great character reference for Kyle if that is him in the video. But it isn't particularly damning either. He didn't escalate the fight into being physical, but once it did become physical he did intervene. The intervention leaves a lot to be desired, but it doesn't paint him as one to start trouble.

[TheDrake]

Okay, they only had a still image of the first shooting.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/08/26/video/26vid-kenosha-muzzle3/26vid-kenosha-muzzle3-superJumbo.jpg?quality=90&auto=webp

Here is the video they took the still image from:

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/1298841139810893824

okay, twitter for some reason won't let me direct link to that post.

They have two video in that thread which show the first shooting.

The one they took the still from is described as "The muzzle flash of the first shot by the unknown gunman and the smoke rising from the handgun can be seen in this video capturing the first shooting from a different angle."

The other video is described as "At 23:19, Rittenhouse is seen in this YouTube livestream. He's being chased into a parking lot. While he is being pursued, an unknown gunman fires the first shot into the air." and in that one, you can see victim #1 throw what looks to be a molotov cocktail at Rittenhouse, although subsequent reporting seems to indicate it wasn't one in reality. It still was a bottle with a flaming piece of cloth attached.

Maybe you didn't read it all either. I did.

He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning.

At this point, he's not protecting anything. Did he walk toward the mob, get caught up in the mob, surrounded by the mob? I have no idea. The picture does show him near a dealership, possibly the same one. If police were barring him from returning, where are they? Why is he still in the area? I don't know. And we obviously don't know what, if any, interaction he had with the guy who lunged at him. Did he threaten him? Taunt him? We'll never know because he shot that guy in the head.

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

So he was NOT being fired upon and had no reason to return fire by this account. I am giving Rittenhouse some benefit of the doubt that the Times report might be inaccurate.

[TheDeamon]

Maybe you didn't read it all either. I did.

He eventually leaves the dealership and is barred by the police from returning.

At this point, he's not protecting anything. Did he walk toward the mob, get caught up in the mob, surrounded by the mob? I have no idea. The picture does show him near a dealership, possibly the same one. If police were barring him from returning, where are they? Why is he still in the area? I don't know. And we obviously don't know what, if any, interaction he had with the guy who lunged at him. Did he threaten him? Taunt him? We'll never know because he shot that guy in the head.

According to someone claiming to be part of his defense team, Kyle was there to help a property owner protect two locations. So presumably he was blocked from returning after checking/running an errand to the other location.

Now supposition from there is that as with most people when being told no on something that they're not ready to give up, he probably didn't take no for an answer and sought a way around the police cordon, which likely set the stage for what followed

While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it’s unclear why. The weapon’s muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.

So he was NOT being fired upon and had no reason to return fire by this account. I am giving Rittenhouse some benefit of the doubt that the Times report might be inaccurate.

Rittenhouse was running away at the time the shot was fired behind him. We know it was a shot in the air from the video. He didn't, which is why he turned, to see what just happened behind him. At which point victim #1 lunges for his gun, and Rittenhouse opens fire.

but going back to:

I don't know. And we obviously don't know what, if any, interaction he had with the guy who lunged at him. Did he threaten him? Taunt him? We'll never know because he shot that guy in the head.

Based on the other video circulating around involving victim #1 earlier that same night, it is far more likely that Rittenhouse was the one being threatened, taunted, and insulted. In either case, for the purpose of a self-defense case for Rittenhouse, it doesn't matter if he had been yelling "yo mamma" insults at victim #1 prior to the chase across the parking lot. All that matters is that Kyle felt he was in danger. Grabbing for his gun made lethal force legally permissible, shots fired immediately beforehand also further bolsters his defense case.